posted
I forget where I read it--I think OSC--but someone once wrote that the writer has a kind of implied contract with the readers. Although the "terms" of this contract undoubtedly vary a little bit between cultures, they are well set and easily understandable in American culture. Readers promise to buy books, and writers agree to provide a story with certain recognizable elements, most notably characters of some kind, writing in understandable English, and a story arc with a beginning, middle, and end that sets up, advances, and then resolves some kind of conflict affecting the characters.
OSC (or whoever wrote this insightful analogy) noted that the writer can breach this contract if he chooses, but he must pay the price of the readers' anger. The grand finale of the television series "The Sopranos" provides the best proof of this proposition that I've ever seen.
Not to spoil it for those who haven't seen it and wish to watch it, I will limit my comments to saying that the ending blatantly violates this contract. There are characters that the audience cares about, there are series-long conflicts that affect them deeply, there is an identifiable beginning, middle, and end phase to the story--but no resolution.
The response to this breach of contract has been amazing. Angry fans crashed HBOs website. Phone lines are at full capacity as the disgruntled complain to each other. The ending is incredibly thoughtful, artful, intelligent, and consistent with the story--but it violates the contract. And the people are very, very angry.
posted
Here I go again commenting on a subject I know nothing about. I've never seen the The Sopranos outside the clips occasionally shown here and there. Personally, I never understood why the mafia is glorified as some form of heroic lifestyle. Why shouldn't a story about breaking the law, break the unwritten rules to the viewer?
But, as they quiped on the Today show, they might be setting themselves up for a movie. And the passion this ending has stirred is probablly, if anything, flattering to the writers. They say that there is no such thing as bad publicity. With this stunt, they generate buzz, free advertising. Game, set and match.
Needless to say, if Lost ends this anticlimacticly, I'll be miffed!
quote:But, as they quiped on the Today show, they might be setting themselves up for a movie. And the passion this ending has stirred is probablly, if anything, flattering to the writers. They say that there is no such thing as bad publicity. With this stunt, they generate buzz, free advertising. Game, set and match.
Hmm, tell that to scifi channel. They killed Farscape without an ending at all..."To be continued"...and lost a large number of viewers (myself included). They did come back with a mini-series to finish off the show, but at that point it was too late. Once someone looses trust in someone to hold up to their side...you never really get it back.
This is true with writing as well. By breaking the contract with the reader and thus gaining their anger, you can bet that they will not buy anything of yours in the future. I would bet they would make it known to others how they were upset and encourage others to avoid your writing as well.
I don't mind that scifi channel gave me a reason to ignore them. Now the shows I am slightly interested in, I record for when I feel like viewing it. I expect little, and tend to watch much less.
posted
And yet it goes on and on, and seems to get more common. I refuse to watch most of the modern TV shows that are nothing more than prime time soap operas in my opinion. This includes Lost, Sopranos, 24, Heroes, and anything else that requires constant and loyal viewership each and every week. I just can't guarantee I'll be able to watch every week, not to mention that I may lose interest in the show and then feel I've really wasted my time. Even if I record these shows, I can't guarantee I'll have the time, or inclination to watch them. I'd rather read a good book or write.
But I must be in the minority because these shows continue to be put out. Now we've got The Riches, and The Starter Wife, and who knows what else will follow. Like it or not, a lot of the newer shows are going to follow the same formula, and whether they are cancelled or just end, don't expect them to have a satisfying finish. The trend now is toward the soap opera formula, and it seems to be working. If it wasn't, viewership wouldn't be what it is.
The fact is that this must be what the majority of TV viewers want now, just like a while back Reality shows were the craze. If it wasn't, nobody would be watching them or be so upset with a bad ending.
And books are following TV in some respects. I hate picking up a book thinking I'm buying and reading a self contained story, only to find out that the story actually covers three or more volumes, and nothing truly gets resolved in the one I bought. I get really peeved at this especially when I find out that the rest of the story hasn't even been written yet, knowing it may never get published.
But once again, these books continue to get published and written, and these TV shows get produced and aired, and as long as people continue to buy these books and watch these shows, it'll continue. Then something different will come along to replace it.
What's really sad to me is that old wise axiom of finish what you start seems to be getting lost now. Now it's ok not to really finish anything it seems.
posted
The reaction is not surprising, though it is troubling. Such anger generated over a bunch of fictional characters. How is it these people come to emotionally invest so heavily in something not even real? I don't get it, but it would be interesting to know just how "invested" these same people are in social and political concerns we are faced with for real. I would bet many of them have taken flight from real concerns and have found a safe haven in the non-threatening world of TV fiction.
[This message has been edited by nitewriter (edited June 12, 2007).]
posted
I've heard that the writers of Lost and Heroes (shows I don't watch but am aware of) have taken seriously some viewer feedback that has indicated they must at least provide some resolution to some of the many plotlines or their viewers will jump ship. There's only so much suspense and so many unanswered questions that people are willing to take, and I think many of these shows have really pushed and pushed beyond what people are comfortable with. People will hang on for a little longer to hopefully reach resolution, but after long breaks (summer, mid-year hiatuses) - they'll lose viewers and never get them back. Plus, with these intricately woven plotlines, it makes it next to impossible to pick up in the middle of the story. I gave a try at Heroes this year once, but couldn't pick up all the threads and found that annoying, so I gave up.
I recently read two books - Inkheart and Inkspell - that did what another poster mentioned - they only partially resolve some of the plots, leaving plenty of really wide gaping holes and lack of resolution, to the point where I'm ANNOYED! I will probably read the third (on the hope that it's the final volume) when it comes out, but I won't buy it this time. Too irritated!
I contrast this w/the Harry Potter books (yes, I know not everyone is a fan - please spare that line of argument, I'm using it as a specific example) where I feel that the author does a good job of each book having solid resolution, although of course there are the overall themes of fighting evil, who can/should be trusted, loyalty, etc. that arc throughout all the books.
The difference I see is that the primary conflict of each novel is resolved WITHIN that novel, IMHO. Perhaps the issues I have with inkheart/inkspell is that the author didn't do a good job of distinguishing between the overarching themes she wanted to explore and the detailed conflict for each novel. Or, worse, left the conflict open! In the second book, the characters start in a foreign land, scared and on the run from the bad guys. Guess where they end? In the foreign land (more of them are together now, at least, <rolling eyes> ) - on the run from the bad guys!! Gaa! Annoying.
At any rate, back to Sopranos, I don't watch the show so I don't really know (but my husband does, so I saw the ending - several times as he rewound and replayed in disbelief.) My sense from him was that the problem was a gradual and growing tension the director was crafting in those final scenes that was geting to an unbearable level...and then the show cut out, almost mid-thought/scene/etc. He was left feeling cheated - all that tension built, but no resolution, no release, no relief.
posted
When it comes to popular TV, I doubt I have seen a popular show since the first season of the simpsons. I have not seen the Sopranos, nor have seen clips. I did hear on the radio that everybody knocked off this season had ticked Tony off at some time during an episode in some season.
As to continuing stories, I have hated books that ended with what amounts to saying "I will tie up all these loose ends in the next book." I like series where each book stands on its own, but builds on previous stories. Series like Peirs Anthony's XANTH series, or Anne McCaffrey's PERN series, operated like this. Each book separate, readable on their own, but adds to the whole history.
posted
I didn't see it---I gave up HBO years ago in a cost-cutting period---but I can get the gist of the argument from what I've seen and read.
I'll add two things. (1) It's a bad thing to cheat, confuse, or otherwise disrespect your viewers (or readers) when bringing something to an end, and, from what I've seen, this is what the producers of "The Sopranos" have done. (2) But you can take cold comfort in the fact that, probably, no more than one in ten Americans actually saw the damned thing---probably more people read or heard or watched TV stories on it than actually watched it.
It's not everyone's cup of tea here, I know. There's no one-size-fits-all show. Pleasing everyone, pleases nobody. It's the ticket to mediocrity.
But, the lesson, we all can learn, is to listen to feedback from your audience. Assuming any of us will ever get an audience, don't be a George Lucas!!!
posted
Anyone remember the end of Star Trek: The Next Generation? The studio definitely wanted a movie after the series was over, but the writers still managed to have a really good, kick-butt, series finale. They let the fans have an end to the series, with the possibility of a movie. But if a movie never happened, it would have been all right.
Okay, disclaimer here. Never seen the Sopranos. Never had any desire to. That said, I've kept up on the controversy surrounding the last episode. Yeah, they want a movie. So what. I think they had seven or eight seasons, and they just stopped it. You can tie up things and leave enough open for a movie without doing what they did.
Yes, as a writer you want to leave your audience wanting more. But you don't want to completely tick off your audience either. You have to give them some of what they want.
I was listening to a guy named Rusty Humphries on the radio, and he said the last episode of the Sopranos was nothing more than an hour long commercial for the movie. He said that the right way to end that show would to have his kids get killed in mob violence, then have the dad mourning and wondering if the life he chose was right. If all the violence and death were worth it. THAT would have been an ending.
I'm just glad I didn't invest my time and emotion in that show. Anyone remember the ending to Sliders? No ending. Very upsetting.
posted
You know, maybe the Soprano's turned science fiction in the last second. Maybe somewhere out in space an extraterrestrial was doing an experiment with the fabric of the universe and space-time collapsed. Thus the blackout.
Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were many jems in the last three seasons to be sure, but the show had started to show signs of wear. Of course, I've watched each episode one too many times so that I had my fill, and the death nail came when Michael Richards went on his rant. I can't blame the rest of the cast, but then Kramer was my favorite character, and it soured me completly after that. I know, I know: Desour!
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited June 18, 2007).]
posted
If it matters to you then don't desour because what he said was really stupid. If it makes you "feel" wrong/dirty to enjoy Kramer then don't. I personally believe that knowing the actor's private life doesn't have to affect your views of the character but it can and it does for me. For example I can't watch rosie o'donnell and if she's the new Price is right person I'll never watch that show again.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Usually, I can differentiate the person from thier body of work, especially if one has no bearing on the other. Like, Ellen. Her act is surprisingly clean and one of the funniest I've ever seen. I like her as a person. Of course, she's made some personal choices that I don't agree with. But then again, she doesn't answer to me, nor should she. It's not for me to decide her lifestyle. The same could be said of the string of Hollywood express marriages or even Card's elitist views on "free" trade (the latter having a direct bearing on my life).
But, I guess with Michael Richards, I felt betrayed somehow. Maybe it was the degree of virulence and hate. Then again, one can hear the same in rap, but for some reason, few turn away from that with the same fervor.
posted
I like Ellen too, whereas Rosie grates on me. Maybe it was the whole Tom Cruise thing, like she wasn't just in the closet, she had painted the closet to look like a window or something. And I guess it went beyond that, I bought into her personna as being a person who is discriminated against because of her weight and resigned to unrequited love for the rest of her life. Plus all her political views that I don't agree with, but again, those don't bug me in just anyone.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinda straying into overt political discussion, but...well, I can't stand Rosie either, something that stems not from recent political commentary but from her previous stint as a morning talk show host. Too oily for me...hardly any of them stand up under long term viewing for me. And because of this, a lotta details about her life and behavior and politics came out, more stuff I couldn't stand about her.
On a non-political issue, closer to the thrust of this thread...I thought the ending of "Newhart" was a classic. Funny, clever, harked back to other work Bob Newhart had done...and, above all, didn't insult the viewers.
posted
As a writer, I try to know where I'm going with a story. That sometimes changes along the way, but I think I can tell when a writer starts a story with no idea what is going to happen next, or drops a McGuffin in the reader's lap with no idea what the McGuffin will turn out to be. I think the hatchway in the ground in Lost was just such a McGuffin, and I think the writers of Lost got wise fast to the fact that they needed to prove that they had an end in sight.
Heroes, 24, and Babylon 5 have all had very satsifying season endings. If you missed Heroes, buy the DVD. On the other hand most tv serials are just playing the viewer along for as many seasons as they can keep the viewer hooked. I'm watching Season Seven of The X-Files now on DVD, and it's awful.
In sf, Gene Wolfe is one of my favorite writers, because even when I can't figure out what he is doing, I am sure that he knows exactly what he is doing. On the other hand, George R. R. Martin seems to be just writing, and most of the other long fantasy writers are worse.
I know that I loose some readers when, for example, I have a character say something that is not true, or have a character speak differently depending on who he is talking to. But people do talk differently when speaking to people of their own social class, than they do speaking to people of a different social class. My dialog has got to reflect that. And people do lie to themselves and to others. If my character is in a situation where a real person would lie, he lies. And god forbid I should say, "I'm innocent," Joe lied.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
