"Don't let this wind up being a contemplation on the nature of truth. 'Cause for all the interesting, chin-scratching, epistemological questions raised, at its core, 'Serial' is a whodunnit, and host Sarah Koenig promises that when it concludes, we, the audiences, will be presented with something resembling a conclusion."
From "A Psychological Explanation for Why ‘Serial’ Drives Some People Crazy" at New York Magazine.
8 comments:
You can read better — if you're interested in reality — in every volume of Federal Reporter, Third Series.
I've never listened to Serial. Never wanted to. If it's as interesting as an episode of This American Life, then I suppose I'm missing something...
Serial or philately? Decisions, decisions...
Serial is good. I've listened to all the episodes twice.
I've never listened to Serial but the NFC stuff was really interesting to me. I think my need for closure has definitely decreased as I've gotten older. (Btw I'm one of those youngish readers - 33 - who rarely comments. Hi.)
Hi, Kristin. Thanks for commenting while young!
You're welcome! Thanks for blogging. :) I've been reading almost since the beginning.
I don't really understand how it could be anything other than a meditation on truth, really. It's essentially about two competing accounts of what happened in a particular circumstance. It seems highly unlikely that Koenig will be able either to exonerate Syed or confirm Jay's account. Endings like "The Thin Blue Line"'s, when Errol Morris got the real culprit to confess on tape (spoiler alert), are one in a million, I should think.
Post a Comment