|
Which head did the mythical dog use to lick itself, and did the others
take offence at the time?
Of course if the dog had only one head there wouldn't be a problem. It's
the duplication which introduces it.
The same thing can happen with a story. If one should seek to impose a
conclusion upon events that already have one, difficulties ensue - but
only if the extra ending is an 'add on,' not an 'add in.'
Think of a simple computer program designed to execute a series of
functions before reaching the command 'stop.' If another 'stop' is
inserted earlier in the flow of instructions the program should still
run and dutifully end at the new stop point. Whatever else might
otherwise have happened afterwards can be ignored, because it will not
now have the opportunity to play out.
If, on the other hand, the intention were to expand the program, so as
to run beyond the original stopping point, then this moment must somehow
be by-passed and, to make any sense of the duplicate 'stop' instruction,
additional events written in.
So if you're telling a story and throw in an early closure (who hasn't?
"And they lived happily ever after. Night night." Lights out.), there is
no problem. Irrespective of what might have come next, it simply
doesn't. The story's over and nothing more needs to be accounted for.
But if you want to take the listener beyond chopping down the giant
beanstalk, say, then you have to account for the aftermath, and that
means filling time with additional events.
The McCanns and their entourage have clearly filled in a number of
events to occupy the time before Madeleine's reported disappearance,
with duplicated photography of Madeleine at duplicated Mini-tennis,
duplicated late-night crying and a duplicate trip to the beach, to say
nothing of duplicate sightings of her at different locations. All of
which can mean only one thing - that the conclusion to this story is an
'add on' and that the genuine ending is somewhere to the left of centre. |
