‘Succession’ Clears the Air: Here’s What to Read

This article includes spoilers for the series finale of “Succession.”

When a great and wealthy brute of a man such as Logan Roy dies, one expects there to be some kind of reading — a last will and testament, formal instructions to the executor of the estate, something that tells the family about his feelings. But Logan, never big on feelings, didn’t update his will, leaving in doubt his thoughts on a worthy successor and leaving his friends, family and associates to do “Sticker Perambulating Circuits,” or SPCs, to lay claim to any physical inheritance. (As for the Waystar Royco company itself? None of his children could manage to put a sticker on that.)

In lieu of a reading of a will, we are instead treated to a variety of readings from the “Succession” Thinkpiece Industry, as Daniel Fienberg, a TV critic at The Hollywood Reporter, called it. Below, we put stickers on some of the noteworthy recent features on the series coming to its end.

‘“Succession” Is Over. Why Did We Care?’ [NY Times]

The “billon-dollar question,” as Alexis Soloski puts it, has been answered — none of the Roys won the prize. A companion question, however, is why did we care so much?

“Writers have argued that we love ‘Succession’ because of what it says about America, what it says about class, what it says about money, family, trauma and abuse,” Soloski writes. “These characters are just like us. They’re not like us at all. They’re fake. They’re real. We hate them. We love them. We’re rooting for them. Are we? Did we? Why?”

‘The Great Genius of “Succession” Was Hovering Two Inches Above Reality’ [NY Times]

“Succession” did something none of its prestige-TV predecessors did, Kurt Andersen writes. In blurring fiction and reality in a fictional world, it created spot-on commentary about the same dance of fact and fantasy in the real world at a pivotal and disorienting time.

‘Critic’s Notebook: The “Succession” Series Finale Was a Brilliant Family Nightmare’ [The Hollywood Reporter]

The reason “Succession” will endure is because of things like “Sticker Perambulating Circuits,” argues Daniel Fienberg. “You might think you relate to the comic tragedy of their lives, to the quaint process of adhering stickers to the things that helps you remember the things and people you love, but their stickers aren’t your stickers and their tragedy isn’t your tragedy.”

‘Can You Have a Powerful Career and Still Be a Good Parent? “Succession” Has a Clear Answer’ [Politico]

When Tom unwittingly tells a pregnant Shiv, “I think you are maybe not a good person to have children,” it speaks to a recurring theme in “Succession” that “power and parenthood are incompatible,” writes Joanna Weiss.

“Ultimately, ‘Succession’ suggests that an intergenerational transfer of power is doomed by definition,” Weiss writes.

‘In the “Succession” Series Finale, the Poison Drips Through” [The Ringer]

Logan Roy didn’t just promise each of his kids — well, except for Connor — the chance to inherit his throne. He also made sure that they never could, Miles Surrey writes. “If anything, all Logan did was poison them — just as he poisoned the world.”

‘Who Was Bill Wambsganss, and Was He a “Succession” Spoiler?’ [NY Times]

Thanks in part to a viral video on TikTok, Tom’s surname — Wambsgans — became a talking point before the finale. Was Shiv’s husband named for an otherwise unremarkable second baseman known for making an unassisted triple play in a World Series?

“Whether the connection was intentional or not,” Benjamin Hoffman writes, “it shined a light on a player who has been all but forgotten beyond one outrageously good play.”

‘What Was ‘Succession’ Actually Trying to Tell Us?’ [Vox]

Did “Succession” show us how to be rich, the way Tom showed his protégé Greg? Whizy Kim argues that it did so, but in a cynical way that revealed the collateral damage.

“Many popular TV shows have portrayed the lives of the wealthy as glitzy and glamorous,” Kim writes, “but few have so deftly used the real symbols and language of wealth to tell a story of greed and abuse of power that’s also a microcosm of a society suffering under the weight of an increasingly unequal, undemocratic economic landscape.”

‘“Succession” Finale Review — A Perfect, Terrible Goodbye’ [The Guardian]

“Perhaps the success of an ending can best be judged by how much it seems, as the credits roll, that it could have turned out no other way,” Lucy Mangan writes. The series finale succeeds on that front.

‘“Succession” Season 4 Was a Mess — Until the Series Finale’ [Variety]

The show’s final season had problems with pacing and focus, but “Succession” righted itself at the end, writes Daniel D’Addario. “These are, finally, not characters who are endlessly adaptable, easily able to be plugged into just any dramatic scenario; when Kendall pleads in the finale that he doesn’t know what he was meant to do beyond work at Waystar, we believe him.”

‘What Was “Succession” About?’ [Vulture]

Vulture has a few fun riffs on the ultimate meaning of “Succession,” ranging from Wolfgang Ruth’s opinion that the show was about “Stewy being bi all along” to Choire Sicha’s art-inspired observation that “Succession” was really a bunch of “noisy large-scale public art” of the characters’ “interior landscapes.”

“Succession” is also about the “linguistic baubles” that emerged, profane, profound and otherwise, according to Genevieve Koski. Or, as Jackson McHenry writes, “Succession,” like “Seinfeld” is about nothing.

‘Miss “Succession” Already? Here’s What to Watch Next” [NY Times]

It’s been less than a day since the series finale, but “Succession” addicts could suffer withdrawal symptoms already. To ease the pain, Margaret Lyons curates a watch list for every possible “Succession” craving, including series like “The Righteous Gemstones,” “I Hate Suzie” and “Quiz.”