Summer Reading: Princesses, Goblins, and Gaskell

Summer is just around the corner, and you know what that means! Time for summer reading lists! So many books to read and so little time to read them as I'll have to squeeze them In between learning new music, now that my recital is over (and it went very well, in case you were wondering), working two jobs, and studying for my comprehensive exams next fall. But I'll hopefully have time for at least two or three! I've also become a fan of audio books lately, and since I'll be commuting for part of the summer, I think I'll be able to "read" several books that way.

One of the authors with whom I've really been wanting to acquaint myself for several years is George MacDonald (1824-1905), particularly via his book The Princess and the Goblin. Why? Mainly because of the high regard C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton have for him. 

"I for one can really testify to a book that has made a difference to my whole existence, which helped me to see things in a certain way from the start; … of all the stories I have read, it remains the most real, the most realistic, in the exact sense of the phrase the most like life. It is called ‘The Princess and the Goblin’, and is by George MacDonald..." -- G.K. Chesterton.

"I have never concealed the fact that I regarded him as my master; indeed I fancy I have never written a book in which I did not quote from him." -- C.S. Lewis

Who was George Macdonald? A Scottish author, poet, husband, and father to eleven children.  He was also briefly a congregationalist minister, though he was pressured to resign his pastorate in 1853 due to certain beliefs he held that conflicted with his profession. He wrote approximately 51 books during his lifetime, including thirty novels, two fantasies for adults, five fantasy books for children, five collections of sermons, six poetry collections, and three books of literary criticism. He is quoted to have said, "I write, not for children, but for the child-like, whether they be of five, or fifty, or seventy-five."

The Princess and the Goblin is a fairy tale which tells the story of young Princess Irene and her friend Curdie, the son of a minor, who together must outwit the evil goblins who live in caves beneath her mountain home. From the reviews I've been perusing, it seems that the author uses a didactic style of writing similar to C.S. Lewis' style in The Chronicles of Narnia (Though MacDonald preceded Lewis), which I really like when it is used well.

So there's one of them! Another book I'm very much hoping to read this summer is Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South. 

Elizabeth Gaskell (1810-1865), born Elizabeth Cleghorn Stevenson, was an English novelist and short story writer in Victorian England. She is known for her biography of her friend Charlotte Brontë and penned six novels in addition to several short stories. Her first novel, Mary Barton, won the admiration of Charles Dickens, who invited her to contribute to his magazine Household Words, where her next work Cranford was serialized. Gaskell's novel North and South was published in 1854.

If I were to compare it to another genre or author, I would say this is what might happen if one merged the social commentary found in Charles Dickens with the beloved romance stories of Jane Austen, specifically Pride and Prejudice. (No, it is not about the Civil War, as I thought when I first heard the title). North and South follows the story of the woman Margaret Hale, a 19-year-old woman from the rural southern village of Helstone, England whose family is suddenly uprooted to the northern industrial city of Milton at the bidding of her father, a former Anglican minister who abandons the church on a matter of conscience. Here she meets the formidable self-made gentleman, Mr. John Thornton, a wealthy owner of one of the many cotton mills in Milton. Complicated emotions of dislike and attraction ensue while the social conflicts which accompanied the Industrial Revolution erupt around them.

I first heard about this one via my friend Teresa, and then was captivated by the new BBC miniseries adaption from 2004 starring Richard Armitage as Mr. Thornton (Thorin Oakenshield in The Hobbit; Guy of Gisbourne in the recent Robin Hood tv series), Daniela Denby-Ashe as Margaret Hale, and Brendan Coyle (Mr. Bates from Downton Abbey) as Nicholas Higgins. Depending on how you like to fall in love with a good story, whether watching a film adaption first or reading the book first (or both at the same time), here is a good adaption and a good book with which to become acquainted! I'm certainly planning to acquaint my family with this story over the summer, one way or another!

Thoughts on the Eve of My Recital

Tomorrow I'm giving the first of two recitals in partial fulfillment of my requirements for my master of music degree in organ performance.  I will be performing music by Maurice Durufle, J.S. Bach, Dietrich Buxtehude, and Johannes Brahms, all very different people from different time periods but each an excellent musician and composer.  

It's easy when you're studying music at a professional level to get caught up in all the technical and artistic things involved in performing a piece of music. These are all important and a necessary part of the process of learning a piece of music. But in the end, it's actually quite simple. You're making music. You're making something beautiful to share with your audience, to share with the world.

by Anatoli Egorov [Breslau, 1945]

"Playing their song" by Joseph Lorusso

Unexpected Treasures & Saying Goodbye to a Kindred Spirit

Have you ever had a day where you acted upon an impulse, uncertain if maybe it was the smartest or the most sensible thing to do, only to have it actually turn out even better than you thought? I definitely had one of those days today!

After my sacred choral repertoire class today, I decided I wanted to do some window shopping. As you might expect, it turned into the usual female shopping excursion where the woman begins with no particular inclination to buy anything, but she returns home with less money in her pocket than when she left. I started by going to a couple boutiques, but not needing anything in particular clothing-wise, I decided to explore a nearby second-hand store. My mom, sisters, and I are regular thrifters, so I thought I might have better fortune there, and you never know what you might find at these odd and sometimes extraordinary shops. Sure enough, there I found and purchased two unexpected treasures that I thought were well worth the price!

As I was perusing the religious/inspirational section of the book shelves, I stumbled upon a biography of St. Dominic, a saint to whom I have a particularly strong devotion from my years in undergrad. at Franciscan University. This may seem odd: Franciscan University, Dominican saint? This is a lengthy story for another time, but to put it briefly I have come to believe that the vocation of a musician has more of a Dominican character than Franciscan. The distinct vocation of the Dominican order is to study, to preach the truth, and to share the fruits of one's contemplation. Musicians share the preaching aspect of the Dominican charism in that they are called to preach through Beauty.

St. Dominic, founder of the Order of Preachers

But back to my story! There are precious few biographies of St. Dominic, partly because so little is known about this saint. This one, titled "St. Dominic: The Grace of the Word" is by Fr. Guy Bedouelle, O.P. In addition, they are not necessarily found even at Catholic bookstores. So imagine my surprise to find this in an ordinary little thrift shop! I knew immediately that I could not leave this for someone else to find -- even if it wasn't about St. Dominic, I almost always feel a sense of obligation to "rescue" Catholic items from thrift stores or garage sales or rummage sales, mainly because some of them are sacrementals (that is, visible signs or reminders of invisible realities) and I suppose as a Catholic I think I mighty be partially responsible for what happens to them.

St. Hildegard von Bingen, patron saint of sacred musicians
and Doctor of the Church

My second treasure was a CD I found titled "Music from the Vatican: Alma Mater" featuring the voice of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI. I had seen this at the Franciscan University bookstore a couple times. It seemed particularly appropriate to bring this home with me for a couple reasons.  First of all, it seemed even more valuable now that he is no longer the Holy Father, though he is still very much with us in prayer and in spirit. Secondly, it is a CD consisting largely of Gregorian chants. Benedict XVI is a great lover of music: he plays the piano and his favorite composer is Mozart, which makes me appreciate him immensely. He was also pope at a significant time in my life when I was discovering the wealth of sacred music which belongs to the Catholic Church, from Gregorian chant to Palestrina and so much more! These are things which the pope also prized immensely, as seen during his pontificate both in the liturgies at the Vatican and in his actions as pope. These actions for the promotion of beautiful music and beautiful liturgy together accomplished so much for us sacred musicians, from his motu proprio on the extraordinary form of the Roman liturgy to his canonization of St. Hildegard von Bingen, patroness of sacred musicians, to name two of the most significant events. Having the combination of chant and his voice on this CD seemed like an ideal combination, as well as a comfort in these times of uncertainty as the Church awaits the selection of a new Holy Father. It seems ironic, or perhaps meant to be, that one of Benedict XVI's final actions as pope was to call the year of faith and now we -- or at least I am called to grow in faith that  the Lord will provide us with a capable shepherd. It was an immense comfort to know that I had a kindred spirit on the papal throne (did I mention he also was a cat person, and an introvert), thus making it very difficult to say good-bye. However, I pray for the cardinals as the conclave approaches and for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I also continue to pray for Benedict, as even though he is stepping down from the papal throne, he is still going to have his health problems to bear.

I'll conclude with a beautiful quote from our beloved Benedict XVI.

"I am convinced that music really is the universal language of beauty which can bring together all people of good will on earth."

 -- Pope Benedict XVI, Paul VI Audience Hall, Vatican City, 16 April 2007.

We love you, Benedict XVI, and we miss you!

(source: Program notes for the CD "Music from the Vatican: Alma Mater, featuring the voice of Pope Benedict XVI")

The Beauty of a Woman

This post is a commentary semi-inspired by a note a friend of mine posted on Facebook several months ago. In this note, my friend complained about the many recent posts and memes depicting girls and books and implying that the classiest girls are those who do a considerable amount of reading. She argued that just because a girl reads a lot does not automatically make her a smarter, or better person. Ever since I read her note, it has been on my mind. Then when I saw this picture while browsing through my tumblr feed, I remembered her post and decided I'd add my two cents worth to the conversation. 

It certainly seems true that being well-rounded and reading a great deal has become particularly attractive in recent decades. One of the best ways I think to sum this up is found in a scene from the first episode of the second season of the BBC series' Sherlock, where Irene Addler quips to Sherlock,  "Brainy is the new sexy." 

"Brainy is the new sexy."

But is one's attractiveness or beauty contingent upon knowledge, nerdiness, or intelligence any more than one's attractiveness or beauty contingent upon one's physical appearance?

Now, in case you were thinking this is a tirade against reading or being well-rounded, let me begin by saying that I am a self-proclaimed nerd and I have enjoyed reading ever since I was in grade school. Furthermore, I strongly advocate reading and educating one's mind whether one is eight, eighteen, or sixty-five. Reading, education has so many benefits: it helps a person to develop an appreciation for other cultures, ideas, history, science; it can feed inspiration, build confidence, and teach discipline. The more people are educated in the philosophies and the disciplines of the mind and the universe, the more possibilities there are for improving society.

Nevertheless, I wish to argue that being an avid reader, having a bachelor's degree or a doctorate, or being well-rounded (or all the above) does not necessarily make you more beautiful, smarter, or a better person. 

First of all, knowledge comes in many shapes and forms apart from books and the internet. Life experiences such has hard work and interactions with fellow human beings, both good and bad, have the ability to teach so many things that cannot be learned from books. 

Secondly, beauty and the betterment of the human person comes from virtue and strength of character, not knowledge. A great example of this can be found in the story of A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett. The main character of the story is a young girl by the name of Sara Crewe, the beloved only daughter of a wealthy British army captain. The only daughter of a wealthy army captain, she is sent to a girls' boarding school, where she befriends the friendless Ermengarde and the lonely scullery maid Nellie. She loves to read and is treated like a princess in nearly every way until tragedy strikes, leaving her an orphan and a pauper. Her books, her frocks, and all of her belongings are sold and she is forced to earn her keep as a scullery maid alongside Nellie at the boarding school. She dresses in rags, sleeps in a freezing attic, and often goes hungry.

In spite of her misfortunes, Sara resolves to maintain her noble character. "Whatever comes," she says, "cannot alter one thing. If I am a princess in rags and tatters, I can be a princess inside. It would be easy to be a princess if I were dressed in cloth of gold, but it is a great deal more of a triumph to be one all the time when no one knows it." Later she confides to her friends, "Sometimes I do pretend I am a princess. I pretend I am a princess so that I can try and behave like one." 

A Little Princess, tv miniseries from 1986

Sara experiences her own moments of doubt and despair, but she is able to overcome them through her kindness and her vivid imagination. She does not become bitter or selfish because of her misfortunes. One day while running errands for the cook, she comes across a six-pence on the street outside a bakery. Instead of pocketing it, she takes it in to the baker and inquires if anyone has come looking for the money. The baker insists that she keep it as  no one has come inquiring after the lost coin. Sara uses the sixpence to buy a few rolls from the baker. However, having noticed a starving beggar girl sitting outside the door, Sara gives most of them to her. Sara's ability to look beyond her own sufferings to ease the pain of others shows that beauty does not originate in reading, knowledge, or wealth, but in simple acts of kindness and love. 

Now one might argue that one learns about living a life of virtue through reading. This is certainly true, but a person must critically evaluate and apply this way of thinking to their own life: in short, reading/educating one's self is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. One must also be able to discern the good from the bad -- not all one reads is worth emulating.

I conclude with a few words spoken by Audrey Hepburn. As it turns out, they are not her own words but the words of educator-humorist Sam Levinson. She read the following on Christmas Eve in 1992 and she adopted it for when she was asked for beauty tips.

"For attractive lips, speak word of kindness.

For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people.

For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry.

For beautiful hair, let a child run his or her fingers through it once a day.

For poise, walk with the knowledge that you never walk alone.

People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone.

Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of each of your arms.

As you grow older, you will discover that you have two hands, one for helping yourself, the other for helping others.

The beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries or the way she combs her hair.

The beauty of a woman must be seen from in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart, the place where love resides.

The beauty of a woman is not in a facial mode but the true beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It is the caring that she lovingly gives the passion that she shows. The beauty of a woman grows with the passing years." 

(From Audrey Hepburn by Barry Paris, 1996, Putnam)

Photo of Audrey Hepburn from 1989

Vulgarity is no substitute for wit

We all have those moments when someone drives us to the point of wishing to verbally express our frustration, impatience, or anger in less than admirable language. However, my experiences over the past year while growing accustomed to city life and attending a music conservatory have shown me that the use of swear words in every day speech is far more common than I had realized. Walking down the hall or sitting in the computer lab, it is not uncommon to hear the "female dog," s***, a**, or even the F-bomb dropped more than once, a word which is considered serious enough to give a film an "R" rating if used too many times.

It has been my understanding that these words are generally used in moments of pain, frustration, or anger -- instances when words like "darn" don't quite do justice to the situation. However, these recent experiences have proven to the contrary. My question is: why has the use of the f-word and other expletives become so common place?  Do people use them because it is a bad habit they've picked up through their youth, schooling, or entertainment? Are they frustrated or upset the majority of the time and less offensive words just don't cut it anymore? Is the use of expletives a rite of passage to adulthood and now people enjoy giving full reign to the new addition to their vocabulary? Do they think that they make themselves sound more "impressive," "cool," or "daring" by using these words?  Or maybe it's just me and these words just aren't as "bad" as they used to be.

Whatever the reason behind the expletive over-usage, it seems to me that those who are guilty of it seem to have a considerable problem expressing themselves.  In Shakespeare's day, at least folks were a bit more creative in their word choice, with expressions like, "You brood of vipers!" or "You carcass fit for hounds!" which, I've gotta say, sounds far more intelligent than "F*** you!"
It demonstrates a limited vocabulary and expresses a limited emotional venue, even if it does not reflect the truth. In a way, it's the opposite problem of how the word "love" has become the new "like." People say they love everything when they actually don't mean what they say. A young man might say he loves his girlfriend and he loves a particular movie. What he actually means is that he really likes or enjoys said movie, but he has affection for and wills the good of his girlfriend, even if he just used the same word to express two completely different situations. Perhaps it is the same with swear words. Just as there ought to be different degrees of "like" vs. "love" (where "love" is reserved for God and for persons and "like" is reserved for chocolate, scarves, movies, and laptops), perhaps a hierarchy ought to be restored to the realm of swear words, if they are even necessary in the first place (this is a debate for another time).

Another point to take into consideration: if the use of swear words has become so commonplace in someone's speech, is he really in control of his tongue or has he become a victim to a bad habit?

Finally, if a person thinks that by frequently using expletives in his vocabulary he is coming across as more impressive, "adult", or "cool," in the words of the Dowager Countess of Grantham, "Vulgarity is no substitute for wit." Language is meant to be something beautiful. Kindly take your f-bomb over-usage back to the gutter where it belongs.

There and Not Quite Back Again: Thoughts on An Unexpected Journey

I remember when I first watched The Fellowship of the Ring with my mom at my grandparents' house and what a thrilling moment that was.  It was the beginning of a love affair with a film trilogy that I believe aptly captures the heart of Tolkien's story, even if Peter Jackson did take some significant liberties from the plot line.  In the film adaptions, I believe that the characters came to life on screen as if they had walked off of the pages of The Lord of the Rings (with the exception, perhaps, of Faramir, but that's a discussion for another day). And the filmmakers did justice to Tolkien in portraying the scarred albeit beautiful world of Middle-earth.

When Peter Jackson announced that he would be continuing his work of bringing Tolkien's world to the silver screen, I was elated. When he later announced that he was going to split the story into three films instead of two while also including a great deal of material from the appendices of The Return of the King, I was a bit surprised and not surprised at the same time: surprised because I was still unsure how they were going to draw out the story of The Hobbit into three movies, even with filler from the appendices, and not surprised because Peter Jackson doesn't know how to make a small film project. "Go big or go home." I suspected that the story might suffer from this extension.

I went to see the film last Saturday with my roommate and I confess that I was disappointed. However, some things were nailed right on the head. First of all, I don't think anyone could have done a better job portraying Bilbo Baggins (besides Ian Holm) than Martin Freeman, who is well known for his role as the faithful, level-headed John Watson in the modern BBC adaption of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Steven D. Greydanus, film critic and creator of Decent Films Guide, describes Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo Baggins as "less interesting" than Ian Holm's in his review of the film. I would disagree here. Freeman's Bilbo was quaint, timid, and charming -- perhaps too timid, and here I would agree with Greydanus that Freeman's Bilbo seems more willing to be seen as a coward than Tolkien's Bilbo, who defends his honor thusly:

"I don't pretend to understand what you are talking about, or your reference to burglars, but I think I am right in believing" (this is what he called being on his dignity) "that you think I am no good. I will show you.  ... I am quite sure you have come to the wrong house. ... But treat it as the right one. Tell me what you want, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Last Desert." (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit)

I also thought it was out of line with Bilbo's character for him to attempt to leave the company, especially after he had signed the contract (which was NOT in the original story). Bilbo seems to be the sort of fellow who would honor a contract regardless of ill feelings from his leader. These are my only complaints about Bilbo. His annoyance with Gandalf and his bewilderment when the dwarves first arrive at his home is hilarious and his humor and simple courage is heart warming. This is what we love about our hobbits.

It was nice to see some of the dwarves besides Thorin receive some individuality as well. Tolkien doesn't provide much of this for his readers, which is understandable when you have thirteen to keep track of, but I still appreciated this perk.

The film had some magical moments, for certain. One of my favorites (and I think a favorite for most movie goers) was the scene "Riddles in the Dark," the signature scene of The Hobbit where Gollum and Bilbo first meet. This scene still contained liberties: 1) the omission of the "birthday present" reference which is included in The Return of the King prologue but was somehow forgotten here, and 2) the interpolation of Gollum's schizophrenic personality into a scene where it was not originally emphasized. However, it was believable and masterfully acted! Another favorite moment was a moment referenced in The Fellowship of the Ring. At one point in Moria, Gandalf admonishes Frodo that it was pity that prevented Bilbo from killing Gollum. "Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of men." We see this moment played out before us in An Unexpected Journey. We see Bilbo's temptation to kill Gollum and the pity that stays his hand.

Three other great scenes:  1) when Bilbo defends himself against Thorin: "I know you doubt me. You always have. ... You don't have a home. It was taken from you, but I will help you take it back if I can." Well said, Bilbo. You've done your people proud. 2) When Thorin begins to respect Bilbo at the end of the film. 3) When Gandalf explains his reason for choosing Bilbo, "Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. That is not what I've found. I find it is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk, that keep the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins? Perhaps it is because I am afraid and he gives me courage." This seemed very much in character with Gandalf, which brings me to my complaints with Jackson's adaption.

Gandalf did not seem as authoritative as he is in The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit for that matter. He is usually the one with the answers, working behind the scenes.  But when Radagast comes to Gandalf and the dwarves (which was added) and later at the council at Rivendell, Gandalf seems unfamiliar with the activities of the Necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron), which is definitely contrary to the book and, I thought, Gandalf's character.  In the very first chapters of The Hobbit, Gandalf mentions the awakening of the Necromancer to Thorin. In Unfinished Tales, Tolkien further explains that this was part of the reason why Gandalf sought out Thorin and Bilbo Baggins.

While Radagast was charming as a character, I also felt his added role of distracting wargs and orcs and  such was anywhere from unnecessary to a little over the top.

The White Council (the council among Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman, and Galadriel) seemed unconvincing.  There were moments like this in Harry Potter that played out far better.  Here I felt like I was watching something out of the second Star Wars trilogy... ugh... painful. And speaking of cheap, Azog was also a major disappointment. Granted, Azog did exist in Tolkien's head, but was beheaded by Thorin's cousin, Dain. I can see why Peter Jackson would include him. The story needs a villain since Smaug is absent for the length of story covered in the first part.  But if that is the case, than perhaps it was a poor decision to extend the story into three films.  Better that than bring back supposedly dead villains that come off as the product of a cheap fantasy novel.

"From the Dragon's Hoard" by Shaylynn Anne
from Deviantart

But that brings me to the subject of The Hobbit compared to The Lord of the Rings as novels. The Hobbit is much whimsical than The Lord of the Rings. Jackson seems to be making The Hobbit into an epic when it's nature is more akin to a fairy tale with its light hearted, simplistic touches.  There are some more child-suited moments, to be sure, with the slapstick humor of the dwarves. But the battle scenes are just as grotesque and grand-scale as its more mature counterpart. And even then, it seems like there is something lacking. The battles came off as a little ridiculous at parts -- I'm thinking specifically of the Goblin Town escape, which seemed almost laughable compared to the Moria sequence, which was described by Jeff Overstreet as akin to the best action scenes in Indiana Jones' Riders of the Lost Ark. Greydanus says if this is true, "the Goblin-town fight plays like the silliest stunts from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom."

Greydanus describes The Lord of the Rings films as "full of bombast, but also brilliance, and moments of quiet grace, subtlety, and joy." There was sweeping grandeur, but there was also an abundance of simple beauty and sensible substance to back it up. For example, the exchange between Aragorn and Boromir in Lothlorien, or Sam's longing for the Shire on the slopes of the Mount Doom. Although Bilbo expresses his longing for home at the end of the movie, it would have been nice to see have seen or heard more of this as the story progressed, little moments of greatness.

That being said, it is a good action-adventure fantasy film and I will probably see it and enjoy it more than once.  Nevertheless, I think I am beginning to understand my purist friends and how they feel about Jackson's The Lord of the Rings. I felt the same with the Narnia films, particularly The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. There were moments where the filmmakers were able to capture the magic of the story, but this time around the magic seemed much more illusive than it was in Jackson's prior adaptions of Tolkien literature. I'll finish by saying that while I am more reluctant to see other adaptions of The Lord of the Rings, I'm looking forward to a second try at The Hobbit, at least part I.

ABC's Once Upon a Time Season II: A Review

It seems a long time ago since Emma came to the town of Storybrooke and befriended the sweet school teacher, Mary Margaret, and came head to head with Mayor Regina a.k.a. the Evil Queen.  A lot has changed since then!

First of all, there's a new villain in town: Captain Hook. Or is he a villain? He certainly seemed to fool us in the "Jack and the Beanstalk" episode where he and Emma forged an interesting relationship in their pursuit of the magic compass to help them find a portal back to Storybrooke. Captain Hook was definitely a charmer in true pirate fashion. I found it amusing that he was chained to face a giant "beast" and abandoned by a dame by the name of Swann -- sound familiar, Pirates of the Caribbean fans?  But I missed the fabulous red coat and the captain's hat, and I was disappointed that they toyed with the very heart of Hook's essence: his rivalry with Peter Pan! In the original story, Pan cut off Hook's hand and fed it to the crocodile, whereupon Hook swore vengeance upon Pan. The writers supplanted Pan with Rumplestiltskin. I would have preferred if the writers could have incorporated Hook without distorting J. M. Barrie's plot line so much. :-(

We definitely got to see a different side of Regina for the first half of this season.  While I do miss the fabulous evil Regina, I'm also enjoying seeing her attempt to redeem herself for Henry.  We also got to see a more vulnerable side of her in the fairy tale world, as well as her fall from grace through her tutelage under Rumplestiltskin. I'm curious if this path towards redemption is going to be a permanent one or if Regina is going to relapse to her evil self?  Either way, I do appreciate the complexity of her character. (Side note: why can't Regina use her magic for good instead of a total magic abstinence? Food for thought.)

Josh Dallas as David/Prince Charming
and Jared Gilmore as Henry

Perhaps Cora is going to play the new fabulous evil queen.  She certainly plays the evil part awfully well, but I still think Regina does a better job at making evil look great. Speaking of Cora, I'm sure I wasn't the only one that that called her being the Queen of Hearts. I thought that was fun.  It was interesting to see the history between her and Hook, as well as the history between Hook and Regina.

A particular character that really grew on me this season was David a.k.a. Prince Charming. I detested his character in the real world in Season #1, this weakling who couldn't be faithful to either Catherine or Mary Margaret/Snow White.  At the beginning of Season #2, he was still rather annoying -- especially with his threat to destroy Regina. Of course she deserves it, but a noble prince possesses mercy as well as justice. But we saw him become the leader he was in the fairy tale world, a leader worthy of respect! He knows his weaknesses and uses them to help him become a better person ("We Are Both"). It was great seeing him be a dad to Henry as well!

I'm hoping that the characters of Mulan and Aurora will be fleshed out a bit more in the second half of the season. I was not impressed with them for the majority of the first season. Mulan was a royal stick in the mud, even if she's a good fighter, and Aurora was just rather plain in character. She finally showed some spunk in the last episode. However, the two girls make an interesting duo if they follow through this plan to attempt to save Prince Philip. I have hopes that both characters will become more likeable as the season progresses.

Ginnifer Goodwin and Meghan Ory
as Snow White and Rose Red

It was amusing to hear Mary Margaret ask for some quality time with Emma in the first episode of the second season, and *boom* wish granted -- they both were landed back in fairyland. Plenty of time for mother-daughter bonding while trying to get back to their loved ones. It was definitely a teary moment for me when Snow White and company returned to the room where Emma was born: the queen's curse destroyed so many lives and dreams. On the other end, it was refreshing to see the charming school teacher return to the capable fighter. Also, I found it amusing that Snow and Emma almost reversed roles for a while. Emma is the one usually protecting the sweet and naive Mary Margaret, but in the fairy tale world Emma is the inexperienced one whom Snow has to protect.

Speaking of Snow, that brings me to the sisterhood forged between Snow and Red. I find it funny that the skanky Ruby is a bit more conservative in her dress this season.  Perhaps they are trying to make the show a bit more family friendly? :-/ Not that I'm complaining! I wish Gus hadn't died, he was precious. I liked the inclusion of Lancelot, even for one episode.  I wish I could have seen more of him -- he quoted Tennyson's "Lady of Shalott"!

Learning more about Emma's past was insightful, and even seeing August for a few minutes was fantastic.  It was nice to know that Emma's boyfriend wasn't a terrible person, even if he appeared to be one.  That will certainly be an interesting reunion, if I may predict the reunion of Emma and ex-boyfriend.  I miss August's character though and I hope he receives more screen time for the second half of the season.

I was pleased to see more of Belle this season. She's such a plucky dame, and she doesn't put up with nonsense. I appreciated the reference to the traditional Disney Beauty and the Beast when Mr. Gold gave her the library.

I'm not sure what I think about how many literary worlds the writers are incorporating into the tv series.  It's one thing to mix Alice and Wonderland and Grimm Fairy Tales: they're both magic. It's another thing to add in science fiction worlds, namely Frankenstein through Dr. Whale.  The writers have expressed the desire to branch into even more worlds with reference to shoes that serve as a portal (Oz!).  While a fun idea, I'm not sure if it'll work. There's so much to cover and I think it would be very easy for things to get out of hand.

To conclude, I'd say that I was definitely happier with the first half of the second season, mainly b/c there's no more strange "affairs" between Charming and Snow White. I still think that Rumplestiltskin and Regina are the best actors in the series. I hope to see more August in the second season, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the confrontation between Hook and Mr. Gold. Will Mr. Gold finally show some courage? Will he ever have the chance to find his son? Will Prince Charming and Snow White finally be able to spend some time together?  Will Regina continue on the path to redemption? We'll find out soon enough!