Totally get that. It's like I have this "Wait, Ben and Glory are related?" glamour about the end... it's in place most of the time.

It really was a fantastic show.

I think there's a distinction between happy and less sad, and I think the show was quite clear about him avoiding a deep unhappiness. (eta: to Liese, and not to disagree with you, Jen)

This is a fascinating conversation. I haven't seen more than a few episodes of either version of the show, but the debate reminds me of when Terry Gilliam said he thought BRAZIL had a happy ending because Sam did get away in the end, even if it was only in his own head.

Also, the REAPER premiere? Sock is just making me want to quit this show. Given how far they've come along with Morgan from CHUCK, I'd just like a little modulation here. Ray Wise is still awesome, however.

I think you can read LoM that way, Frank, but I don't think the show tries to convince you of that, which is the big distinction fo rme.

I guess that's the rub, though, because in real life people often enough feel that there's no way out of a deep unhappiness except for suicide. And that's a lie that steals a lot of lives.

In real life suicide doesn't mean another life somewhere else where you might one day achieve another kind of happiness. It's just a tragedy that may have been avoidable.

So for him to have chosen to remain in the 70s with it narratively being an actual sacrifice of his life instead of a metaphorical one somehow (Jen's mythical happy ending) means that I could not have been narratively satisfied with the story. It would have been problematic. For me. Just for me. I can see where people can react differently and be sad and yet narratively satisfied. But it wouldn't have worked that way for me.

I think the show was quite clear about him avoiding a deep unhappiness

I agree with that, ita. I think that's probably why it's so uncomfortable (for me) to think about. It was framed as the preferable choice in the context of the show. I mean, that's how it came across to me. And that was hard to swallow.

ETA: To make clear what I am agreeing with. Also to add that Liese says what I mean - in thinking about real world context, his choice is devastating.

But Liese, how can you say it's a lie that steals a lot of lives and a tragedy that may have been avoidable (emphasis mine)? It can't be both. Which is only tangentially the point, but I don't always believe there's another better way for the person involved. Sometimes there's just not. Are the decisions made always the right ones? Probably not. But they never always are. The nature of this beast, though, means no do-overs. Which is not the same thing as never being right. Although it is terribly terribly tragic.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I thought quite a bit about my phrasing (well, as much as one does posting on the internet) before I posted and that's why I modified it with "often enough," which admittedly was in the previous sentence.

Oddly enough for my situation I support the right of people to choose to die. I do think there are times and situations where people can rightfully choose that end for themselves. I believe this in the way it extends to choosing living wills and such as well as in suicide specifically.

That said, I still feel that it's often a really avoidable fate. And as you say, irreversible. I think the hurt that extends to people surrounding the person making the choice is an awful thing as well.

In the context we're discussing it, the choice appeared to give relief to one set of people, but leaves the other set behind.

The other thing is that I always have a problem with shows that conflate fantasy with mental illness, and while this is not exactly the case we're talking about here, it still hits my big red button.

Okay, I thought I was about to lose power there, so that last thought was a bit truncated. And I know I'm talking about a show I didn't watch, so I may be losing the thread here.

But if in the end he commits suicide to remain in the past, then the world of fantasy that he has entered dies with him in reality (okay, yes, fictional reality). And it strikes me the wrong way because it seems to me that the kids I know who have killed themselves did so partially because of a fantasy of what would happen (that they would be valued and appreciated after their death, that their death would give their life meaning, that people would care about them only if they died) but that fantasy of themselves died with them. In fact, people did care about them, but sadly did not adequately express that to them or provide for them in a way that allowed them to continue their lives. They were unable to see through their fantasy (nightmare) vision of their lives to find hope.

A storyline that begins and ends with the premise that suicide is the right choice in context of a fantasy causes problems for me.

Does that make any sense?