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.
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