Questions about Rumpelstiltskin

[chloris.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about Rumpelstiltskin as a character and wondering a few things about him. Is he crazy or is it an act? What does he really want? And what did he gain in Desperate Souls? I've expanded on the questions in a post on Rumpelstiltskin Meta my journal because it turns out I have a lot of theories about what is going on. Which of course may all be wrong but I can't seem to help trying to figure it out.

Basically I think that he is completely sane (or at least as sane as you can be with a dark power running through you), that he is running a long con and never even wanted Ella's baby in the first place (though he would have taken the baby if it came to that), and that his plan in Desperate Souls was a very elegant piece of work that filled multiple aims with one action. What his ultimate aim is I have no idea but I'm interested to find out.

Comments

[nikki4noo.livejournal.com]

The Dark One explained that it was the power from the sword that made you go mad and it was enough that he was willing to die to escape from it. I don't think Rumpel isn't pretending at all.

[atatteredrose.livejournal.com]

ITA, except that I think he's able to (and does) use his insanity to his advantage, when it suits him. Direct it to his advantage - but on the flip side I don't know how far he could turn it down.

[chloris.livejournal.com]

Yeah I know most people think he's nuts with the only question being how nuts and I'm going to be completely outnumbered here but I still see much of what he does as an act that he puts on. The dark power certainly changed him but I don't believe it drove him insane.

[nikki4noo.livejournal.com]

The dark power certainly changed him but I don't believe it drove him insane.

So, the coward who ran from battle, tried to hide his son away but did kiss a bully's boots and then didn't want to kill the Dark One who only a few hours later very calmly broke the neck of the bully soldier was putting that complete 360 turn around as all an act? It makes no sense that a person could change that quickly in such a short space of time without some inclination before hand that he could be that callous. Also Rumpel couldn't see why his son was scared of him. The original Rumpel we met would never have done what he did.

I don't see him so much as crazy as more he is no longer able to consider things along a moral viewpoint that most people do. He is closer to clinical discussions about psychopathy.

[chloris.livejournal.com]

No of course not. I never said he wasn't changed by the power since he quite obviously was. I just don't think he's crazy but rather transformed, and not in a way he would wished when he was human. *shrug*

I do agree a great deal with your second statement however. His moral viewpoint is completely turned over.

[nikki4noo.livejournal.com]

People are considered to be insane in a criminal definition if they can not see morals like most people do. In that respect, as you concede that Rumpel has had a complete turn around he would be considered crazy/insane.

He can still have moments of sanity and yes he can see the long game, but he has absolutely no compunction about killing to get his way.

[chloris.livejournal.com]

I guess it's that I don't consider Rumpel human anymore so I don't judge him by human rules. Once he takes on the dark power I expect his morality and his views to change and I don't consider that insanity but transformation. If you are looking at him as human, then I can see where he would be considered insane, psychopathic, sociopathic, etc. Also, if we are talking about his over-the-topness that we see in later Rumpel, I do consider that all (or mostly) an act.

[nikki4noo.livejournal.com]

But fairy tales were morality tales to teach children. If you can not apply human morals to all the characters, even if they are not human, then it is no longer a 'fairy tale'.

[maddarilke.livejournal.com]

IMHO, that's a pretty strict definition of a fairy tale--one I can certainly accept--but I don't think it's the only definition. I think fairy tales have evolved from the moralistic parlour-tales of two/three hundred years ago. I consider Neil Gaiman's STARDUST a fairy tale, and it really doesn't have much of a "moral" to it. It's just a story.

[nikki4noo.livejournal.com]

Stardust most definitely does have a 'moral' or theme to it like any of the original fairy tales. Neil Gaiman set out to create fairy tale along the lines of those from the Victorian era which were all about telling a story with a theme that is imparting a moral. Stardust's main theme is about believing in yourself.

[maddarilke.livejournal.com]

I respectfully disagree, but to each her own. Unless you've spoken to Mr. Gaiman personally, I believe you're stating an opinion.

[nikki4noo.livejournal.com]

I haven't spoken to him personally but here is an interview with him in The Onion (http://www.neilgaiman.com/p/About_Neil/Interviews/An_Interview_with_Neil_Gaiman_by_John_Krewson,_The_Onion) where he calls Stardust a fairy tale.

"Okay. Why is a fairy tale set in Victorian England pop culture?"

He is responding to why the publishers were publishing the book through their pop-culture line but his description of the book is a 'fairy tale set in Victorian England'. The full interview is linked above from his website. He refers to it twice in the interview as a fairy tale.

[maddarilke.livejournal.com]

That's fine, but check my reply post: I never said Stardust wasn't a fairy tale. I'm saying that viewing ALL fairy tales strictly as morality tales is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I used Stardust as an example, and I said that I don't see it as having a "moral of the story." That's my opinion. I'm not disputing your having a right to yours, but I submit to you that you can have a fairy tale without a preachy point to it.

By the way, I notice that Mr. Gaiman never once states in this interview that Stardust has a moral to it.

[atatteredrose.livejournal.com]

I'd vote for sociopathy instead, because there is a way in which all his actions are incredibly controlled.

The way I see it, cowardly Rumpels did, yes, have inclinations that way. He ran from battle - because he couldn't win and didn't support the cause. (No social feelings). Would he have run if he DID have power to turn the tide, and WAS invested in the outcome? (Like he was with his son.)

So I think it's contextual. For instance: if I asked someone to punch through the Mona Lisa and pull out what was behind it, there would be gasps at the thought of destroying it. I explain it's a copy, and someone puts a hand through just like that. Not to imply that a man's life is exactly equivalent to a forgery, but given elevated perspective and a new power context, it's not unreasonable.

[nikki4noo.livejournal.com]

Yeah sociopath is a better definition for him.

I think part of Rumpel running was his desire to get back to his wife and child. Most peasants didn't 'believe' in the cause, they did as the lord told them. They didn't think the way we do about free will and the ability to say no. These are sort of late medieval societies which were written into fairy stories, so we have to consider that and not our modern moral view points.

The reasoning for him to get the power is to rescue his son. He ran from the war because he didn't want to die and not be able to see his son. The pathos about Rumpel's story to me is that for him everything he did was about his son, but in the end he still lost him.

[atatteredrose.livejournal.com]

The question I have (and may have missed the answer to, being inattentive) is: when the Dark One manifested as that begger, why... was he so normal?

I mean, even as big bad, he wasn't spastic, so either an act (?) or a fundamental characteristic derived in some way from the original personality. In which case Rumples is a magnified version of his own inner state, and should be able to tone it down quite easily when he's not *on the job,* so to speak.

[dj-rocca.livejournal.com]

I think he's mad but he's sane enough to use foresight to set things up so that the outcome is best for him. I've ALWAYS stated he's not good, not bad, just out for himself. Or he just likes being the devils advocate.

[eldanildiel.livejournal.com]

I think he's not insane so much as corrupt. It seems more like a case of absolute power corrupting absolutely to me. I think he uses the crazy demeanor as a tool since he seems to be able to drop it to a degree on occasion. He's not always capering madly when playing Rumplestiltkin. Sometimes he gets a little more of the still and menacing quality of Mr. Gold. If I remember correctly, he has a moment like that when he's talking to Jiminy in "That Still Small Voice".

[siduri1959]

I find Rumpel to be the neutral character..as in D&D. In the Storybrooke thread, he has his own agenda. I think Rumpel has always has his own agenda, just what that is in Maine has not yet been revealed.

I also think that the real key to his transformation lies in the statement all power comes with a price. This is the fundamental premise of magic-it is an exchange of energy. In order to manifest change you need to give something back-there is a cost to the magician. If you look at Rumpel's "template", his character storyline, it is all about the deal, the exchange.What is your heart's desire, what will you pay for that, are you willing to pay the price. Most people don't know the price or will consider it. The human Rumpel certainly did not.

[nikki4noo.livejournal.com]

I think this is a great description of where Rumpel is as a character and the 'dark power'. It ties all in about what we have heard from the start, that all magic comes with a price. For Rumpel that price was his humanity.

[siduri1959]

Sometimes it seems that "dark" really refers to those dark corners of the soul, rather than the boogie man or whatever. That is really what fairy tales are all about in the end, I suppose...