I'm not actually all that articulate at the moment, and you do have some good points but I don't quite agree with you. Perhaps it has something to do with my stubborn belief that 1973 IS real, that Gene and Annie is real, so on so forth
( ... )
See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:hmpfApril 13 2007, 00:00:00 UTC
"2007 is not a cage".
And also, if it *were* a cage, I believe we'd have a moral obligation to break down the bars.
Of course, this attitude of taking the way of least resistance and maximum fun is very popular nowadays. It's, of course, a universal human desire, but I do think that we're living in a very hedonistic age where people are maybe encouraged a bit too much to always think of themselves and their own - often superficial - happiness first. It's almost become a kind of moral imperative of our time: "Do what makes you happy, squeeze the maximum of fun out of every moment..." It is, of course, rather in keeping with the neoliberal world-order - the idea behind that, after all, is that if everyone's looking out for number one, everyone will be fine. Of course, Sam's example shows perfectly why this kind of approach is flawed: if we start looking out radically for our own happiness and only our own happiness, we are likely to hurt other people.
Hay, it's okay. I'm a leftie, not a big fan of capitalism either. In moderation it can have a place but... yeah, not the biggest fan of it.
I have a habbit of being a bit more... free with what I think when it comes to fiction. Also of babbling. I mean, the number of times there's magic or an afterlife or a god or ghosts or something else I've learnt to enjoy it and see it as some other fantasy plot devise, even when disagreeing with it. And granted this is different but heck.. probably helps, as I've said, I think 73 was real and when he went back he WAS going to help a lot of people ect.
And being critical is always a good thing, even if people disagree with you. Even if MOST people disagree with you (and I've some experience with that).
If it helps, I'm doing this 'five times...' fic thing, and one of them is him staying in 2006 and making it work and so on, and I'm pretty sure this post of yours has made a lot of people think of that ending in a new light, or at least more thoroughly.
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:neth_duganApril 13 2007, 00:17:57 UTC
I'm not saying that 2007 itself is a cage, any more than 1973 would be a cage for me or.... so on. He's a part of 1973 now, and that's his time and his place and he's grown there and going back to his old life would be the cage
( ... )
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:neuralcloneApril 13 2007, 02:42:14 UTC
I can't speak for hmpf, of course, but for me the problem is that the writers stated categorically that:
a) 2007 was real, and Sam returned to it
and
b) 1973 wasn't real.
Now if 1973 was "real" (and it would have been oh-so-easy for the writers to slip in something which would indicate it was - for example a short scene in 2007 with Sam at the tunnel looking at a vandalised memorial to the police officers who were massacred there in 1973) then yes, I could cheer his return. He'd be making a decision to return for a real Annie and Gene, to try and put right the things he did wrong, and live in an imperfect time and place where he could make a difference and be happy.
Or if 2007 wasn't real, but part of Sam's coma illusion as he lay dying, well it would have been a sad but a logical and fitting end
( ... )
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:neth_duganApril 13 2007, 09:35:56 UTC
'Fair enough. There's a debate (well, an almost debate anyway) here about authorial intent and whether or not that counts as the final word. Some say it does, some of us say hat authorial intent doesn't and shouldn't be the same as (and not my phrase here) 'literary dictatorship
( ... )
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:hmpfApril 15 2007, 14:10:18 UTC
Re: authorial intention: no, of course it's not the last word. But in the case of the last ep of LOM the authorial intention is so bloody *blatant* that it's nearly impossible to ignore. It takes a lot of work to interpet an ep *any* other way than you're supposed to if you're constantly being hit over the head by the author
( ... )
Re: See, and my main emotional and intellectual point here is:neth_duganApril 16 2007, 10:27:31 UTC
That last bit is a rather good point, they could have made it more bittersweet. He may have chosen 1973, but he did loose 2006 in the process of that which takes away from how perfect it is.
>And I feel an urge to weep for Ruth and Maya and all the "real" people he left behind him...
Yes, so do I. Especially Ruth - I'm not even a mother, but just *trying* to imagine what she must feel like after this is... oh, I don't even have words for it.
Reply
Reply
And also, if it *were* a cage, I believe we'd have a moral obligation to break down the bars.
Of course, this attitude of taking the way of least resistance and maximum fun is very popular nowadays. It's, of course, a universal human desire, but I do think that we're living in a very hedonistic age where people are maybe encouraged a bit too much to always think of themselves and their own - often superficial - happiness first. It's almost become a kind of moral imperative of our time: "Do what makes you happy, squeeze the maximum of fun out of every moment..." It is, of course, rather in keeping with the neoliberal world-order - the idea behind that, after all, is that if everyone's looking out for number one, everyone will be fine. Of course, Sam's example shows perfectly why this kind of approach is flawed: if we start looking out radically for our own happiness and only our own happiness, we are likely to hurt other people.
Reply
Reply
I have a habbit of being a bit more... free with what I think when it comes to fiction. Also of babbling. I mean, the number of times there's magic or an afterlife or a god or ghosts or something else I've learnt to enjoy it and see it as some other fantasy plot devise, even when disagreeing with it. And granted this is different but heck.. probably helps, as I've said, I think 73 was real and when he went back he WAS going to help a lot of people ect.
And being critical is always a good thing, even if people disagree with you. Even if MOST people disagree with you (and I've some experience with that).
If it helps, I'm doing this 'five times...' fic thing, and one of them is him staying in 2006 and making it work and so on, and I'm pretty sure this post of yours has made a lot of people think of that ending in a new light, or at least more thoroughly.
Reply
Reply
a) 2007 was real, and Sam returned to it
and
b) 1973 wasn't real.
Now if 1973 was "real" (and it would have been oh-so-easy for the writers to slip in something which would indicate it was - for example a short scene in 2007 with Sam at the tunnel looking at a vandalised memorial to the police officers who were massacred there in 1973) then yes, I could cheer his return. He'd be making a decision to return for a real Annie and Gene, to try and put right the things he did wrong, and live in an imperfect time and place where he could make a difference and be happy.
Or if 2007 wasn't real, but part of Sam's coma illusion as he lay dying, well it would have been a sad but a logical and fitting end ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yes, so do I. Especially Ruth - I'm not even a mother, but just *trying* to imagine what she must feel like after this is... oh, I don't even have words for it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment