Re: Reply, part one bcandogirlApril 13 2007, 00:12:09 UTC
Sorry! I wrote too much to fit in one reply. Here's the rest...
Is reality *that* relative?
Existentially, yes. Actually, even un-existentially the answer is yes. My truth is not your truth. The way I see the world may not be the way you do. People fight and die every day trying to mold the world into what they want it to be. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. Even the basic facts of life are disputed- I believe in evolution, but there are people who believe in Adam and Eve and think my belief in dinosaurs is lunacy. A person’s reality is not always true.
Should we cheer on crazy sect members who think that killing themselves will get them picked up by aliens from Sirius, or suicide bombers who think killing dozens alongside themselves will get them straight into paradise, because after all, that's *their* ideal reality, the world they would like to live in, and they're taking a positive step to achieving their goals?
Of course not, but this isn’t the real world, it’s a story- it’s an idea, a warning. In real life you’d hope he’d have therapy and people to anchor him and medications. But that’s not the story Life on Mars is trying to tell. They aren’t telling people to jump off a building. They aren’t telling people to believe in imaginary worlds. They are telling people to live and to feel. Nelson is the spiritual guide, the moral, and the truth of the show. The way Sam interprets his words is not the way real people should interpret them. Imo, the ending isn’t meant to be so literal. It’s not the suicide that should be applauded; it’s the decision to live.
But why the *heck* couldn't he decide to live in the Real World?
Oh, I give up. I don't think I'm ever going to 'get' it. I mean, I totally get that it was Sam's worldview and so on - but that doesn't make it *any* bit less wrong. Ultimately, it comes down to a deep gut-feeling of nausea when I think about the ending, and there's no philosophical spin I can put on it that makes it less nausea-inducing.
Re: Decision to livecandogirlApril 13 2007, 01:07:01 UTC
But why the *heck* couldn't he decide to live in the Real World? I can only say that in Sam's mind he *does* decide to live in the real world.
At least that's my opinion. I do feel your frustration, I feel immensely sad that he died. The agreement to stay and the turning off of the radio, along with the girl turning off the story is so sad. I wrote in reply to someone else that, "the reason the show is over is because there is no longer someone left to imagine it. Which is sad, because it means that Sam couldn't have the life he wanted either way."
It's very depressing, but I really like it from a story telling perspective.
Well, as I sort of said before...hmpfApril 15 2007, 12:52:07 UTC
I *would* like this ending from a story telling perspective (I can handle sad or bittersweet endings better than happy ones, in most cases, because they violate my sense of reality less), if I didn't have to read the final ep so strongly against the grain and ignore so much textual evidence to 'see' this ending in it. To me, the authorial intention in this case is so blatant that I just can't ignore it, and the authorial intention that's written all over the ep in big bold letters says - to quote selenak - "Be-happy-Ask-no-questions-tThis-is-liberation-dammit!" Which drains all the meaning from the ending and the entire show.
Re: Well, as I sort of said before...candogirlApril 15 2007, 18:45:29 UTC
This is probably why I try not to find out what the people who make the shows I watch think and feel about their endeavors until they are over. Come to think about it, it's probably why I don't really get involved in fandom too. I like to be able to watch and have my own feelings about it before I find out the writers/actors/directors were mostly stupid.
:)
You're in Germany, yes? If you follow footie, did you see what Michael Ballack did today?
Re: Well, as I sort of said before...hmpfApril 15 2007, 18:54:40 UTC
>This is probably why I try not to find out what the people who make the shows I watch think and feel about their endeavors until they are over. Come to think about it, it's probably why I don't really get involved in fandom too. I like to be able to watch and have my own feelings about it before I find out the writers/actors/directors were mostly stupid.
Yeah, but see, my reaction to the ep really was just that a reaction to the *ep*, not to any extratextual evidence. I did seek out extratextual evidence (the interview) *after* I'd seen the ep, but it only confirmed the impression I'd already gained from the ep itself.
>You're in Germany, yes? If you follow footie, did you see what Michael Ballack did today?
I didn't even know he played today. I don't even know which team he's playing for! Sorry... don't know the first thing about football.
Anything spectacular I should know even as a non-football fan? I'm always willing to learn... ;-)
Re: Well, as I sort of said before...candogirlApril 15 2007, 19:18:23 UTC
I did seek out extratextual evidence (the interview) I so read that as extraterrestrial evidence :P I'm sorry the show ended so badly for you. There was this show called The X-Files that I loved for many years and I was so livid about the way they ended it...it just feels like you've been gypped.
Anything spectacular I should know even as a non-football fan? I'm always willing to learn... ;-)
He scored a brilliant match winning goal for Chelsea in the 109th minute of the FA Cup semi-final. He'd already played the full 90 minutes and then the first of the two 15 minute overtime halves. Absolutely incredible, a big hero today.
Also, you should know that many, many German football players are hot.
>Existentially, yes. Actually, even un-existentially the answer is yes. My truth is not your truth. The way I see the world may not be the way you do. People fight and die every day trying to mold the world into what they want it to be. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. Even the basic facts of life are disputed- I believe in evolution, but there are people who believe in Adam and Eve and think my belief in dinosaurs is lunacy. A person’s reality is not always true.
Well, obviously, yes. But does that *really* mean that every way to see the world is equally valid, and that we should make no difference between them? How do we organise society if that is the case? What *do* we do about people whose idea of happiness consists of killing or hurting other people, people whose idea of the world involves a God whose rule should be absolute, people who think they'll be happier if they throw themselves off buildings, etc. etc.?
I actually completely 'get' what you mean about reality being relative, I know that it's ultimately created in our heads and that it's unreliable and individual and so on. But even if it's a neurological and ontological fact, it's a fact that's incompatible with life in a society. As soon as there is even just one other person with needs and feelings of their own in the world, you have a potential ethical problem if you only accept your own interpretation of the world. And if you say that any view of the world is equally valid, this is the logical consequence.
The nature of reality is a compromise, really. We can afford divergent realities as long as and insofar as they do not cause harm to others. Now, Sam's divergent reality caused the *most* harm to himself, which I suppose *could* make it an acceptable one, if we want to be radical and say that everyone has a right to do *anything* with their own life - and I guess I even believe that, to some degree. I imagine his decision did considerable harm to his mum and possibly quite a few other people, though, so this is where it gets difficult... Of course, we hurt other people all the time; every time we end a relationship, for example; you can't live without hurting people. I'm not saying it's easy to draw lines here; but I think some lines *do* need to be drawn.
Anyway... even if we agreed unequivocally that someone's alternate worldview was ['good'/'valid'/worthy of respect/protection/not to be condemned/criticised] even *though* it drove him to kill himself, a case could be made for Sam actually being traumatised and possibly even *physically* ill. Which opens another can of worms - how do we decide if someone is making 'a lifestyle choice' by believing in something bizarre or if they are actually ill and in need of treatment?
And so on and so on... this is an incredibly sticky subject, and I'm sure we could discuss it for months and not come to any conclusion.
What happened in Life On Mars, I think, is the writers and the majority of the audience getting thoroughly charmed by a 'mad' perspective - so charmed that in the end, they sort of moved collectively to the 'mad' character's alternate reality with him and lost any chance at an outside perspective. So, in a way, this is a case of mass delusion. I would have liked it and called it very clever and all kinds of positive adjectives if I got a sense from the ep that this had happened with *any* kind of awareness on behalf of the writers.
(Sorry, the last paragraph doesn't tie in very well with the rest of this post. My brain is mush today.)
The nature of reality is a compromise, really. We can afford divergent realities as long as and insofar as they do not cause harm to others. Now, Sam's divergent reality caused the *most* harm to himself, which I suppose *could* make it an acceptable one, if we want to be radical and say that everyone has a right to do *anything* with their own life - and I guess I even believe that, to some degree. I imagine his decision did considerable harm to his mum and possibly quite a few other people, though, so this is where it gets difficult... Of course, we hurt other people all the time; every time we end a relationship, for example; you can't live without hurting people. I'm not saying it's easy to draw lines here; but I think some lines *do* need to be drawn.
I do think that, fiction wise, Sam choice is acceptable because it only causes physical harm to himself. On top of that, imo, he doesn't really think he's offing himself when he does it. If Sam had been all, "Oh 1973 I miss you so much, men don't wear heels anymore. I wish I'd never woken up from my delusional life." and then jumped, I'd say it wasn't acceptable.
a case could be made for Sam actually being traumatised and possibly even *physically* ill.
That is where I think the real darkness of the shows ending is. IMO, he *is* both of those things. Sam does need help and no one gives it to him. The place that offered him help was 1973 and so he chooses to return there. It's not the right choice, but I feel it makes sense for his character, a man that is so confused and alone, to come to that conclusion.
I'm not saying it's easy to draw lines here; but I think some lines *do* need to be drawn. In real life, I say yes. In fiction I disagree.
What happened in Life On Mars, I think, is the writers and the majority of the audience getting thoroughly charmed by a 'mad' perspective You give them more credit than I do. I think the writer's got charmed by the idea of a spin-off and chickened out on destroying the 1973 world, which, is what I would have done had I written it. Still, I like what they did do and it doesn't feel like a sell-out to me. I wasn't expecting Sam to stay in the 70's, I thought we'd get either the "he learned so much and now lives a fuller, better life" ending or that he would die in both worlds. I like that what Sam learned led him to making a mistake. No matter how they got there, I liked that they ended it with Sam believing one thing and the audience (or at least this audience member) knowing another.
I'm sure we could discuss it for months and not come to any conclusion. Very true. We are at an impasse, my friend.
I just cut and paste this next bit from your latest reply so that I don't keep spamming your journal.
Just a hint of loss would have been enough, really. Anything put pure celebration. Maybe just the slightest little bit of hesitation before turning off the radio. I still wouldn't have thought it a perfect ending, but it would have made more sense to me - enough sense for me to accept it, anyway. Basically I would have been willing to accept it if there'd been any, even the *tiniest* hint that this was *not* just the easy way out for Sam; that he made a difficult choice. I would still have considered it a wrong choice, but I can respect people who make difficult choices.
I would also have preferred if JS had delivered that "I hate this station" line a little less casually. I did think that reaction was a little to happy go lucky for Sam's character in that situation.
Is reality *that* relative?
Existentially, yes. Actually, even un-existentially the answer is yes. My truth is not your truth. The way I see the world may not be the way you do. People fight and die every day trying to mold the world into what they want it to be. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. Even the basic facts of life are disputed- I believe in evolution, but there are people who believe in Adam and Eve and think my belief in dinosaurs is lunacy. A person’s reality is not always true.
Should we cheer on crazy sect members who think that killing themselves will get them picked up by aliens from Sirius, or suicide bombers who think killing dozens alongside themselves will get them straight into paradise, because after all, that's *their* ideal reality, the world they would like to live in, and they're taking a positive step to achieving their goals?
Of course not, but this isn’t the real world, it’s a story- it’s an idea, a warning. In real life you’d hope he’d have therapy and people to anchor him and medications. But that’s not the story Life on Mars is trying to tell. They aren’t telling people to jump off a building. They aren’t telling people to believe in imaginary worlds. They are telling people to live and to feel. Nelson is the spiritual guide, the moral, and the truth of the show. The way Sam interprets his words is not the way real people should interpret them. Imo, the ending isn’t meant to be so literal. It’s not the suicide that should be applauded; it’s the decision to live.
Reply
Oh, I give up. I don't think I'm ever going to 'get' it. I mean, I totally get that it was Sam's worldview and so on - but that doesn't make it *any* bit less wrong. Ultimately, it comes down to a deep gut-feeling of nausea when I think about the ending, and there's no philosophical spin I can put on it that makes it less nausea-inducing.
Reply
I can only say that in Sam's mind he *does* decide to live in the real world.
At least that's my opinion. I do feel your frustration, I feel immensely sad that he died. The agreement to stay and the turning off of the radio, along with the girl turning off the story is so sad. I wrote in reply to someone else that, "the reason the show is over is because there is no longer someone left to imagine it. Which is sad, because it means that Sam couldn't have the life he wanted either way."
It's very depressing, but I really like it from a story telling perspective.
Reply
Reply
:)
You're in Germany, yes? If you follow footie, did you see what Michael Ballack did today?
Reply
Yeah, but see, my reaction to the ep really was just that a reaction to the *ep*, not to any extratextual evidence. I did seek out extratextual evidence (the interview) *after* I'd seen the ep, but it only confirmed the impression I'd already gained from the ep itself.
>You're in Germany, yes? If you follow footie, did you see what Michael Ballack did today?
I didn't even know he played today. I don't even know which team he's playing for! Sorry... don't know the first thing about football.
Anything spectacular I should know even as a non-football fan? I'm always willing to learn... ;-)
Reply
I so read that as extraterrestrial evidence :P
I'm sorry the show ended so badly for you. There was this show called The X-Files that I loved for many years and I was so livid about the way they ended it...it just feels like you've been gypped.
Anything spectacular I should know even as a non-football fan? I'm always willing to learn... ;-)
He scored a brilliant match winning goal for Chelsea in the 109th minute of the FA Cup semi-final. He'd already played the full 90 minutes and then the first of the two 15 minute overtime halves. Absolutely incredible, a big hero today.
Also, you should know that many, many German football players are hot.
Reply
Well, obviously, yes. But does that *really* mean that every way to see the world is equally valid, and that we should make no difference between them? How do we organise society if that is the case? What *do* we do about people whose idea of happiness consists of killing or hurting other people, people whose idea of the world involves a God whose rule should be absolute, people who think they'll be happier if they throw themselves off buildings, etc. etc.?
I actually completely 'get' what you mean about reality being relative, I know that it's ultimately created in our heads and that it's unreliable and individual and so on. But even if it's a neurological and ontological fact, it's a fact that's incompatible with life in a society. As soon as there is even just one other person with needs and feelings of their own in the world, you have a potential ethical problem if you only accept your own interpretation of the world. And if you say that any view of the world is equally valid, this is the logical consequence.
The nature of reality is a compromise, really. We can afford divergent realities as long as and insofar as they do not cause harm to others. Now, Sam's divergent reality caused the *most* harm to himself, which I suppose *could* make it an acceptable one, if we want to be radical and say that everyone has a right to do *anything* with their own life - and I guess I even believe that, to some degree. I imagine his decision did considerable harm to his mum and possibly quite a few other people, though, so this is where it gets difficult... Of course, we hurt other people all the time; every time we end a relationship, for example; you can't live without hurting people. I'm not saying it's easy to draw lines here; but I think some lines *do* need to be drawn.
Anyway... even if we agreed unequivocally that someone's alternate worldview was ['good'/'valid'/worthy of respect/protection/not to be condemned/criticised] even *though* it drove him to kill himself, a case could be made for Sam actually being traumatised and possibly even *physically* ill. Which opens another can of worms - how do we decide if someone is making 'a lifestyle choice' by believing in something bizarre or if they are actually ill and in need of treatment?
And so on and so on... this is an incredibly sticky subject, and I'm sure we could discuss it for months and not come to any conclusion.
What happened in Life On Mars, I think, is the writers and the majority of the audience getting thoroughly charmed by a 'mad' perspective - so charmed that in the end, they sort of moved collectively to the 'mad' character's alternate reality with him and lost any chance at an outside perspective. So, in a way, this is a case of mass delusion. I would have liked it and called it very clever and all kinds of positive adjectives if I got a sense from the ep that this had happened with *any* kind of awareness on behalf of the writers.
(Sorry, the last paragraph doesn't tie in very well with the rest of this post. My brain is mush today.)
Reply
I do think that, fiction wise, Sam choice is acceptable because it only causes physical harm to himself. On top of that, imo, he doesn't really think he's offing himself when he does it. If Sam had been all, "Oh 1973 I miss you so much, men don't wear heels anymore. I wish I'd never woken up from my delusional life." and then jumped, I'd say it wasn't acceptable.
a case could be made for Sam actually being traumatised and possibly even *physically* ill.
That is where I think the real darkness of the shows ending is. IMO, he *is* both of those things. Sam does need help and no one gives it to him. The place that offered him help was 1973 and so he chooses to return there. It's not the right choice, but I feel it makes sense for his character, a man that is so confused and alone, to come to that conclusion.
I'm not saying it's easy to draw lines here; but I think some lines *do* need to be drawn.
In real life, I say yes. In fiction I disagree.
What happened in Life On Mars, I think, is the writers and the majority of the audience getting thoroughly charmed by a 'mad' perspective
You give them more credit than I do. I think the writer's got charmed by the idea of a spin-off and chickened out on destroying the 1973 world, which, is what I would have done had I written it. Still, I like what they did do and it doesn't feel like a sell-out to me. I wasn't expecting Sam to stay in the 70's, I thought we'd get either the "he learned so much and now lives a fuller, better life" ending or that he would die in both worlds. I like that what Sam learned led him to making a mistake. No matter how they got there, I liked that they ended it with Sam believing one thing and the audience (or at least this audience member) knowing another.
I'm sure we could discuss it for months and not come to any conclusion.
Very true. We are at an impasse, my friend.
I just cut and paste this next bit from your latest reply so that I don't keep spamming your journal.
Just a hint of loss would have been enough, really. Anything put pure celebration. Maybe just the slightest little bit of hesitation before turning off the radio. I still wouldn't have thought it a perfect ending, but it would have made more sense to me - enough sense for me to accept it, anyway. Basically I would have been willing to accept it if there'd been any, even the *tiniest* hint that this was *not* just the easy way out for Sam; that he made a difficult choice. I would still have considered it a wrong choice, but I can respect people who make difficult choices.
I would also have preferred if JS had delivered that "I hate this station" line a little less casually. I did think that reaction was a little to happy go lucky for Sam's character in that situation.
Reply
Leave a comment