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.
I'l also say I'm not a Sam/Annie shipper, so I don't like the ending for the Sam/Annie 4eva!!!1!!!1! ending (it rather irked me even, though I suppose not that out of place). So, that's not why I'm a fan of the ending.
In my view, though earlier in the show Sam would have been fine in 2006 this changed over time, as he lived more in 1973, as he experienced more and grew closer and closer to Gene, Annie, Chris, Ray ect. It was a world that forced him to look at life differently, to consider things in a new light, that freed him from his natural tendancies to be up tight and to the book. Eventually it became his world, he started to accept it and take it into himself in a way, started to become a part of that time. A rather odd one, with a lot of influence from the future, but he became a part of 1973. He LIVED there, he felt things and he existed as more than another analytical bio machine with a book to mechanically drone out. He made a difference there, more so than he did in 2006. He was a part of that time.
Then he gets back to 2006 and though it's what he always thought he wanted, he finds out he dosn't belong there any more. He isn't a part of that time - he makes no difference except to a few who are really close to him. It's like freeing a bird from it's cage, watching it grow and expand and then trying to cram it into the cage again even if the bird will no longer fit. It's not that 1973 is better - in many many ways it wasn't, but it did complement and free Sam more and it was his time now.
And I take your point that he could have taken what he's learnt and aply it to modern times, and that he could have worked at it, made changes so he felt like he was alive, like he was doing something. And maybe that's true, probably that's true. But he was there, a bird too expanded for it's original cage, with friends in the past who he cared about deeply (even if he'd be called a ponce for saying it), and a time that was now his - and he wanted to go back to it. He had to. So save them, to keep a promise, to get out of that damn cage again and build a new and better one. He made a choice - that was where he fit now, where he wanted to be.
And in all honesty, I think he'll see his mom and Maya again, I think he'll see 2006 again, just as an older man who's aged through it all. Maybe he left them a note - if that was real, watch out for an old guy with my name poping round one day with a really odd tale. It's me, honest. And don't you remember that cop with my name at the party where Dad ran away?
I see it as freeing himself, permanently, and going back to the world that was now his, where he belonged. Making himself happy, content, and it WAS a choice, just not a conventional one.
Though, it's LoM, so all the other theories and thoughts on this are also interesting and PLAUSABLE to boot. Ah, the fic bunnies I get...
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.
Of course he could break the bars, and in many situations probably should have. Especially if he were mearly in a coma. And of course it can be seen as selfish to do what he did, I completely understand, so far as some one who hasn't been in a position I suspect you've been in can. And if I believed that 1973 was just a figment, I'd agree with you on this more, I suppose.
But as I see it, it was real. And yes he went back for himself, because he didn't feel alive in 2006. But he also went back for Annie and Gene, for his friends. Not just any old friends - cop friends, and that's a bond that you don't get outside jobs like that. Cops, firemen, military personel. And he saved their lives, and who knows how many other lives after that. He had some selfish reasons for going back, some non selfish reasons, but in the end he's in the time that's now his.
I don't think every one should look out for number one, I think we have an obligation to help out others if we can that we're stronger together than we are apart and being insular or dog eat dog rarely helps any one. But no matter what Sam did he'd have hurt people, and though this way his mom and Maya will probably never understand, he is free to be in the world and time that suits and complements him best, with people who need him the most, doing the most good.
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.
However, as it is, I feel what we got was the spectacle of a mentally ill man losing his grip on reality and committing suicide - dressed up with a smile and a happy ending. And I don't condemn Sam, I just feel terribly, terribly sorry for him - he didn't learn from his experiences, they broke him.
And I feel an urge to weep for Ruth and Maya and all the "real" people he left behind him...
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'.
And heck, if John Simm himself can disagree with the writer about what was going on, then we all sure as hell can (not that we need him to disagree to have that right).
And the way that they had that ambiguous ending is probably what's giving rise to this. They didn't say that '73 was real, and they didn't say that it wasn't for sure, and the result is Sam aparently commiting suicide and no clear reason for why, no clear indication that it was worth it. And when it's seen like that, I can see how it is that people are objecting.
If I were sure that '73 weren't real then I'd want something more from that jump, something that didn't seem to glofify it quite so much. But alas... I see it as real which completely changes the ball game.
It's been said that truth is a three edged sword, I'm thinking that an unclear truth, an ambiguity can be the same way.
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.
I love ambiguous ending; if it actually *had* been ambiguous I wouldn't be so annoyed! But it's only ambiguous if you already go into it firmly believing 1973 is real, because then you can see what *actually* happens as an alternative that you don't have to accept. However, they were *very* careful not to give us *any* clue that 1973 just *might* be real, and in fact went out of their way to make Sam's return to it feel distinctly 'too-good-to-be-true'. So, anyone who wasn't already completely sold on 1973 from the get-go could only take from the *actual* textual evidence in the ep that 1973 was all in Sam's head, and he was jumping because he preferred a fantasy life/afterlife to a chance at mastering his real life.
Of course, I have a problem with the way Sam's decision was portrayed (not the decision itself!) even *if* I were to assume that 1973 was real - which I *do* about half of the time out of wishful thinking, I have to admit - because it was portrayed as the perfect happy ending when it should have been bittersweet, with rather a huge sense of loss. So, even believing in 1973 doesn't remove all my problems with the ending, really.
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.
I'l also say I'm not a Sam/Annie shipper, so I don't like the ending for the Sam/Annie 4eva!!!1!!!1! ending (it rather irked me even, though I suppose not that out of place). So, that's not why I'm a fan of the ending.
In my view, though earlier in the show Sam would have been fine in 2006 this changed over time, as he lived more in 1973, as he experienced more and grew closer and closer to Gene, Annie, Chris, Ray ect. It was a world that forced him to look at life differently, to consider things in a new light, that freed him from his natural tendancies to be up tight and to the book. Eventually it became his world, he started to accept it and take it into himself in a way, started to become a part of that time. A rather odd one, with a lot of influence from the future, but he became a part of 1973. He LIVED there, he felt things and he existed as more than another analytical bio machine with a book to mechanically drone out. He made a difference there, more so than he did in 2006. He was a part of that time.
Then he gets back to 2006 and though it's what he always thought he wanted, he finds out he dosn't belong there any more. He isn't a part of that time - he makes no difference except to a few who are really close to him. It's like freeing a bird from it's cage, watching it grow and expand and then trying to cram it into the cage again even if the bird will no longer fit. It's not that 1973 is better - in many many ways it wasn't, but it did complement and free Sam more and it was his time now.
And I take your point that he could have taken what he's learnt and aply it to modern times, and that he could have worked at it, made changes so he felt like he was alive, like he was doing something. And maybe that's true, probably that's true. But he was there, a bird too expanded for it's original cage, with friends in the past who he cared about deeply (even if he'd be called a ponce for saying it), and a time that was now his - and he wanted to go back to it. He had to. So save them, to keep a promise, to get out of that damn cage again and build a new and better one. He made a choice - that was where he fit now, where he wanted to be.
And in all honesty, I think he'll see his mom and Maya again, I think he'll see 2006 again, just as an older man who's aged through it all. Maybe he left them a note - if that was real, watch out for an old guy with my name poping round one day with a really odd tale. It's me, honest. And don't you remember that cop with my name at the party where Dad ran away?
I see it as freeing himself, permanently, and going back to the world that was now his, where he belonged. Making himself happy, content, and it WAS a choice, just not a conventional one.
Though, it's LoM, so all the other theories and thoughts on this are also interesting and PLAUSABLE to boot. Ah, the fic bunnies I get...
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
Of course he could break the bars, and in many situations probably should have. Especially if he were mearly in a coma. And of course it can be seen as selfish to do what he did, I completely understand, so far as some one who hasn't been in a position I suspect you've been in can. And if I believed that 1973 was just a figment, I'd agree with you on this more, I suppose.
But as I see it, it was real. And yes he went back for himself, because he didn't feel alive in 2006. But he also went back for Annie and Gene, for his friends. Not just any old friends - cop friends, and that's a bond that you don't get outside jobs like that. Cops, firemen, military personel. And he saved their lives, and who knows how many other lives after that. He had some selfish reasons for going back, some non selfish reasons, but in the end he's in the time that's now his.
I don't think every one should look out for number one, I think we have an obligation to help out others if we can that we're stronger together than we are apart and being insular or dog eat dog rarely helps any one. But no matter what Sam did he'd have hurt people, and though this way his mom and Maya will probably never understand, he is free to be in the world and time that suits and complements him best, with people who need him the most, doing the most good.
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.
However, as it is, I feel what we got was the spectacle of a mentally ill man losing his grip on reality and committing suicide - dressed up with a smile and a happy ending. And I don't condemn Sam, I just feel terribly, terribly sorry for him - he didn't learn from his experiences, they broke him.
And I feel an urge to weep for Ruth and Maya and all the "real" people he left behind him...
Reply
And heck, if John Simm himself can disagree with the writer about what was going on, then we all sure as hell can (not that we need him to disagree to have that right).
And the way that they had that ambiguous ending is probably what's giving rise to this. They didn't say that '73 was real, and they didn't say that it wasn't for sure, and the result is Sam aparently commiting suicide and no clear reason for why, no clear indication that it was worth it. And when it's seen like that, I can see how it is that people are objecting.
If I were sure that '73 weren't real then I'd want something more from that jump, something that didn't seem to glofify it quite so much. But alas... I see it as real which completely changes the ball game.
It's been said that truth is a three edged sword, I'm thinking that an unclear truth, an ambiguity can be the same way.
Reply
I love ambiguous ending; if it actually *had* been ambiguous I wouldn't be so annoyed! But it's only ambiguous if you already go into it firmly believing 1973 is real, because then you can see what *actually* happens as an alternative that you don't have to accept. However, they were *very* careful not to give us *any* clue that 1973 just *might* be real, and in fact went out of their way to make Sam's return to it feel distinctly 'too-good-to-be-true'. So, anyone who wasn't already completely sold on 1973 from the get-go could only take from the *actual* textual evidence in the ep that 1973 was all in Sam's head, and he was jumping because he preferred a fantasy life/afterlife to a chance at mastering his real life.
Of course, I have a problem with the way Sam's decision was portrayed (not the decision itself!) even *if* I were to assume that 1973 was real - which I *do* about half of the time out of wishful thinking, I have to admit - because it was portrayed as the perfect happy ending when it should have been bittersweet, with rather a huge sense of loss. So, even believing in 1973 doesn't remove all my problems with the ending, really.
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