Hi and welcome to the forums. These forums service C117 Games, Another Dungeon and the A&B Review websites.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

Registration is free with no stupid credit card authentication or complex obscure character recognition requirements :).


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Quote Post
Add Reply
The Sopranos Ending - Open Ending Discussion.
Topic Started: Aug 30 2014, 08:38 PM (911 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

I wrote a blog post about open endings in films and TV shows and why they're important.

Read it here if you're interested: http://jinglesenidwrites.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/the-fault-in-our-ability-to-accept-open.html
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derpstrom
Member Avatar
Level 8
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I am interested but i don't like being told what to do so FUCK YOU! I'll read what I damn well please!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Fine.

 :'(
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derpstrom
Member Avatar
Level 8
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I know neither of you are huge science fiction fans but this is a topic often discussed in sci-fi literature circles... ok maybe not circles as my Dad, my Uncle and I are the only people I know who talk about it.

In any case back in Asimov's short story heyday the majority of science fiction tales were inconclusive. Their whole point was to give the reader enough information to get them thinking. Quite often putting a conclusion in would ruin a perfectly good story as it leaves no room for you to "interact".

Anyway I'm a huge fan of science fiction, and video games, and endings of shows like The Sporanos! If a story is told well it doesn't always need an ending. They key part is to tell the story well of course :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

That's partially what's bothered me about this person going on at David Chase about the ending. Yes, her article is well written, but there is no need to have a definitive ending for The Sopranos. It's part of what makes it entertaining.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moo
Member Avatar
Level 8
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Good read. I agree that an author's interpretation of the ambiguities in their work doesn't count for much. The author can only imperfectly interpret their work in the same way they can only imperfectly judge it, and they also cannot account for the fact that their work is going to be seen by people whose cultural and personal influences differ from theirs, and who will thus be bound to read things differently. Intention is largely irrelevant: the work and its relationship with the reader dictate the work's meaning.

Open endings, or more generally the ambiguity of meaning in fiction, is really interesting. I think the need for a concrete answer to something like Soprano's fate (I haven't seen the show but the ending is common knowledge) is driven by the same absence of knowledge that propels us through detective fiction. The answer to a mystery in detective fiction is often underwhelming (exceptions: Se7en, and the book "Alex" by Pierre Lemaitre (get it cause it'll blow your fucking mind)) because it cannot match our fascination with simply pursuing what we don't know. Wondering what happens to Walter White was fascinating; what happened to him was not fascinating. The mystery of the island on Lost was fascinating; the explanation was not. Wondering who stole the golden dildo in Shercock Holmes is more interesting than the dildo-wedged butt that shows up in the porn parody I just made up to make a point.* So the anti-Sopranos-ending people are reacting to this pursuit hitting a roadblock. Because they don't appreciate the value of narrative ambiguity and how it can work to shape meaning.

You know who used ambiguity to sex up his works? Shakespeare. In fact he did it a lot, and in Hamlet he did it on such an incomprehensibly detailed level that it blows my mind, and completely explains why it's the most talked about literary work in history. I don't really know how to talk about it if you haven't read the play, but to put it bluntly: Hamlet is deceptive and labyrinthine in its ambiguity so that the audience's interpretations are numerous and the play's ambiguity, largely**, isn't even noticed. It's just as ambiguous in minor plot details as it is in character motivation and its major themes. The fucking syntax is ambiguous at times. To give an example, Hamlet's final line is "The rest is silence". Keeping in mind that Hamlet has been grappling with whether or not there's an afterlife (among 2,000 other things), and/or whether the afterlife is a decent place, it's simply not clear whether "silence" means "peaceful" or Hamlet is confronting the void upon death. It's four simple words, the meaning of which is utterly dependent on how one has read the play beforehand. Which opens up all kinds of questions about how we interpret things and why.

*Shercock Holmes probably exists.

**A critic I read, who was talking about ambiguity in another Shakespeare play, said that people would leave the play thinking they'd seen one thing, while others would leave thinking they'd seen another thing. A third group, the smartest, would leave uncertain of what they saw.
Edited by Moo, Sep 10 2014, 03:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme released at ZNR