Board Thread:Character Discussion/@comment-25926288-20151211170125/@comment-28162607-20160506143710

Eskaver wrote: I came upon a realization today. First, let me of course say that I generally like Hook's character growth and Emma's alright in my book, but there's something I had to think over.

Many claim that Emma's become all about Hook and I would say that their statment is more opinion than fact, but then I guess even the proponents of Hook-Emma can probably see, at least from the writing side. Emma can easily be a strong female character that has vulnerabilities and a love interest. That love interest can play a major role in her life. All such is true, but you can sort divide the past 4 arcs and see some...odd things.

4a (aka Frozen) was primarily about Emma's friendship with Regina (ignoring the two episode contrived parallel). It was iffy, not too bad, but nothing noteworthy delightful. Her and Hook's relationship flourished as it does, although payoff was lackluster.

4b was about Emma's relationship with her parents. Emma's friendship with Regina and relationship with Hook were upheld. Most people tend to agree that 4b was not that good and the Snowing thing sort of made both parties Snowing and Emma slightly worse off.

5a was about Emma. Her friendship with Regina was upheld, but Regina wasn't given too much to do. Emma's parents remain actively inactive (minus a few scenes). Emma's storyline promised to hit her friend, her parents, her child and her boyfriend, but at the end of the day: all else was okay and not really relevant, but her relationship with Hook was. It turned into a tad more about Hook at the end, then Emma.

5b is about Emma and Hook. Her and Regina are on good terms. Emma has parents that are more active, but I won't say it's noteworthy. Emma and Hook are forefront and doing what they do.

If you take a look through all of this, the only thing that flourishes in development is Emma and Hook, while the writing for Emma/Regina was iffy and has gotten better and for Emma/Parents or Son is pretty static, if at all present. It's easy to be mad or claim Emma's odd dependency of Hook when it's really the only thing standing above the shallow water.

One of the main issues with Emma-Hook is (similar to early Emma and Regina in 4a) where Emma pretty much gets tossed under the bus for Hook-related angst. The time Emma realizes she's endangered her family and child, they claim it's all okay and Emma did no wrong. Emma can't grow if the writers/ other characters keep telling her that everything she does is the right thing. I think 5a actually ended up more about Emma and what Hook is to her (as his role as a LI). It was 20% about his sacrifice by the end and 80% about how it affected her. Everything came back to Emma.

I think episode 21 showed she isn't ependent on Hook. SHe mae one bad choice in Camelot and then even going to the UW wasn't "I can't love without him" it was more "This isn't fair to him."

They said it was okay because they can take care of themselves and chose to be there. Them chosing to go to the UW was not their fault.

'Tossed under the bus for Hook-related angst'? What? In 4a, the Hook-angst was completely erased (they just kissed and he never spoke of his week-long enslavement ever again and they never even taked about it) so Emma could go help Regina with Operation 'Get Me  A Happy Ending'.

Emma is also told, many times, that she's in the wrong-4a when the pole hit David, 5a when she erased her family's memories ('you should have come to us'), killing Cruella etc.

I agree about CS being better written than SQ, SB (although I don't find them static) an Charming fam (although again, they are much better in s5 than in s4) but I don't think this is about Hook, it's mroe about Regina (but that's another thread.)