I touched on this earlier with my Harry Potter post but I feel it has value to be examined in further detail as to what I mean.
Star Wars/Star Trek
Normally I would run a mile when examining things like this because anyone (and I mean anyone) who is a hardcore fan of these films/series gets very worked up when an outsider deigns to write a piece on them but here goes...
I have picked these two as they are probably the best known to the general public. Both have spawned a mythology that vastly exceeds the core body of work that originally existed, and that in turn has lead to the official production of more material that continues to perpetuate that world. For example there are ship plans for the various craft that appear, languages, races with physiology and cultures, history that far exceeds what the original creators ever laid out for them. What is particularly interesting is that even when there is no official material being produced these universes continue to expand and grow organically through the input of fans - internet forums, conventions, all these add to the sense that these 'exist' and continue to be fleshed out.
In the case of Star Wars it is particularly interesting that George Lucas went back in time with his films to flesh out the pre-history rather than going forward and expanding on what happened to the Empire after the rebels won. Did the rebels take control? Did the Empire cling on to power? I know that there are some books out there that expand on these possibilities but what Lucas did very cleverly is leave it open ended. Star Trek is the same. There is no overall goal in Star Trek to be achieved. It just goes on.
Harry Potter
This is where Rowling failed so utterly. She tacked an ending on to satisfy herself without any real understanding of what this would do to the fan base. To have left it open ended would have given rise to an infinite number of possibilities. Did the Death Eaters all fade away? Did the Ministry stay as it was? What did Harry do once he had completed his tasks? It wasn't as if she caught up with them a year after, or a couple of years down the line. Effectively with this trite ending she had written off a significant chunk of the principle characters lives with a stroke of her pen.
It is so a missed creative opportunity to expand on the whole world she had spent 7 books establishing, to expand on the hints of mythology she had given glimpses of. An infinite world of possibility ended at the stroke of a pen.
Was it a lack of will or ideas I wonder?
Posted by AlexC at August 7, 2007 12:58 PMMy guess is that she really wanted the closure for her own sake. Some writers write more for their own satisfaction than for their readership's pleasure.
Stephen King springs to mind as a case in point, especially his Dark Tower series.
Posted by: Harvey at August 8, 2007 01:46 AMIt's a fair point Harv but why drag it out then? The style of the books after 4 had changed so much I began to doubt it was her writing them.
I remember reading a little bit about "Lost" and how they had a beginning, middle and end - they just needed to fill in the bits in between, but also I remember reading the Rowling had "no idea" how Harry Potter was going to end.
King always had the conclusion of the Dark Tower series in mind (he was interviewed about his writing on some cable channel) - what he didn't have was the getting to the end. That writing was organic (his own words) - it just went where it went which was why it took him so long to finish it and also why he drew on his own mythology even when not writing about the world of Roland.
It doesn't get me any closer to a satisfactory answer though, nor explain the need to totally dead end something that had so much going for it really.
Posted by: Alex at August 8, 2007 11:06 PM