I think it's being a little disingenuous to describe Cohle's ending as a "slight acknowledge of the possibility of optimism." He's just had a transcendent experience that reversed his prior conviction that this life means nothing and that there is no next one. And he surely is intended to mean what he says in that night sky debate (not a problem that he borrowed it from Moore, more of a problem that it doesn't feel authentically earned in this story).
I like Roger Ryan's way of looking at this as a sort of
Blue Velvet-esque ludicrously upbeat ending, but the show's not half that clever (or is it naive?), certainly not in that way. In any case, Lynch isn't merely being ironic or referencing decades of false Hollywood happy endings -- he also sort of halfway really means it. With Lynch it's the forces of fully corny Technicolor light vs. the pitch black evil of the coming night. And they exist side by side. Nobody's winning. As for what Roger says about Cohle, yeah he'd still rather be dead. But now his death drive is powered by mystical love rather than exhausted emptiness, which seems like a huge difference to me.
Mr. Sausage wrote:...genre irony (setting up conventional scenes that it doesn't pay off),
This is an interesting way to look at some of the show's writing. And I agree with it up to a point. But if everything that ought to pay off and doesn't is all part of some higher plan to challenge our genre expectations, then it's also very easy to make this a catch-all excuse for some of the show's weaker storytelling.
True Detective really got me excited about the possibility of handmade auteur TV, with the same writer and director for all eight episodes. But I wonder if it isn't also pushing up against the limits of that way of working. The things I love about the show -- all that great atmosphere and character work and the challenging flashback structure of the rising action -- probably wouldn't have been hurt by allowing a few more collaborators into the writing process. Yet the things that aren't so great about it -- all the sloppy exposition when we start "turning over the cards," the rushed pace of the last few episodes, the numerous clues/details that felt un-thought through like the tail light or the green ears -- could very likely have been improved by having other people with whom he talked through the whole of the show. When you look at the DVD extras for shows like
Breaking Bad and see how they break story in the writers' room you realize that it's still 100% Vince Gilligan's show and his vision, but that it's also immeasurably improved by his eagerness to allow himself to be challenged and helped along by all of his trusted team, beginning with but not limited to his staff of writers. Heck, Gilligan even borrowed a crucial narrative development in the final two episodes from one of the show's fans. You really get the feeling on the other hand that Nic Pizzolatto was almost afraid in this case of having someone ask him a question like: "How can we get to the same place in a different way?" For an auteur like Vince Gilligan, more smart voices in the process aren't a threat or an obstacle, they're a key asset in the service of getting what he wants. It's great to have complete control over your material, even greater to cede some of that control voluntarily to improve the end result.