James Beach

Science Fiction, Fantasy, Nonfiction and More


Fade to Absence: The Sopranos ends

So, several years behind the rest of the so-called civilized world that includes America, I have finally watched the final episode of the Sopranos. Including it’s infamous ending, for which let’s just not bother with spoiler alerts because the show ended like 8 years ago.

In the ending, which has been built up to for years and specifically paved by the prior season, Tony Soprano is sitting in a diner with most of his nuclear family in a rare happy and peaceful moment when all is visibly okay. They are listening to “Don’t Stop Believing” on the table jukebox, a man with ambiguous and possibly ominous importance walks past him at the table, and his daughter Meadow is presumably about to enter the diner when…the screen cuts to black. And that’s it.

Which is kind of funny in it’s own way. A prank, a stunt ending. But as a story ending, it’s not satisfying. David Chase, the writer-director-producer, has said that he didn’t want a more resolved ending for artistic reasons. I’ve previously considered that this might really have been a cop-out, a way of avoiding the pressure to create an ending that would satisfy the viewers of a very beloved show. But I reserved judgement until now.

Death, randomness and the search for meaning has been part of this show from the beginning. And it continued and increased as the show went on. David Chase layers strong hints about the final scene throughout the earlier episodes that season. Characters repeatedly mention how when someone is killed, they might not even hear the shot. In an earlier episode, Tony Soprano’s own lieutenant Silvio only realizes that a shooting is occurring when he discovers the red fluid that’s splashed on his face is not wine, but someone else’s blood. Then in the episode right before the finale, Tony’s brother-in-law is shot *and then*, while dying, flashes back to talking with Tony about not even hearing the death shot. Finally, before the final scene, Tony’s nemesis Phil Leotardo is blindsided and falls dead without even seeing the gun – in front of what passes for Phil’s family, his mistress and her children in the car.

Several times also in the last episode, Tony Soprano does not notice people coming up behind him in public – building up the idea that he is perhaps distracted and unawares.

Also leading up to the finale, several other long-standing story tensions resolve. Soprano’s therapist finally ends her interaction with Tony. His own son AJ appears to finally have found a good course, and a good girl to travel on it with, and is at some peace. Tony Soprano’s frenemesis uncle, at the end of his own days in a state home, doesn’t even remember Tony – or his *own* life as a mob boss. He isn’t even angry.

The message being that all of these things we think are so important in life, both good and bad, are all dross, to be dropped off on our way to whatever else may happen. So why even bother with the ugliness? If none of it lasts anyway, why not live lightly and with love and beauty? A strong view, but one worth considering and with it’s own merits in a very real sense. A 21st century mafia-gilded Buddhist conversation.

So with all this build up towards a powerful ending, both in plot and theme, why end it so ambiguously? There was an ending right there – built up from the straight, conventional, and brilliant storytelling all the way to this point. It’s not like Chase chickened out because he didn’t *have* an ending, as I thought before seeing the last season. He has a *strong* ending there, that he meticulously built up to. Why end up denying the audience that climax?

The best clue I have been pointed to is from an interview with David Chase, where he said:

“There was so much more to say than could have been conveyed by an image of Tony facedown in a bowl of onion rings with a bullet in his head…The way I see it is that Tony Soprano had been peoples’ alter ego. They had gleefully watched him rob, kill, pillage, lie, and cheat. They had cheered him on. And then, all of a sudden, they wanted to see him punished for all that. They wanted “justice.” They wanted to see his brains splattered on the wall. I thought that was disgusting, frankly. […] The pathetic thing—to me—was how much they wanted his blood, after cheering him on for eight years.”

I think that David Chase was angry at his audience. For many years he gave them a humanized portrait of a sociopath, a man doing awful things to everyone around him, living as king rat among a crew of base parasites with their own deep human issues they compounded through denial. All the while, Tony justified it by being a family man. Many in the audience didn’t take this metaphor as a way to examine the ugliness we all can have in ourselves, that we can let run free by indulging in denial. Instead, they appeared to skip Chase’s intended points to enjoy the vicarious thrills and dreams of being a mob boss. To live the fantasy of being powerful, brutal and unbound by conscience, while able to retain just enough fingernail’s grasp on their conscience to exercise it in ineffective ways. And most of that to obtain an “I’m really a good guy inside” excuse to continue acting like a horrible asshole the rest of the time. The Archie Bunker problem, where people can take a humanized portrait of a person gone wrong and agree with his wrongness rather than go through painful recognition of that wrongness in themselves.

The time-honored way for humans to vicariously enjoy a character doing horrible things and still feel good about themselves and the world, is to ultimately experience and relish the destruction of that character. Internally, they get to binge on those feelings they deny they have, and then purge them so they feel they’ve purged their badness. Externally, they get to feel reassured that the world will by itself bring a justice which even Tony Soprano can’t deny.

And if the ending were to go in the other direction, the audience would see Tony have a relatively smooth ending for all the horrible shit that he put himself, his family, and the innocents around him through, and not get the point either.

So I do think this ending was in a real sense David Chase’s “fuck you” to his audience. “Yes there is an ending to this. And it’s really not that ambiguous. Tony Soprano is probably killed in that diner, in front of his family. But I’m choosing not to make that certain, because so many of you shown you’re not responsible enough to handle that resolution. You deserve to wonder, and not only because that’s how life really is, but because way too many of you enjoyed this show for reasons I don’t like.” And maybe he was even thinking “Hopefully, if I deny you some resolution here then you might not close the book on the ugliness in all of us that I tried to show you with 6 seasons of Tony Soprano and his gang of colorful sociopaths.”

And so, to that point, in a story sense it’s not a good ending. It’s a *deliberately bad* ending.

In which case, because I think I understand where the ending is coming from, I finally do artistically respect it. Because at least, it was not chickening out.

…ref for quote:

[Originally written on August 25th, 2015]


One piece of art over the line

An interesting thing just happened to me. It’s taken a long time to happen, and I didn’t even realize I was crossing this threshold until it was a second behind me, and it was done.

I don’t ever need to hear another Red Hot Chili Peppers song ever again.

Just like that, it just happened. It wasn’t even a choice, it was an after the fact report from something deep inside my psyche.

Something similar happened to me with Led Zeppelin, who I really enjoyed. One day I was driving somewhere, and a Led Zeppelin song came on the radio, and it was like a switch flipped. After all of the thousands of listenings, I had heard them exactly enough times. I had no need to hear a single song more.

And it doesn’t really make me sad. I still love Led Zeppelin. I’ve just heard all the Led Zeppelin I need to, and I’m complete. Maybe for the rest of my life. Or maybe just a cooling-off period of several years.

A lot of art can be the same. And that means a lot of writing. And that means making new things, changing things up. It means new works in the style of flavors we liked in the past.

This is the progression of many human things. I think in all of us to some degree, and definitely in many of us to a strong degree, there is a satisfaction of things that can be reached. And at that point, if not before, there is not just a desire but a need for something new.

Here’s to finding those new things we enjoy, and making those new things we enjoy making.


A salute to a great and difficult man

Harlan Ellison, RIP.

What else is there to say of a fantastic writer and a legendarily irascible persona?

There is the memoriam from an excellent modern writer, Cory Doctorow. He salutes Ellison’s great talent and also addresses his prickly nature. Others have pointed out that Ellison as a teacher was, in a common human blindspot, exhibiting exactly t he same bullying behaviors he hated in early teachers of himself.  https://boingboing.net/2018/06/28/rip-harlan-ellison.html

There’s also Ellison’s own words on art and commerce, which really should be required listening for artists in our world, whether they agree or disagree.

Just Pay the Writer. 

But the most suitable words I’ve found yet are other words of Ellison’s own, which come from being asked his thoughts on the creative giant Philip K. Dick.

What you’re asking is really two questions: What I think of him as a writer and what I think of him as a human being. As a writer, he was one of the great innovators. He was sweet, man, an absolutely individual talent, and I admired at least 80% of what he wrote.

…As for the human being, it’s an entirely different answer. When he wanted to be charming, he could be. …

You know what? I’m not going to answer. It doesn’t matter what I think. He could do you a solid or be a very unpleasant person. Like Frank Sinatra. Or God…Phil, like God or Frank Sinatra — they’re all deities.

Mr. Ellison, wherever you are, you were a truly magnificent bastard. Thank you for the work.



Trump so far: 3 weeks in review

So, 3 weeks in now to the Donald Trump presidency. Let’s review.

  • Trump has not even diversified and distanced himself from his businesses to the degree that he promised.

Which in itself would be completely insufficient to meet the Constitution anyway. Just noting he hasn’t even followed through on his completely insufficient lie.

  • Trump confirmed through his spokesperson that he will simply never release his tax return.
  • Trump, who is utterly reckless in every other subject he talks about, refused to criticize Putin to the point where he *equated the US with Putin’s dictatorship*. Repeatedly. On video.

This stands out enough that it seems likely there is some truly awful blackmail on Trump, or that $19b payment suggested in the intelligence memo is true. It could also be that he just has that huge a man-crush on Putin. Maybe all three.

Most importantly, regardless of why, it is 100% clear that  Trump can’t be trusted *even more than usual* on any topic involving Putin and thus Russia.

  • Trump just confirmed Betsy Devos for Secretary of Education – an appointee so completely unqualified that she couldn’t answer simple questions a grade school principal would have to know. Note that this goes far beyond politics. If she disagreed with politics she would have an answer that was disagreeable. *She lacked answers that would even show a basic knowledge.*

Devos has also contributed more to Trump and Pence than any other cabinet appointee in history.

It thus becomes pretty clear that she purchased this appointment, which will directly and negatively affect the futures of our nation’s children.

  • Trump has confirmed his complete and total disrespect for the rule of law, by:
    a) attacking judges who ruled against him
    b) publicly offering to attack state Senators who make things difficult for his buddies
  • Trump has confirmed his complete and total disrespect for simple facts, with not only the amazing “alternative facts” marathon, his attempts to dispute simple arithmetic with the inauguration count on which he *quadrupled* down – but the fact that Kellyanne Conway repeated the “Bowling Green Massacre” falsehood *three separate times* before she was busted on it.

Also note that Sean Spicer tried to say there was an Islamist attack in Atlanta *three times* before he was finally busted on it. The only terror attacks in Atlanta have come from right-wing Christians, who of course are always lone wolves.

  • Trump is not even *running* his administration. It appears that he didn’t even read the Executive Order he signed that put Bannon on the National Security Council.

He spends more time watching CNN and Fox than on policy, and his own people have confirmed repeatedly that he doesn’t like to read.

So once again, like GWB, his staff are running things. And they are apparently divided in two camps – Bannon’s camp and Priebus’ camp.

My takeaways:

  • We must continue to be focused on facts, and pursue them. But we also should not ever expect anything straightforward from this administration, or even anything consistently logical with their own perceived self interest.

We must walk the line of not normalizing this shit show, while also not being distracted from a pragmatic focus of what they’re doing behind the scenes.

  • We lost the Devos fight – the right way. We focused attention on what was exactly wrong about it, and we made sure it happened without any Democratic party help.

We need to continue this the entire way. If something is unacceptable, we must not accept it and we must make very clear why it is unacceptable.

  • They snuck in with a minority, and are governing like they’re a majority. They and their followers want to put a lot of things through while they have this chance. We must keep on top of these actions, and resist every inch of it.

This is the work.