Well, for a lot of people it IS the only option.

In a lifetime of studying and teaching literature, I have never heard of this rule. There is no universal rule that says the reader must be more concerned with the fate of the characters than with the closure of the plot. Without a fully realized plot I am left with a writer who tells me about the characters instead…

hahaha - I love a good rejoinder.

Oh come on! It was a little teeny god in the machine that made his ears green.

I did not like the finale. I did not dislike it. I was disappointed with it.

Me too.

While I did not dislike the finale, I thought it was both weaker than the rest of the episodes and weak as a finale.

Yes.

And there's the truth of it.

Really? I don't read that into the comment at all.

Well. Although enlightenment definitely fits into the story (Cohle chases it and repels it in simultaneous gestures - it's GREAT writing and acting even when his dialogues fell into caricature - which they really did from time to time) I was referring to my own enlightenment (or lack thereof).

Hah. Made me laugh.

IMO, it WAS a mystery show.

We cling to many things - particulary the forms of things. Language, for instance. The form of a thing is an integral part of how it is understood. If you took the form from language, speech would become unintelligible. If you take the form from the narrative structures we use to understand stories … well …

That's twice I laughed at that.

Well, clearly I am unable to keep up with literary fashion. :/

Why on earth should one be "more concerned" with the characters than the plot? Is that some new rule no one told me about?

Oh, I "get" the destination. I feel that the trajectory and the eventual destination are … at odds, I suppose is the best way to put it.

Me either!

Okay, I'll be the voice of dissent.