Re: Well...lozenger8September 13 2009, 22:43:59 UTC
Hmpf, you're doing it again. There are no hard and fast facts of the episode. Different people interpreted what we were given differently.
So many of us wanted Sam to go back to 1973. And he did. And that was wonderful for those of us who wanted that. Sam sacrificed himself in one world to save another --- and there was no death, we never saw one. For all we know, Sam jumped through a time portal. For all we know, he's a mess of blood and guts on the ground. None of us truly know what happened, not even Matthew Graham himself, because it wasn't explicit to the nth degree (deliberately not explicit to the nth degree!) and there were enough strange anomalies that you could do a quick rewrite with only having to handwave/ignore one element --- and you could do that either way.
So it isn't delusion and you're not necessarily right. You came to a conclusion based on your interpretation of the 'facts' of the episode, and other people came to their own. In a show that was slowly (too slowly, I would argue, but still doing so) working towards making a case that Sam rather enjoyed 1973, loved the people there, and could never truly go home again, the majority of fandom chose to interpret the lead-up and Sam's actions as those of a hero. And because most people in the fandom rather enjoyed and loved 1973 and its characters too, they were as real, if not more real than anything in 2006, they agreed with that, with Sam finding his place.
I know. That's what I mean when I say I can't really let this go. ;-)
>There are no hard and fast facts of the episode.
There are some. Enough of them to make the fandom mainstream interpretation factually wrong, IMO. Doesn't take *many* facts, if the few that there are are strong enough.
The central facts in this case being
1.) the imaginary nature of 1973, and 2.) the suicide, which *within the moral and narrative framework established by the show itself* - "We don't jump, because we're not cowards"; "Whatever strange place you find yourself in, *make* that your home"; "I'll never stop fighting" etc.; & the impression, created by the 'coma voices' we heard, that there are people who care about Sam, and the impression, created by John Simm's acting and by the scripts up to 2.08 that Sam cared about people in 200whatever, etc. - cannot, really, be interpreted as 'right'. Arguably, there's also 3.), the fact that the 'dilemma' that led to Sam's having to 'sacrifice himself', is so obviously and badly manufactured instead of having developed naturally from what went on before, but that is not quite as hard a fact as the other two, so I'm willing to let that one go. But the other two are more than enough to label as wrong any reading that refuses to acknowledge that what happened there was wrong for the character and for the show - in the sense of essentially invalidating what the character and the show seemed to have been about until that point.
This doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to feel happy about it (as, I think, I've tried to explain many times). It just means that there *is* such a thing as the text, which, although open to a certain range of interpretation, is not open to *limitless* interpretation. (I know, how anti-postmodern of me...) Readers are still entitled to do whatever they want with a text, and to feel whatever they want about it - but that doesn't change the essential limits of the text itself. Which means that some interpretations, including the mainstream fandom interpreation of the ending of 2.08, are not actually supported by the text and are thus, essentially, fanon.
Which is completely fine. Half of Highlander fandom lived in a fanon in which Richie Ryan never died; Farscape, obviously, went through a denial phase after 4.22 and the cancellation and so on; and I am writing Sirius Black death denial fic in Harry Potter fandom (well, theoretically. I'm not really writing, just toying with the idea.)
What I find so irritating (apart from the *nature* of this particular denial and of the situation being denied - which, for reasons I've explained elsewhere at length, I find psychologically and morally disturbing in a variety of ways) is that fanon has become canon here - to the point where many people do not seem aware in the slightest that their fanon version of the show's reality jars with some central canon facts.
Do you really feel that there is any solid textual evidence for the happy interpretation?
I guess it depends a lot on whether you allow...hmpfSeptember 13 2009, 23:26:05 UTC
emotional bias as evidence. So "we liked Gene and co. so much that it effectively made them real to us even if the text as much as stated that they weren't" can be evidence. It isn't in my book, obviously, because to me, the emotional effect of a text is too subjective to be considered 'hard' evidence. Hard textual evidence to me is the stuff that stays on the page no matter who reads it, and "this character feels real to me" isn't on the page (or on the digital audiovisual storage medium. ;-)) But I suppose if you're more postmodern in your inclinations, you could argue that the emotional effect is inseparable from other elements of a text, and therefore can be considered as evidence just as much as any other part of the text and the reader's interaction with and experience of the text.
But that way lies the total loss of limits of interpretation, which eventually makes communication impossible. I remain convinced that some things are more objectively factual than others, and some readings more factually supported than others. Even in a realm as 'non-factual' as fiction.
Re: Well...lozenger8September 14 2009, 07:55:19 UTC
There are some. Enough of them to make the fandom mainstream interpretation factually wrong, IMO.
Emphasis on the 'in your opinion'. Because the next facts you state? Not facts! Your interpretation of what's implied? Yes. But facts? Not so much.
1) We don't know for sure that 1973 was imaginary. Sorry, but we don't. There's nothing to prove it was real, but equally there was nothing to prove it wasn't either.
We don't even know if Sam ever really woke up, because it's very strange that Morgan was his surgeon, that he had longer sideburns, that he was in 'Hyde Ward 2612'. There is a surreality to that sequence that very much suggests a degree of unreliable narration.
2) We don't know it's suicide --- especially if Sam never actually made it back to 2006.
We were given contradictory statements all through Life on Mars. We were told from the beginning that Sam 'chose' to transfer to 1973, that maybe he likes it there, that even if he went back, things would not be the same. We were told that feelings and instincts were important, that friendship was to be valued. We were shown Sam building relationships with the '73 characters.
The only actual people Sam hears from 2006 are his mother, Maya and doctors --- and we have no idea if those voices were real or all in Sam's head. I point to the dinner scene of 1.07 for proof of more unreliable narration --- Sam hears Pulp, but when we cut to Gene, the diegetic music is some random 70s easy listening track. I also point to the fact that Sam sees the test card girl.
One interpretation is that it's all imaginary. Another might be that Sam's accident/the effects of genuine time travel or parallel dimension hopping have caused Sam to hallucinate --- neither are explicitly confirmed nor denied.
So. My point still stands. There were enough strange anomalies, hell, call them anachronisms or errors, that you could interpret however the hell you want. No one interpretation is the right one.
I guess my real point is that we don't exactly have a canon ending of the show at all --- because there's layer upon layer of unreliablity and complete lack of evidence to validate any 'canonical' reading.
Hahahahah... (I'm laughing at myself, not at you. I disagree with you, but not maliciously, so I wouldn't laugh at you. I'm laughing because, well, I read your comment this morning and then went to a doctor's appointment, and all the way there *and* all the way back I feverishly collected arguments, which I scribbled down on countless little scraps of paper I found in my backpack. I am like a frelling robot on this topic: push my buttons, and I jump. Really, I'm beyond ridiculous. - Okay, on second thought, maybe I'm laughing a bit at us both, as you seem to have a teeny tiny bit of the same compulsion. ;-))
So... I don't have time today to actually type up all of these arguments I collected (plus the ones still in my head), because I have urgent job search stuff to do today, and the next few days are mostly filled with political protests and stuff (yep, I'm quite officially an activist now.) Also, I don't think another round of the old dance would really do either of us much good (I know I kind of dreaded getting a reply yesterday, because I knew I would feel compelled to reply in turn, etc.) So, maybe I should just channel that energy into my exorcism meta essay sometime...
(If you would like to know what I *would* have replied - but you probably know already - please refer to any "where is this ambiguity you speak of"-themed post I've made in the past... ;-))
BTW, I find disagreeing with you much less aggravating than disagreeing with much of the rest of the fandom. But then, of course, our disagreement lies in a different, much less essential area.
I just told you where some of the ambiguity is! GRAH! hahahaha :p
No, seriously, we both have a problem here.
I obviously totally and absolutely share your interpretation of events, some of the time. I do! That's why I hate the ending/S2 as an arc in so many ways, because it neither proves nor disproves any one theory --- but I feel, because of sloppy writing and laziness, that it definitely lends itself more to the negative interpretation. Well, it does for me. You have to do at least some very obvious handwavey stuff to argue 1973 is real, real, real, at any rate. And if '73 isn't real in some way and Sam absolutely knew this and decided to jump? Yeah, I'm against that, as you know. (At the same time, I still don't think we've conclusive proof it isn't, and I am sticking by my guns here, Hmpf!) But I can see why other people interpret the show differently, I don't think there's any lack of understanding or completely wilful ignorance there --- I just think those people concentrate on other aspects of the story.
So many of us wanted Sam to go back to 1973. And he did. And that was wonderful for those of us who wanted that. Sam sacrificed himself in one world to save another --- and there was no death, we never saw one. For all we know, Sam jumped through a time portal. For all we know, he's a mess of blood and guts on the ground. None of us truly know what happened, not even Matthew Graham himself, because it wasn't explicit to the nth degree (deliberately not explicit to the nth degree!) and there were enough strange anomalies that you could do a quick rewrite with only having to handwave/ignore one element --- and you could do that either way.
So it isn't delusion and you're not necessarily right. You came to a conclusion based on your interpretation of the 'facts' of the episode, and other people came to their own. In a show that was slowly (too slowly, I would argue, but still doing so) working towards making a case that Sam rather enjoyed 1973, loved the people there, and could never truly go home again, the majority of fandom chose to interpret the lead-up and Sam's actions as those of a hero. And because most people in the fandom rather enjoyed and loved 1973 and its characters too, they were as real, if not more real than anything in 2006, they agreed with that, with Sam finding his place.
Reply
I know. That's what I mean when I say I can't really let this go. ;-)
>There are no hard and fast facts of the episode.
There are some. Enough of them to make the fandom mainstream interpretation factually wrong, IMO. Doesn't take *many* facts, if the few that there are are strong enough.
The central facts in this case being
1.) the imaginary nature of 1973, and
2.) the suicide, which *within the moral and narrative framework established by the show itself* - "We don't jump, because we're not cowards"; "Whatever strange place you find yourself in, *make* that your home"; "I'll never stop fighting" etc.; & the impression, created by the 'coma voices' we heard, that there are people who care about Sam, and the impression, created by John Simm's acting and by the scripts up to 2.08 that Sam cared about people in 200whatever, etc. - cannot, really, be interpreted as 'right'.
Arguably, there's also 3.), the fact that the 'dilemma' that led to Sam's having to 'sacrifice himself', is so obviously and badly manufactured instead of having developed naturally from what went on before, but that is not quite as hard a fact as the other two, so I'm willing to let that one go. But the other two are more than enough to label as wrong any reading that refuses to acknowledge that what happened there was wrong for the character and for the show - in the sense of essentially invalidating what the character and the show seemed to have been about until that point.
This doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to feel happy about it (as, I think, I've tried to explain many times). It just means that there *is* such a thing as the text, which, although open to a certain range of interpretation, is not open to *limitless* interpretation. (I know, how anti-postmodern of me...) Readers are still entitled to do whatever they want with a text, and to feel whatever they want about it - but that doesn't change the essential limits of the text itself. Which means that some interpretations, including the mainstream fandom interpreation of the ending of 2.08, are not actually supported by the text and are thus, essentially, fanon.
Which is completely fine. Half of Highlander fandom lived in a fanon in which Richie Ryan never died; Farscape, obviously, went through a denial phase after 4.22 and the cancellation and so on; and I am writing Sirius Black death denial fic in Harry Potter fandom (well, theoretically. I'm not really writing, just toying with the idea.)
What I find so irritating (apart from the *nature* of this particular denial and of the situation being denied - which, for reasons I've explained elsewhere at length, I find psychologically and morally disturbing in a variety of ways) is that fanon has become canon here - to the point where many people do not seem aware in the slightest that their fanon version of the show's reality jars with some central canon facts.
Do you really feel that there is any solid textual evidence for the happy interpretation?
Reply
But that way lies the total loss of limits of interpretation, which eventually makes communication impossible. I remain convinced that some things are more objectively factual than others, and some readings more factually supported than others. Even in a realm as 'non-factual' as fiction.
Reply
Emphasis on the 'in your opinion'. Because the next facts you state? Not facts! Your interpretation of what's implied? Yes. But facts? Not so much.
1) We don't know for sure that 1973 was imaginary. Sorry, but we don't. There's nothing to prove it was real, but equally there was nothing to prove it wasn't either.
We don't even know if Sam ever really woke up, because it's very strange that Morgan was his surgeon, that he had longer sideburns, that he was in 'Hyde Ward 2612'. There is a surreality to that sequence that very much suggests a degree of unreliable narration.
2) We don't know it's suicide --- especially if Sam never actually made it back to 2006.
We were given contradictory statements all through Life on Mars. We were told from the beginning that Sam 'chose' to transfer to 1973, that maybe he likes it there, that even if he went back, things would not be the same. We were told that feelings and instincts were important, that friendship was to be valued. We were shown Sam building relationships with the '73 characters.
The only actual people Sam hears from 2006 are his mother, Maya and doctors --- and we have no idea if those voices were real or all in Sam's head. I point to the dinner scene of 1.07 for proof of more unreliable narration --- Sam hears Pulp, but when we cut to Gene, the diegetic music is some random 70s easy listening track. I also point to the fact that Sam sees the test card girl.
One interpretation is that it's all imaginary. Another might be that Sam's accident/the effects of genuine time travel or parallel dimension hopping have caused Sam to hallucinate --- neither are explicitly confirmed nor denied.
So. My point still stands. There were enough strange anomalies, hell, call them anachronisms or errors, that you could interpret however the hell you want. No one interpretation is the right one.
I guess my real point is that we don't exactly have a canon ending of the show at all --- because there's layer upon layer of unreliablity and complete lack of evidence to validate any 'canonical' reading.
Reply
So... I don't have time today to actually type up all of these arguments I collected (plus the ones still in my head), because I have urgent job search stuff to do today, and the next few days are mostly filled with political protests and stuff (yep, I'm quite officially an activist now.) Also, I don't think another round of the old dance would really do either of us much good (I know I kind of dreaded getting a reply yesterday, because I knew I would feel compelled to reply in turn, etc.) So, maybe I should just channel that energy into my exorcism meta essay sometime...
(If you would like to know what I *would* have replied - but you probably know already - please refer to any "where is this ambiguity you speak of"-themed post I've made in the past... ;-))
BTW, I find disagreeing with you much less aggravating than disagreeing with much of the rest of the fandom. But then, of course, our disagreement lies in a different, much less essential area.
Reply
No, seriously, we both have a problem here.
I obviously totally and absolutely share your interpretation of events, some of the time. I do! That's why I hate the ending/S2 as an arc in so many ways, because it neither proves nor disproves any one theory --- but I feel, because of sloppy writing and laziness, that it definitely lends itself more to the negative interpretation. Well, it does for me. You have to do at least some very obvious handwavey stuff to argue 1973 is real, real, real, at any rate. And if '73 isn't real in some way and Sam absolutely knew this and decided to jump? Yeah, I'm against that, as you know. (At the same time, I still don't think we've conclusive proof it isn't, and I am sticking by my guns here, Hmpf!) But I can see why other people interpret the show differently, I don't think there's any lack of understanding or completely wilful ignorance there --- I just think those people concentrate on other aspects of the story.
Reply
Leave a comment