[ SECRET POST #4274 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4274 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #612.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 2 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[osidiano]

Is it still a Stockholm variant if you volunteer? Serious question, because I see people saying this all the time and it completely ignores Belle's agency and choices (especially in the animated version). Like, Belle tricks Beast into letting her into her father's cell, ostensibly to say goodbye, and then shoved her dad out and is all "If you have to keep a prisoner for trespassing, then keep me and not my sick father who is totally going to die of pneumonia in here if he doesn't get back to town ASAP." And Beast agrees, but like.. the front door isn't locked. Belle could literally leave ANYTIME SHE WANTED, but doesn't, not out of fear, but because she said she would stay. The very first time she gets truly scared of Beast, she flees the castle and we get that scene where she's chased by wolves and Beast rescues her. And then, again, she CHOOSES to take him back to the castle and tend to his wounds. She could have easily peaced out back to the village, with or without Beast.

I feel like a lot of this "Beauty & the Beast is Stockholm Syndrome" discourse is very shallow, and people tend to repeat it without understanding either the Stockholm study case, the actual canon events, or the psychology around abuse scenarios.

[(Anonymous)]

I have several issues about your argument, but for the sake of brevity we’ll assume that by “actual canon” you mean the Disneyfied canon of the ‘91 musical and recent remake. First, the Stolkholm case and the psychological phenomenon that was named after it share similarities, but aren’t identical. People who try to look academic by invoking the Norrmalstorg robbery during literary character analyses often end up looking desperate to score credibility points instead. Interestingly, these same people are generally fine with characters having Oedipal complexes without any prophecies or eye-gouging at all! Secondly, even in the Disney version, Belle’s agency is marred by the fact that she was forced into a choice between her freedom and her only living family member’s life. Much like “fuck or die” is still rape despite the person “choosing” to have sex, Belle’s still a hostage even if she chose to exchange her life for her father’s. Your whole “if it was abusive, why did she stay?” argument is problematic, but I'll assume you’re very young. Consider volunteering at a women’s shelter. They need the help and you need the reality check.

[(Anonymous)]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-belle-from-beauty-and-the-beast-suffer-from-stockholm-syndrome-we-asked-an-expert-175449990.html

But I guess you're more of an expert on the subject than Frank Ochberg is.

[osidiano]

Yes, the canon, in this case, is either version of the movies, since I highly doubt any of us are all that familiar with the original French story, and that's what we're talking about in this secret and these threads. My argument isn't "if it was abuse, why did she stay;" my question is "does Belle's decision to stay really mean that she has an altered sense of reality wherein she has come to sympathize with her captor and no longer views her imprisonment negatively" and "is this really a fuck-or-die scenario?" That's a pretty big difference, and it's kind of patronizing for you to be all "oh you young problematic thing you" instead of, you know, actually engaging that point in the discussion.

I'm aware that the psychological phenomenon and the case study are different (though clearly similar, since y'know, the phenomenon is named for that case). I just don't think that Belle's case has enough similarities to either of them to be meaningful. I also think that invoking them in literary analysis ignores the Beast's character arc, because it implies that Belle changes her behavior towards him independent to how he changes over the course of the story.

Also, the story generally doesn't present Belle as a hostage. It treats her more like an additional member of the house staff, and everyone gets to deal with his sulking or temper tantrums at various periods in the story. Plus everyone, the Beast included, are all stuck in the castle thanks to the curse; everyone is technically a prisoner.

But you brought up that Belle's agency is marred because she is forced to make a choice, and that doesn't actually fit into your easy rape analogy (especially since Belle and the Beast aren't a thing until after the power dynamic is evened out and she isn't scared of him anymore). Is every female character's agency (in decisions unrelated to sex) void when they have a family member at stake? Because that seems like BS, given how often we put a loved one's life in one of the scales for the sake of plot convenience.

[(Anonymous)]

god what an obnoxious comment