'House' finale: The fate of the doctor is revealed

'House' came to a close Monday night in a series finale that may divide some fans.

Greg Gayne/Fox/AP
In this image released by Fox, from left, Hugh Laurie, Omar Epps, Jennifer Morrison and Jesse Spencer are shown in a scene from the third season of "House, M.D."

The final chapter of House has been closed with the series finale, and the fate of Dr. Gregory House revealed. After eight years on the air (177 episodes), do you believe that this was a fitting end for television’s famed diagnostician?

Trapped in a burning building, House’s final battle for survival was played out in front of our eyes. With appearances from some familiar faces, both living and dead, it was left up to the famed diagnostician to save himself.

Reliving his final case in his conscience, House made the decision to save himself. Unfortunately, as Wilson and Foreman approached the building, House was engulfed in the flames – OR SO WE THOUGHT.

Taking a note from Sherlock Holmes, it was eventually revealed that House had actually faked his own death. Escaping from the back of the building, House wanted to spend the last remaining months of Wilson’s life with him.

Certainly an interesting ending, though one I doubt many saw coming. With the House series finale preceding a beautiful series retrospective, hopes were high that the series would be ended appropriately – but has it? While certainly the happiest of endings anyone could have imagined for the series, there will certainly be quite a few fans who were looking for more closure than was actually provided. While House certainly grew as this final season came to a close, it could be said that the character didn’t evolve to such a level that a motorcycle ride would be a fitting ending for what we see of the character.

Though the debate my continue for days, there’s only one question left to ask: Was this a fitting end to House?

Carpe diem!

Anthony Ocasio blogs at Screen Rant.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.