GWS Twisdom: Joyce Carol Oates, the Sopranos Ending and Authorial Intent
Friends, David Chase’s HBO program The Sopranos is widely hailed as one of the shows that ushered in the latest “golden age” of television. James Gandolfini portrayed Tony Soprano, a New Jersey man who spent his time caring for his family and his waste management business. Oh yeah…he was also a big-time player in the Jersey mob.
The Sopranos ran from 1999 to 2007 and has influenced countless dramas that followed. (Breaking Bad, in particular.) The final episode was highly anticipated and Mr. Chase did his duty, giving the story an ending that viewers wouldn’t soon forget:
Many were confused by the abrupt cut to black. Others figured there was a problem with their cable connection. The reaction bummed me out a little; I loved that Mr. Chase ended the show on his own terms and that he made an artistic choice.
Didn’t Mr. Chase experience every writer’s dream? Millions of people were hanging on his every word and have since spent the better part of a decade deciding what the piece means to them. “Masterofsopranos” offered my favorite analysis. Jamie Andrew produced a thoughtful explanation for Den of Geek!
Well, Mr. Chase offered some after-the-fact clarification with regard to Tony’s true fate. I’ve linked an article, but you know what? It doesn’t matter what Mr. Chase thinks. He was kind enough to give us the work and it now belongs to each viewer.
Now, I know that Twitter isn’t really good for much. It is, however, a means of communication and must have some intrinsic value. For instance, the great Joyce Carol Oates offered some ideas regarding the Sopranos finale that we should bear in mind:
Who cares what David Chase thinks happened at the end of "Sopranos"? Did Milton understand "Paradise Lost"? #IntentionalFallacy
— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) August 27, 2014
Intentional Fallacy: what the writer intends is not invariably what the writer can succeed in writing. Work of art must stand alone.
— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) August 27, 2014
In matter of "Sopranos" ending, it is disingenuous of the writer to say that his intended ending is the aesthetically plausible ending.
— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) August 27, 2014
Many ways of suggesting that Tony Soprano does not die but lives w/ the expectation of a violent death-ending of "Sopranos" not this.
— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) August 27, 2014
Ms. Oates retweeted this nugget of timeless wisdom:
@JoyceCarolOates Believe the tale not the teller.
— Scott Pryor (@profpryor) August 27, 2014
Ending of "Sopranos" replicates extinction of consciousness-brain-death of Tony Soprano. Ideal ending & long-awaited. Time has moved on.
— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) August 27, 2014
Either stories are totally contrived & (more or less) worthless-or they possess their own, interior integrity which author can't violate.
— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) August 27, 2014
Writing is a double-edged sword. Writers get the pleasure of sharing creations with readers…then the writer must accept that each reader invariably makes that creation their own. We thank Mr. Chase for giving us Tony and Paulie and Christopher and Carmela and Adriana (RIP), but his act of giving also means that they now belong to us.
Did Tony get shot? Your theory is worth just as much as the impulse that guided Mr. Chase during his long hours at the keyboard.
Leave a Reply