Re: Rey and Kylo - Beauty and the Beast, Scavenger and the Monstah, Their Bond, His Love, Her Confused Feelings

by vaderito Tue 11 Jul 2017, 8:58 am

I think that people who cry Stockholm Syndrome need to get a grip and actually learn why that trope was necessary and what it meant back in time when nobody knew about the Stockholm Syndrome. Applying real life events, that happened either before the story was told or have nothing to do with the writer's intention in the story written after the event, is totally ridiculous and smacks of backdoor censorship. heck, why am I saying backdoor when we are facing outright censorship. heroine cannot have a romance cause not progressive!? but if she does it must be with the most agreeable male character (hello Victorian era when Christine couldn't have passionate Eric but had to do with the agreeable Raoul) or any female one cause progress. There's a demand that "progress" dictate plot and characterization which itself leads to regress and stifling of freedom of creative expression. And nowhere it's more rabid than in case of Rey. Everyone seems to know what isn't good for her, what robs her of her agency, what would ruin little girls for life if Rey does this or that. It's so ridiculous and damaging.

by Cowgirlsamurai Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:04 am

IoJovi wrote:
motherofpearl1 wrote:Regarding Lord Ren, I bought a talking Kylo Ren plushie, and does anyone know if that's actually Adam's voice on there?
@motherofpearl1

Is this the same one where he sounds more like he's trying get a girl into bed than trying to turning someone over to the Darkside?

He says, "Don't fight it. You know you can't." I know this because I bought this for my mom...

@IoJovi

Yes, that doll is so creepy! "I'm immune to the light." It sounds like Adam's voice.

by IoJovi Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:10 am

vaderito wrote:I think that people who cry Stockholm Syndrome need to get a grip and actually learn why that trope was necessary and what it meant back in time when nobody knew about the Stockholm Syndrome. Applying real life events, that happened either before the story was told or have nothing to do with the writer's intention in the story written after the event, is totally ridiculous and smacks of backdoor censorship. heck, why am I saying backdoor when we are facing outright censorship. heroine cannot have a romance cause not progressive!? but if she does it must be with the most agreeable male character (hello Victorian era when Christine couldn't have passionate Eric but had to do with the agreeable Raoul) or any female one cause progress. There's a demand that "progress" dictate plot and characterization which itself leads to regress and stifling of freedom of creative expression. And nowhere it's more rabid than in case of Rey. Everyone seems to know what isn't good for her, what robs her of her agency, what would ruin little girls for life if Rey does this or that. It's so ridiculous and damaging.

@vaderito

I find it far more empowering for the heroine to choose who she actually WANTS to be with for herself. It's her choice and hers alone. What IS damaging is those around her deciding who they THINK she should be with, even if it's not her choice (ala Christine and Raoul).

by vaderito Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:13 am

Cowgirlsamurai wrote:
"I'm immune to the light."

@Cowgirlsamurai

Sure you are, Kylo:

Spoiler:

by vaderito Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:22 am

IoJovi wrote:

I find it far more empowering for the heroine to choose who she actually WANTS to be with for herself. It's her choice and hers alone. What IS damaging is those around her deciding who they THINK she should be with, even if it's not her choice (ala Christine and Raoul).

@IoJovi

It's interesting that, not long ago, Christine's choice of Raoul was seen as a win for conformism to the Victorian or similarly repressive society, where she had to pick a socially acceptable suitor over the one that really excited her. However, social media-driven social activism is trying to bring Christine's Choice back in fashion as something that should be encouraged in fiction and made into an example that everyone should follow. In short, what was once called repressive and conforming, now is called healthy, even though there's no difference - the girl still doesn't get what she really wants but goes for what others think is good for her. Yuck.

by Cowgirlsamurai Tue 11 Jul 2017, 10:02 am

@vaderito

LOL, I'm glad I'm not the only one with these thoughts Angelic

by motherofpearl1 Tue 11 Jul 2017, 10:14 am

Cowgirlsamurai wrote:
IoJovi wrote:
motherofpearl1 wrote:Regarding Lord Ren, I bought a talking Kylo Ren plushie, and does anyone know if that's actually Adam's voice on there?
@motherofpearl1

Is this the same one where he sounds more like he's trying get a girl into bed than trying to turning someone over to the Darkside?

He says, "Don't fight it. You know you can't." I know this because I bought this for my mom...
@IoJovi

Yes, that doll is so creepy! "I'm immune to the light." It sounds like Adam's voice.

@Cowgirlsamurai

Yes it is!
He was happily sitting on my car's dashboard today until I took a sharp turn then he flew off the dashboard and landed face down on my lap.

And yes, it sounds very suggestive....especially with the way he's holding his lightsabre... Twisted Evil

by motherofpearl1 Tue 11 Jul 2017, 10:18 am

IoJovi wrote:
vaderito wrote:I think that people who cry Stockholm Syndrome need to get a grip and actually learn why that trope was necessary and what it meant back in time when nobody knew about the Stockholm Syndrome. Applying real life events, that happened either before the story was told or have nothing to do with the writer's intention in the story written after the event, is totally ridiculous and smacks of backdoor censorship. heck, why am I saying backdoor when we are facing outright censorship. heroine cannot have a romance cause not progressive!? but if she does it must be with the most agreeable male character (hello Victorian era when Christine couldn't have passionate Eric but had to do with the agreeable Raoul) or any female one cause progress. There's a demand that "progress" dictate plot and characterization which itself leads to regress and stifling of freedom of creative expression. And nowhere it's more rabid than in case of Rey. Everyone seems to know what isn't good for her, what robs her of her agency, what would ruin little girls for life if Rey does this or that. It's so ridiculous and damaging.
@vaderito

I find it far more empowering for the heroine to choose who she actually WANTS to be with for herself. It's her choice and hers alone. What IS damaging is those around her deciding who they THINK she should be with, even if it's not her choice (ala Christine and Raoul).

@IoJovi

Absolutely.
Part of my affection for this 'ship' is I can just picture the looks of stunned disbelief on Resistance members' faces if he goes into exile at the end and she turns her back on all the glory and goes with him.

by vaderito Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:05 am

Cowgirlsamurai wrote:@vaderito

LOL, I'm glad I'm not the only one with these thoughts

@Cowgirlsamurai

There are quite a few write ups about that. I mean, that Christine's Choice was a mistake is no freakin secret. No point of trying to rehabilitate it as Healthy. Antis who insist on Finnrey, for example, are pushing for Christine's Choice. "he deserves her" = healthy relationship. So it's about him, then. What about her? Just confirm to what others think is good for her? Unattached Jedi Rey fans are the same. For them, not falling in love = healthy. So a girl who spent 14 years of her life unloved is going to spend another 14x10 years because that's so emotionally satisfying? But progress >>>> narrative logic and satisfying story.

Point is, fiction is escapism and, as such, it reflects what is escapism of that time. And falling for a bad boy/girl is always going to be a popular escapism cause that is never looked on favorably in any society in any era. It also teaches about compassion, forgiveness, that people can grow and learn from their mistakes (what's mocked as "Fixed by a good woman"), etc. So no wonder such characters and romances are much more attractive to writers/film-makers and readers/audience alike than agreeable (now called "healthy") ones. Also, notice that female writers (Austen, Bronte) let their heroines have the disagreeable guy (Darcy, Rochester).

I found this article that talks about it:

Did anyone else here used to be a big Phantom of the Opera *sigh* “phan” back in the day?

As usual, I don’t ask because I actually want to talk about Phantom of the Opera; instead, I’m trying to use the show to shed light on a trope in stories that’s sticking out in my mind at the moment, inspired by recent episodes of House (also as usual), but related to Ivanhoe and the Harry Potter series, and also tangentially to various romance movies.

Basically, the trope is this: a woman is in a romantic triangle. ]my comment: not Rey but antis see it as Finn-Rey-Kylo with Kylo threatening Finn's masculinity if he gets the girl] She has to choose between the nice but kind of dull man who’s good for her and the crazy bad boy who is passionately in love with her but with whom she’d clearly have the most unhealthy relationship ever.

In Phantom, this character is Christine, who has to choose between her handsome, heroic, considerate but insipid childhood friend, Raoul, and Erik, the titular Phantom of the Opera, who’s a murdering, kidnapping, terrorizing psychopath with self-image issues but also a genius and angel of music who wuvs her more than anything, really for honest and for true. At the end of the musical and the book, Christine chooses Raoul by agreeing to stay with the Phantom in order to save his life, and the Phantom, overcome with remorse born of his True Love and overwhelmed by Christine’s sincere pity for him, lets her go to spend her life with the man she loves. Then he dies.

In Ivanhoe, a similar plot plays out between Rebecca, the “Jewess”, and Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert, the only interesting character in the entire book. Brian kidnaps beautiful Rebecca with the intent of raping her, but having actually captured her, he finds himself smitten with her determination and intelligence and decides to hold her prisoner until she agrees to marry him willingly**. Rebecca, however, is unfortunately in love with the most boring character in the entire book, Ivanhoe, who is the epitome of virtue, blah blah blah, and she refuses to submit, even though she knows Ivanhoe’s already engaged and would never marry her anyway because she’s Jewish and he’s a Christian nobleman. Then the Templars get mad at Brian for having a sexy witch-lady in their castle, and, long story short, Brian gets killed, which, due to convoluted pseudo-medieval logic***, saves Rebecca from being burnt at stake.

In the Harry Potter series, this plays out in a milder form with Snape taking the bad-boy role, James the boring hero one, and Lily that of the poor sap who has to choose. In the current season of House, it’s House-Lucas-Cuddy.

On one hand, this trope seems to send an awesome message to women: don’t choose the abusive toolbox, ladies, even if he is super sexy and One-Girl-To-Rule-Them-All in love with you. You can’t change him – and even if you could, you shouldn’t have to try! Pick the guy who already treats you the way you deserve to be treated and live happily ever after. So what if he’s a little on the dull side? Just because you’re the love of some genius douchebag’s life doesn’t oblige you to sacrifice your happiness for his.

But when you examine this trope more closely, it has serious anti-girl undertones. First of all, the woman always chooses someone. Why is it an either-or choice? Why can’t she just say, “You’re bland, you’re a jerk, I’m gonna go watch TV, maybe meet some new people, hang out with my friends. Call me when/if either of you fix your problems, kthxbai”?

Second, the healthy choice of rejecting Mr. Has-Issues doesn’t always translate into happiness with Mr. Nice-But-Boring – look at poor Rebecca, doomed to pine away for Sir Fancypants Too-Good-For-Jew Most Noble Knight in the Kingdom for the rest of her life (after he marries Rowena, the second most boring character in the entire book). Look at Cuddy, condemned to spend every other scene throwing pained I-feel-guilty-about-House-and-it-mars-my-happiness looks at the camera. Look at Lily Potter, nee Evans, sent by the author to an early death so Snape’s tragedy can play itself out.

That's right. Fiction isn't considered with healthy but with happy. yes, there's a nice guy but he doesn't get it why she wants to stay on Jakku, while the bad guy sees into her and empathizes with what he sees. And that's on top of the fact that there. is. no. triangle. There's only Rey and Kylo.

by motherofpearl1 Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:22 am

These are good comparisons, but for me the Phantom was the most heroic character in the book. He gave up his last chance of happiness because Christine's happiness was more important than his own.
Anyone here ever read Susan Kay's amazing novel Phantom, by the way?

by vaderito Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:31 am

motherofpearl1 wrote:These are good comparisons, but for me the Phantom was the most heroic character in the book. He gave up his last chance of happiness because Christine's happiness was more important than his own.
Anyone here ever read Susan Kay's amazing novel Phantom, by the way?

@motherofpearl1

Phantom is totally most heroic and I think that the article wouldn't have a problem with it if it was just Christine and Phantom, not the either-or choice between Phantom and raoul. I also think that is why Bad Boy trope works in Jane Eyre and P&P - there's no alternative, so it doesn't feel like the heroine was pressured to make a choice. Her feelings for Rochester/Darcy evolved with the evolution of his character. He started to appear in better light, his better qualities started to show and her feelings started to change from dislike to love.

I linked the article because I see what the issue really is - a triangle - rather than the heroine/bad boy dynamic. And because most rabid antis see Kylo as the threat to Finn aka triangle, it's good to isolate the problem. It isn't about what the movie is (Rey and Kylo dynamic which is set up as potentially romantic) but about what some fans (want to) think that the movie is (Rey and Finn buddying romance with jealous Kylo on the side).

by Guest Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:55 am

vaderito wrote:
motherofpearl1 wrote:These are good comparisons, but for me the Phantom was the most heroic character in the book. He gave up his last chance of happiness because Christine's happiness was more important than his own.
Anyone here ever read Susan Kay's amazing novel Phantom, by the way?
@motherofpearl1

Phantom is totally most heroic and I think that the article wouldn't have a problem with it if it was just Christine and Phantom, not the either-or choice between Phantom and raoul. I also think that is why Bad Boy trope works in Jane Eyre and P&P - there's no alternative, so it doesn't feel like the heroine was pressured to make a choice. Her feelings for Rochester/Darcy evolved with the evolution of his character. He started to appear in better light, his better qualities started to show and her feelings started to change from dislike to love.

I linked the article because I see what the issue really is - a triangle - rather than the heroine/bad boy dynamic. And because most rabid antis see Kylo as the threat to Finn aka triangle, it's good to isolate the problem. It isn't about what the movie is (Rey and Kylo dynamic which is set up as potentially romantic) but about what some fans (want to) think that the movie is (Rey and Finn buddying romance with jealous Kylo on the side).

@vaderito

Both Jane Eyre and Elizabeth Bennett are presented with 'wholesome' alternatives to Rochester and Darcy. Jane receives a marriage proposal from her cousin St John Rivers. He isn't in love with her but sees her as a good prospect for a clergyman's wife and fellow missionary. Elizabeth takes a fancy to Mr Wickham before his true character is exposed but she also recieves a respectable offer of marriage from her cousin Mr Collins. She rebuffs him, of course, but the book does point out that in doing so she has left herself and her family in a perilous financial position as her father's estate is to be inherited by Mr Collins. In both cases, Jane and Elizabeth do get to follow their hearts, although Charlotte Bronte does make Jane a woman of independent means before she chooses Rochester.

by vaderito Tue 11 Jul 2017, 12:22 pm

@Mrs Ben Solo They may be presented with healthy choices but the story doesn't play out like a triangle (Lizzie/Jane has to make a tough choice OMG!) and we are given enough clues from the start that those choices would be all wrong. Can anyone honestly call Lizzie-Darcy-CollinsLOLOLOL a triangle or Jane-Rochester-RiversLOLOL? My problem with POTO, and I think other have it too, is that it isn't clear whether Christine's Choice is wrong from the writer's POV or he endorses it as the right one. It's certainly wrong from reader's POV. But from Austen/Bronte POV, there was no question that Collins/Rivers were NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, so there's no dilemma whether Jane/Lizzie picked the right one. She did.

point is, when there's no triangle, the story can focus on natural evolution of feelings rather than making hasty decisions because a choice must be made.

by Saracene Tue 11 Jul 2017, 4:43 pm

I've been a fan of Phantom forever but honestly never saw Christine having even a whiff of romantic feelings for Phantom, whatever the crappy film adaptation and Lord Andy's sequel to the musical might say. She never had to "choose" between two men because she was ever only in love with one of them. But then, I never really romanticised the bad boys.

by snufkin Tue 11 Jul 2017, 6:01 pm

That whole genre is really more my mom's jam, although I did think it was pretty hilarious that Sebastian Bach in his post-Skid Row, pre-Gilmore Girls days was doing a run on Broadway as the Phantom. Certainly a more talented one than the Hoff, imo. As for Beauty and the Beast, now that is *the* Disney movie where you wish the heroine would look around at her "choices" and bail to go find herself. Every time I go to the dentist, they have the DVD playing (lots of kids in the waiting room) and I sit there getting irritated by "oh that Belle! She's so feisty! She likes to read books, what a free spirit!" crap characterization and thinking she just needs to ditch the rest of the characters and run away to go find herself. Like there are no good male characters in that movie, Belle you definitely don't need a man when those are your options. So that said, I've never seen the parallels with TFA, like Belle and Rey are completely different types of characters. Rey's not even some quirky, misunderstood free spirit, she's an isolated and lonely indentured servant whose first meal with other people since being abandoned 15-16 years earlier is eating bar snacks at Maz's place. People lean a little too heavily on imagined parallels to the original Disney animated feature in trying to find parallels between the two of them, which are superficial at best.

Anyways, I was reading the latest issue of Bright Wall Dark Room and one of the essays is about Secretary, a movie I'd imagine would freak out the more straight laced SW fans. It touches on how ridiculous 50 Shades is in comparison when it comes to eroticism, which I thought was interesting because supposedly that's the movie (besides Twilight) that constantly gets thrown back as why anybody who sees a "very interesting" dynamic between these two characters and their faces offs.

Done well, onscreen sex—and I use this word as an umbrella term to describe all sexually-charged encounters—works to defy, develop, or delineate what’s happening between two (or more) characters at any given time in the story. Done well, a sex scene steps into the unspoken, deeply personal and often uncomfortable space between characters, where any fireworks, fumbles, fantasies and foreplay are—or seem to be—for them, rather than for us, the viewer-voyeurs. Done well, sex scenes tell us secrets. Done well, they ask us to cover our eyes and please close the door on our way out, because we’ve stumbled onto sacred ground. Done well, onscreen sex seems inevitable. Without it, our understanding of the characters involved would be incomplete; the narrative wouldn’t resolve; and most importantly, we wouldn’t know what we now do.

by Moonjump05 Tue 11 Jul 2017, 6:50 pm

vaderito wrote:
IoJovi wrote:

I find it far more empowering for the heroine to choose who she actually WANTS to be with for herself. It's her choice and hers alone. What IS damaging is those around her deciding who they THINK she should be with, even if it's not her choice (ala Christine and Raoul).
@IoJovi

It's interesting that, not long ago, Christine's choice of Raoul was seen as a win for conformism to the Victorian or similarly repressive society, where she had to pick a socially acceptable suitor over the one that really excited her. However, social media-driven social activism is trying to bring Christine's Choice back in fashion as something that should be encouraged in fiction and made into an example that everyone should follow. In short, what was once called repressive and conforming, now is called healthy, even though there's no difference - the girl still doesn't get what she really wants but goes for what others think is good for her. Yuck.

@vaderito

Yeah, part of this is why I always was so underwhelmed with Christine leaving with Raoul. Most versions I have seen/read (including the original) have Christine drawn to the Phantom- is it as a lover? A mentor? A father? All of these? The story sets up the hard questions and then just ends with her never really figuring it out by choosing to stay safe and comfortable with Raoul. The ending just sweeps all that subtlety and confusion and discovery under the rug. Almost like Christine shouldn't wonder or question or discover, she should choose the most socially acceptable and be done with it.

by Irina de France Tue 11 Jul 2017, 8:52 pm

Long time POTO fan here (seriously, it was my big fandom before I got into SW, AND I MEAN IT), and I need to say - I've seen A LOT of ship fights in the "phandom" over who truly *deserved* Christine, some claiming it was the Phantom, and others claiming it was Raoul. Personally I'm all for "Christine should end up with the guy she's in love with for Christ's sake", because believe me, I've seen a lot of instances where there was blatant misogyny towards Christine's character, and Raoul being called a "fop" and his bashing turning into insults that were downright homophobic.

I think we need to keep in mind that while Erik and Christine might seem more passionate at first, he's very much obsessed with her and it's made very clear both in Leroux's novel and in the musical that he emotionally manipulates her (and yes, I read Susan Kay's Phantom, but I won't start ranting about it because the post is going to get too long already). And for crying out loud, dude kills two people and threatens to kill her fiancé in the musical, and the book has him threatening to kill her fiancé, his sorta-BFF who ended up helping Raoul and Christine, and blow up the entire freaking Opera house. Like, no wonder Christine wants to run for the hills, and I don't blame her either.

What I also want to point out is that POTO subverts the usual gothic tropes we can see in other monster stories. In those movies, we always see the virginal pure heroine who at some point will faint and be bridal-carried by the monster (who represents the heroine's *dangerous* sexual desires), and of course, the dashing young hero has to save her. Where the subversion happens is that Raoul becomes in both the book and the musical the Dude In Distress, and Christine has to save him. She does so by using a very feminine quality, which is compassion. She is willing to blow up her life and live in her worst nightmare to save the man she loves. And her gesture of selfless love is what finally convinces the Phantom that to love is to let go - hence why he lets Christine go in the end. So basically... again, I get passionate about the topic, but I think that saying that POTO is just a story about a girl who has to choose between the safe boring dude and the tormented artist is doing the story a big disservice. And don't get me started on Love Never Dies, where her choice and empowerment are basically ripped away from her and she becomes a Walking McGuffin. I could angrily rant about it for hours.

by Saracene Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:00 pm

I find Phantom a very tragic and sympathetic character, but he basically sees people as pawns to use and manipulate, not as people, and that includes Christine. His character arc is compelling to me because, at the very end, he finally chooses to put another person's needs before his own, and, in effect, grows up.

Love Never Dies... oh lordy when I read the synopsis it felt like a joke third-grade fan-fiction Rolling Eyes

I just pretend it doesn't exist.

by Irina de France Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:03 pm

Saracene wrote:I find Phantom a very tragic and sympathetic character, but he basically sees people as pawns to use and manipulate, not as people, and that includes Christine. His character arc is compelling to me because, at the very end, he finally chooses to put another person's needs before his own, and, in effect, grows up.

Love Never Dies... oh lordy when I read the synopsis it felt like a joke third-grade fan-fiction I just pretend it doesn't exist.

@Saracene

Good lord, you don't want to hear about all the drama surrounding the musical. It's absolutely hysterical, and it lasts to this day. No kidding.

by Cowgirlsamurai Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:28 pm

@snufkin

Never been a fan of Beauty and the Beast, Twilight, or 50 Shades, so I don't get the parallels either. The best description of Twilight I've ever heard is "abstinence porn." It's two characters who desperately want to hook up but can't, so everyone just gets strung along, waiting for the moment when they finally do (oh, and a second possible love interest who is open to hooking up right away is thrown in there for temptation). That's pretty funny when you think about 50 Shades being Twilight fan fiction where the hooking up starts much earlier on.
I like the parallel between Rey being drawn to the saber/meeting the "prince" in the forest and Sleeping Beauty/spinning wheel/prince in forest. But that's where that parallel ends. Thankfully, she's not much like Aurora.

by Irina de France Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:32 pm

Cowgirlsamurai wrote:@snufkin

Never been a fan of Beauty and the Beast, Twilight, or 50 Shades, so I don't get the parallels either. The best description of Twilight I've ever heard is "abstinence porn." It's two characters who desperately want to hook up but can't, so everyone just gets strung along, waiting for the moment when they finally do (oh, and a second possible love interest who is open to hooking up right away is thrown in there for temptation). That's pretty funny when you think about 50 Shades being Twilight fan fiction where the hooking up starts much earlier on.
I like the parallel between Rey being drawn to the saber/meeting the "prince" in the forest and Sleeping Beauty/spinning wheel/prince in forest. But that's where that parallel ends. Thankfully, she's not much like Aurora.

@Cowgirlsamurai

Considering Stephenie Meyer is a Mormon, it's actually pretty dang hilarious the most popular fanfic of her work is porn.

by vaderito Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:32 pm

Irina de France wrote:

What I also want to point out is that POTO subverts the usual gothic tropes we can see in other monster stories. In those movies, we always see the virginal pure heroine who at some point will faint and be bridal-carried by the monster (who represents the heroine's *dangerous* sexual desires),

You are a monstah = You are my dangerous sexual desire. Shocked

and of course, the dashing young hero has to save her.

from her dangerous sexual desire. No wonder the audience always sides with the monster and never with the bland hero. And they are all, without exception, bland whether they are pit against a real monster or a dark dangerously sexy male that represents a monster in human flesh. I think that's a point, kind of like a message that the girl should keep her desires in check. Suckage.

And her gesture of selfless love is what finally convinces the Phantom that to love is to let go - hence why he lets Christine go in the end.

[/quote]
@Irina de France

Ugh, the glorified "letting one you love go" = ultimate proof of love or "dying for the one you love = ultimate proof of love. No and no. Fight for your love and live for your love.

by **Moonlight13** Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:36 pm

vaderito wrote:
You are a monstah = You are my dangerous sexual desire.

@vaderito

by Irina de France Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:37 pm

vaderito wrote:
Irina de France wrote:

What I also want to point out is that POTO subverts the usual gothic tropes we can see in other monster stories. In those movies, we always see the virginal pure heroine who at some point will faint and be bridal-carried by the monster (who represents the heroine's *dangerous* sexual desires),

You are a monstah = You are my dangerous sexual desire.

and of course, the dashing young hero has to save her.

from her dangerous sexual desire. No wonder the audience always sides with the monster and never with the bland hero. And they are all, without exception, bland whether they are pit against a real monster or a dark dangerously sexy male that represents a monster in human flesh. I think that's a point, kind of like a message that the girl should keep her desires in check. Suckage.

And her gesture of selfless love is what finally convinces the Phantom that to love is to let go - hence why he lets Christine go in the end.

@Irina de France

Ugh, the glorified "letting one you love go" = ultimate proof of love or "dying for the one you love = ultimate proof of love. No and no. Fight for your love and live for your love.[/quote]
@vaderito

Again, we need to keep in mind that POTO is a tragic story that keeps things realistic, not an optimistic tale. And it shows that there are times in life when if you keep fighting, you'll end up drowning and bring other people with you.

That's the big reason why I don't compare POTO to Reylo. Rey and Kylo are in a fairy tale in space. POTO is not a fairy tale.

by snufkin Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:38 pm

Irina de France wrote:
Cowgirlsamurai wrote:@snufkin

Never been a fan of Beauty and the Beast, Twilight, or 50 Shades, so I don't get the parallels either. The best description of Twilight I've ever heard is "abstinence porn." It's two characters who desperately want to hook up but can't, so everyone just gets strung along, waiting for the moment when they finally do (oh, and a second possible love interest who is open to hooking up right away is thrown in there for temptation). That's pretty funny when you think about 50 Shades being Twilight fan fiction where the hooking up starts much earlier on.
I like the parallel between Rey being drawn to the saber/meeting the "prince" in the forest and Sleeping Beauty/spinning wheel/prince in forest. But that's where that parallel ends. Thankfully, she's not much like Aurora.
@Cowgirlsamurai

Considering Stephenie Meyer is a Mormon, it's actually pretty dang hilarious the most popular fanfic of her work is porn.

@Irina de France

I grew up in town with a large LDS population and went to a feeder high school for BYU. Twilight the book (yeah I've read it) is so much a metaphor about a girl from a broken secular household finding belonging by marrying into a traditional religious family. The Cullens even have their own version of family home night.

by Sponsored content