This is something I've wondered and am really divided on. Both Graham and Cora did awful things without their hearts. On one hand u can't ignore how their actions affected their victims and victims have a right to a sense of justice and retribution. But on the other hand, if someone is incapable of feeling anything, including remorse and guilt as well as love, then are they fully capable of judging the morality of their actions?
This plays into my feelings for Graham and Cora. I didn't like Graham much and although some of that was personal preference of character types, I thouraghly disagreed with a lot of his actions and particularly his behaviour in the episode where he died. Things like kissing Emma without her permission (I was so glad she called him out on that and let him know that it was completely out of line), throwing the dart across Granny's diner so it hit the uithangbord door her head, sneaking in and out of Regina's house, especially when Henry's there. Things like that. He and the toon seem to blame his dreadful behaviour on not having a hart-, hart and I could get behind that.
Then Cora comes along, and maybe it's a result of being without a hart-, hart for much longer of being the one to take her own hart-, hart out, but she seems truly emotionless, in a way Graham never did. She feels nothing but mild amusement at the thought of killing random people and turning them into animals, whereas Graham was horrified at the thought he hurt Mary Margaret. The toon basically came out and zei Cora was incapable of love without a heart, but at the same time implied that Graham loved Emma.
The last person I can remember not having a hart-, hart was Milah. Rumplestiltskin pulled out her hart-, hart but she still had the ability to feel love for Killian and she used her last moments to express that love. Like Graham, she was still capable of great emotion. So if Cora was different because of her mental state both with and without a heart, how much can she really be blamed?
So what's the difference between them? And can either of them be really blamed for their actions?
This plays into my feelings for Graham and Cora. I didn't like Graham much and although some of that was personal preference of character types, I thouraghly disagreed with a lot of his actions and particularly his behaviour in the episode where he died. Things like kissing Emma without her permission (I was so glad she called him out on that and let him know that it was completely out of line), throwing the dart across Granny's diner so it hit the uithangbord door her head, sneaking in and out of Regina's house, especially when Henry's there. Things like that. He and the toon seem to blame his dreadful behaviour on not having a hart-, hart and I could get behind that.
Then Cora comes along, and maybe it's a result of being without a hart-, hart for much longer of being the one to take her own hart-, hart out, but she seems truly emotionless, in a way Graham never did. She feels nothing but mild amusement at the thought of killing random people and turning them into animals, whereas Graham was horrified at the thought he hurt Mary Margaret. The toon basically came out and zei Cora was incapable of love without a heart, but at the same time implied that Graham loved Emma.
The last person I can remember not having a hart-, hart was Milah. Rumplestiltskin pulled out her hart-, hart but she still had the ability to feel love for Killian and she used her last moments to express that love. Like Graham, she was still capable of great emotion. So if Cora was different because of her mental state both with and without a heart, how much can she really be blamed?
So what's the difference between them? And can either of them be really blamed for their actions?
