Letters to the Editor
Wheatboy
Published Letters: 3 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Ambiguity
[Read the article: "The Sopranos" goes dark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are enough clues/hints/suggestions to suggest strongly that Chase either whacks Tony or wants us to find it a plausible ending. So far I haven't seen anything that would point the other way and rule it out. Thus it is fair to assume that's what happened, as I do. If Chase intended all the foreshadowing and hints as red herrings, then he's entrapped himself in them and I don't consider it my job, or anyone else's, to free him. He will have to live with this interpretation. Even if he explicitly denies it, and says that all the foreshadowing and clues are merely lies within the broader lie of fiction, that the counter customer (is he really identified as "Nick Leotardo" in the credits?) simply goes to the bathroom and is never heard from again, etc., I feel justified in saying that he made his bed and Tony now must sleep (like the fishes) in it.
I like this interpretation. Initially I was really annoyed by the ending. It didn't help that I wasn't paying enough attention and thus didn't realize that the blackout occurred as the camera was on Tony looking up, presumably at Meadow. Somehow I thought the last image was of Meadow running into the restaurant, which certainly wouldn't have suggested nearly as well that the blackout had to do with something happening to Tony. I pieced it together as I watched a second showing.
That Tony and Bobby's exchange about how "you'll never know it when it comes" was repeated in the previous episode is the strongest suggestion that Tony is killed. The clear focus on the two white customers (I have less faith in the black guys walking in) and Meadow's trouble parallel parking could certainly be red herrings, but as Chase gives himself no chance to pull the string and reveal them as such (which he could have done, quite fairly, for humor if the series didn't end), it seems to me they may be given credence. Miscellanea: I couldn't help thinking of Michael Corleone in Godfather I when the counter customer walks very mindfully to the bathroom, though it certainly seems unlikely there'd be a gun behind the toilet. Are the labels on the jukebox colored orange? I think maybe they were, though my color perception isn't especially good. Having read about the significance of oranges, I couldn't help but notice broad expanses of orange boxes in the toy train store where Bobby is killed.
The cat was funny. I like an interpretation I've seen that it's a reincarnation of Adriana. It seems a stretch, all right, but it flatters me that she might reappear in some form in the finale. My first vision (from months ago) of the end of the series included an investigation that uncovered enough of the details of her murder to thoroughly sicken Carmela and wipe out the denial that the whole Soprano family lives with. That didn't happen, but the real ending, as I see it, is good, even better in a certain conceptual sense.
I rather liked that AJ was lured away from his social consciousness, which was always pretty incoherent to begin with, by the promise of working on a cheap movie. "It's all a big nothing" does hold true in relation to the moral development of just about every character. They keep being true to themselves, which is the worst way they could be. I'm not ready to accept that the ending is a "big nothing" in the sense of nothing happening beyond the eating of onion rings. I think the blackout is the "big nothing" of death.
-
P.S.
[Read the article: "The Sopranos" goes dark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Forgot to mention in my other letter that Phil was killed in front of family, suggesting that Tony might in fact have been killed in front of his in retaliation. If the hit had anything to do with Phil, that is. If there was a hit.
-
A cruel suggestion
[Read the article: Throw the bums out of baseball's Hall of Fame]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ejecting players from the Hall of Fame would be cruel to them and their families (or descendants) and friends. An obsessive urge to maintain "standards" is not worth this cruelty. Is it really this important to Lowenfish? Who would really gain from the ejection of "unworthy" members? A group of self-satisfied baseball mavens, not fans in general.
Furthermore, some of the players who don't really merit being in the Hall based on their performance were very personally popular in their time, played important roles on historically great teams, lucked into popular culture in interesting ways (e.g. Joe Tinker), or had skills which were valued in their time more than they would be now. Most didn't get in there by accident, though I suppose some of the Frisch cronies could be seen that way. Their stories continue to hold interest to fans, and their inclusion in the Hall serves as an invitation to fans to learn more about the history of baseball and its personalities.
High standards for new members are great. Retroactively applying them to people who are already in the Hall is cruel and pointless.