Mini discussion post because I saw these tweets from one of the Season 3 writers yesterday and downloaded twitter just to look into them myself.
(Warning: Talk of N*il G*iman Below)
If we're to take these tweets at face value, that no one altered the bones of the story, neither Peter Atkins, Michael Marshall Smith, or the TP estate, then that confirms that the ending we received was entirely Gaiman's.
FOR THE RECORD! The purpose of this post isn't to guilt or influence the opinion of those who liked S3, but to discourage the very vocal few who like to throw Sir Terry's name around and act like being anything but happy and grateful for the finale is some kind of moral failing.
Having this fact confirmed didn't surprise me, but the way people have been talking about S3's ending being "What Terry would have wanted" you'd think the writers had been working off some secret, hand-written draft for a sequel made in secret by Terry himself.
So the point of this post is just to honestly acknowledge S3's authorship. I'm personally not of the opinion that it has to effect your enjoyment of the ending if you're one of the people who did enjoy it. I'm a lover of S2 myself, and I consider it pretty significantly in my own GO canon, but you would never see me insisting upon it in regards to it being what Terry Pratchett would have wanted for the series.
Because we don't know that.
You can love the show for expanding the story and trying new things, you can compare themes to the sorce material, make connections where others might not, and agree or disagree artistically the choices that were made for his characters. Criticize, analyze or praise it all you like. That's what I do! And what I'll continue to do now that the story is over.
But at the end of the day, when you drop into the comments of posts critiquing S3 and say with your whole chest that this ending is "what Terry Pratchett would have wanted", what you're really saying with your whole chest is that you trust Neil Gaiman to have decided honestly what Terry would have wanted.
Which, I suppose is up to your individual discretion. But even if you're somehow one of the people who still tolerates that man, he's not, and never will be, some all knowing creative executor of Terry's will.
Especially considering they seemed to have butted heads on one of the more under-acknowledged but significant aspects of the book's ending.
(From an interview with Sir Terry)
Something as simple as insisting (gun to his head) that they go out of their way to make sure everyone had a happy ending, and even writing it in such a way that the readers knew for sure that was the case, is a detail I think really separates Gaiman's and Terry's intentions to their readers.
And that is still also NOT me trying to insist either which way what direction Terry would have wanted a potential sequel to go, whether his ending would have been happy or equally as bittersweet. I just feel it's important to acknowledge small differences like that in how they made writing decisions, especially if you're going to consider Gaiman's ability to actually write with Terry in mind.
(I've also heard tell that Gaiman greatly exaggerated his relationship with Terry overall, but I'm personally not very familiar with any part of their connection to eachother outside of Good Omens, so I won't speak on that matter.)
TL;DR: Being on the side of the fandom that liked the finale does not make anyone the moral paragon and defender of Terry Pratchett's work they might think it does.
The only ending we can honestly and in good faith consider HIS, is the one he himself gave us. Which was the happy ending we see in the book and S1.
jbbartram-illu
izzy806
ellievsbear
stormborns
dailybridgerton
2087
janainaart
tangentwithtanner
