Charlie has had some interesting lines.
From "Greatest Hits," season three:
Charlie: "Why does everything have to be such a secret? How about some openness for a change?"
From "White Rabbit," season one:
Charlie: "I woke up and she — I don't swim... I don't swim."
From "Greatest Hits," season three:
Charlie: "I'll do it. Swim down, turn off that bloody switch, swim back up. Piece of cake."
Jack: "Charlie, you don't even know what we're talking about."
Charlie: "I was junior swim champion in Northern England; I can hold my breath for four minutes — I know exactly what you're talking about, Jack."
The swim champion who can't swim. Of course Charlie may have said he didn't swim because he was strung out, but somehow, given how things have worked so far, that seems unlikely. In fact, if Charlie couldn't swim, perhaps that's why Des saved Charlie from going into the water after Claire in "Flashes Before Your Eyes." There is a secret we're being shown, but not told.
So let's put this question a little more firmly this time: When Des saved Charlie, how much of the past and present, as well as the future, are changed? And do the Lostaways even realize things have changed?
Add to this subtle twist the one image that will burn on from "Greatest Hits" — Alex tearing apart a white rabbit and receiving the gun from Ben with blood-drenched hands — and this somewhat quiet, internal episode shows even more of the overall narrative. Even the rabbits seemed to have taken on a different aspect. No longer the fluffy bunnies of Steinbeck and Benny Potter, they're now food. And with that image, "White Rabbit" is also in its way torn apart; on the seventh day, Jack was trying to find out if he "had what it takes" to be a leader. By the ninety-second day, we have our answer.
This was another episode that is making some clear literary allusions through the drama, rather than Sawyer or Ben's island libraries. Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass is the literary specter hanging around this episode, but will be more clearly developed in the finale of the same name. It will have to do with assumptions being turned inside-out, which we already have a glimpse of with Charlie being able to swim and the white rabbits literally being turned inside out. So check your assumptions at the door next week, and remember those two elements from "Greatest Hits."
The foremost allusion here is Lord of the Rings, with the only island hobbit playing the role of Frodo. In Charlie's flashback, Liam pulls a Bilbo and offers the DS ring to his baby brother, because the ring needed to stay in the family. The ring functions as a kind of talisman for Charlie, being passed down for generations from grandpa Dexter Stratton. Liam was sure he'd come to no good by the time he was thirty, and Charlie would end up with the wife and child; therefore Charlie was the one who should have the ring. In Lost's mirror-twinning fashion, we know Liam was exactly wrong; it was Charlie who washed out, and Liam who pulled it together to achieve middle class standards. But Charlie has already gone through a few looking glasses, and on the island becomes the adoptive father of Aaron. For once we see some positive male parenting, with Charlie doting on Aaron, and in a flashback, Charlie's father devotedly helping his boy learn to swim. Charlie does his fatherly bit by passing on the DS ring to his own son, leaving it in Aaron's crib before he sets out to accomplish his mission.
Charlie's Mordor lies full fathom five, more or less. Like the younger Baggins, Charlie takes the courageous step to face his fate. He understands the only chance for rescue is if he fulfills one of Des's flashes, which won't end well. Charlie for once bears this responsibility with a heavy earnestness and quiet strength gained through struggle — with his addiction, with some of the other survivors, with Ethan, and then with his seemingly determined destiny. Charlie is now the moth; like Locke says in the episode of the same name, butterflies get all the attention, but the moths are the faster, stronger, more impressive beings. Who are the butterflies and who are the moths of the island?
Playing Sam to his Frodo, Hurley is reticent to let his friend perform the dive unaided. This recalls two scenes from Tolkien's books: In The Fellowship of the Ring Frodo secretly floats off in a boat to take on the mission alone, and Sam dives into a lake after him. At the end of Return of the King, Frodo leaves Sam to go off to the metaphor for death, the Gray Havens. The echoes of the trilogy are hard to miss, especially with a scruffy-looking Merry Brandybuck enacting the drama. It also suggests that Hurley may have some more Sam yet to play. Keep this in mind, because according to Tolkien, Sam was the real hero of The Lord of the Rings. 
But of course, these themes never quite map as nicely as we would like; Sam saves Frodo time and again, and in Lost, it's Des who does the saving. Indeed, Tolkien modeled Sam after the batmen of World War I, the men who had to support the officers as a personal servant. In The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, he calls these people "superior." Des is the soldier in this dynamic.
Next, Charlie's list of the top-five best moments of his life recalls Nick Hornby's High Fidelity. 
The protagonist Rob is a music aesthete like Charlie, and structures his live around the creation of top five lists — top-five split-ups, top-five songs for Monday mornings, top-five Elvis Costello songs, top-five track-one side-one songs, etc. Charlie categorizes the top-five moments of his life in a kind of existential inventory. And both characters have to make leaps of faith in order to reintegrate their selves. Rob and Charlie may share some superficial similarities, but there is an underlying structure in their respective narratives that many Lost fans have been discussing for some time.
Søren Kierkegaard was a 19th C. philosopher of distinctions, and among them was the distinction between the aesthetic and the ethical. In Either/Or (parts 1 and 2), Fear and Trembling, and Stages on Life's Way, Kierkegaard lays out his distinctions. The aesthete is steeped in material pleasures, romanticized ideals, and his own ego. The main thing the aesthete does is try to find clever ways to manage boredom, often destructively and at the expense of others. Both Rob and Charlie have similar aesthetic preoccupations: music and women. Such aesthetic preoccupation keeps each of these hipsters from fully realizing their true potentials.
The contradistinction to the aesthetic realm is the ethical, which Kierkegaard presents two sides of: social customs and the "teleological suspension of the ethical" (more on that in a minute). In general, to behave ethically is to behave according to the prevailing social norms, and ethical acts benefit the community. But this doesn't quite mean the social lockstep of the Eisenhower era; Liam's cleaning up may be considered a socially ethical act. But these ethics are the socially prevailing ones; for example, no matter what kind of person you are, it is unethical to eat dogs in the Western world, while in parts of Asia, dogs have been raised precisely for food. We eat cows in the West, but that's an ethical taboo in India. Furthermore, by accepting the social ethics, one can transcend the aesthetic mode, because the person moves past the ego and acknowledges the community. This is the crux of Rob's problem in High Fidelity, and his constant top-five lists are little textual reminders of what a hipster aesthete he is. Charlie certainly had his trouble with the social norms; if it isn't the heroin, it's the quasi-religious visions driving him to mad attempts of baptism. He kills Ethan in cold blood and attacks Sun to help set up Sawyer's long con. But through his dealings with Eko, his care for Aaron and Claire, and confronting his own fate, Charlie slowly transcends the strictly aesthetic and develops into a socially ethical person.
Kierkegaard reconciled the aesthetic with the ethical in religious faith. The religious entails the aesthetic's belief in idealistic possibilities and the ethical's belief in social norms, and may take a "teleological suspension of the ethical in order to achieve" — which is where Charlie heads when he accepts the need to sacrifice himself. He is, after all, one of the more religious characters on the island. Kierkegaard gets his "teleological suspension of the ethical" from his reading of Abraham and Isaac (and with that we're solidly back in sacrifice territory). Kierkegaard argues that there is an ethics higher than social norms, and that's when duty to a higher power than the social body is obeyed; but this can't be acted upon until the ethics of social norm are accepted. It's a problematic distinction; Abraham fully accepts his calling despite knowing it's against accepted social norms. But god steps in at the last moment and calls the game, so Abraham didn't have to go through the act. Kierkegaard admires the commitment to the belief that actions have inherent, immutable truth value. However, how far we accept the "teleological suspension of the ethical" also depends on accepting that the subject suspending those social ethics is actually getting some secret orders. The examples of the Jonestown Massacre, the Branch Davidians, and Heaven's Gate are three recent instances where the objects of the sacrifice believed the subject suspending social ethics had a direct hotline to the divine; this also has shades of Ben.
But for believers, everything hangs in the balance based on one's faith, and this also entails a good measure of dread. Dread has its negative side — the choice an individual makes is a choice for eternity — but it also has its positive side, because the individual is in complete control of his destiny. It's worth mentioning that Kierkegaard was a very Protestant thinker, while Charlie is very Catholic; in Charlie's acceptance, he faces down the dread and goes forth, Christ-like, to his demise. He also hasn't gotten any higher callings than Desmond; his commitment and sacrifice is for the community, and that community may be the higher power. Charlie hasn't lost his belief in idealistic possibilities — he still wants to get off the island, plays music, and is happy to hear his band released another record because of his supposed death. He's also accepted the ethics of the social norms of the island; he even confessed his sins to Sun. By diving into the Looking Glass, Charlie takes on the teleological suspension of the ethical (via suicide for a higher purpose), and evolves, religiously, into a realized self (the root of religion is re-ligio, or to re-link or re-connect). Charlie even documents this for us by inventorying his life.
The scene of his diving down, however, has another resonance. In Joseph Campbell's hero's journey monomyth, the hero crosses from the safe world over a series of thresholds into a dangerous realm. Eventually the hero reaches a "cave" where there is no escape, and the original person dies so the new hero can be reborn. Like Noor (Nadia) told Charlie in London after he runs off the mugger, "You are a hero, and don't let anyone tell you differently." Metaphorically, perhaps Charlie did die, and was reborn when he emerged in the Looking Glass. The next step is to find out if he makes it out. The hero can either emerge changed, or can die and someone else takes on the hero mantle.
Top-Five (+Three) Moments from "Greatest Hits" Worth Questioning and Noting:
1. Why isn't Rousseau allowed to be one of the shooters?
2. Jack insists she goes to the radio tower. Nadia was in England with Charlie, and we now know that Naomi is from Manchester as well; who else might Naomi know?
3. Jack is finally accepting his role as a leader, but needed some coaxing from Sayid; this is very similar to the way Sawyer needed coaxing from Hurley.
4. Ben tells Richard that they'll take all the women if necessary — shades of Shiloh from the Book of Judges (as discussed in the previous post).
5. Alex questions if Ben is her real father; how long has she been suspicious, and why? Does she think she was born or conceived off the island?
6. Dexter Stratton isn't a historical figure, but may (most likely) have historical significance in the narrative. If we go with thirty years per generation, that puts Dexter back around the very early 1900s.
7. Did Desmond's flash not come true, or have we just not seen the end of it?
8. How are the Others cooking their rabbit?
Top-Five Scenes from "Greatest Hits"
1. Aaron grabbing at Charlie's face when Charlie tells the tyke goodbye.
2. Bernard hunting Dharma cans.
3. The flashback sticker on Charlie's guitar reading "I Was Here Moments Ago" (he was, in "Flashes Before your Eyes").
4. Alex ripping apart a white rabbit with her hands and taking the gun from Ben.
5. Charlie making it up through the moon pool, without being molested by any sharks, and then meeting Bonnie and Gretta.
Books mentioned in this post
-
-
-
-
-
J. R. R. Tolkien and Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien
-
-
-
-
-
J. Wood is the author of Living Lost: Why We're All Stuck on the Island
Don't Miss
Daniel Nester
Lost: “Greatest Hits”
add to wish list
add to wish list
I just have to ask: what's with the incredible dysfunction of the Lostaways?
Des is willing to die so Charlie can live. Charlie decides he must undertake this sacrifice himself. I'm sure if he'd said, "Hey Des, why don't you let me drown instead?" he'd have gotten a brief pause and a hearty, "Have at it, brother."
Instead, he whacks poor Desmond in the head with the oar. That's just rude.
I'm not done reading, and I'm not a grammarian, but is the subject/verb tense agreement intentionally incorrect in the following sentence: "When Des saved Charlie, how much of the past and present, as well as the future, are changed?"
Is it a statement on past and future not agreeing in the present? Or just a typo? (say it's a statement!)
Hmmm, you wonder if Desmond's flash didn't come true. I think Des lied to Charlie about how he'd die. It bothered me that Des had a flash about something where he wasn't present, ie Charlie's drowning after flipping the switch. This would be inconsistent with how Des's precog abilities work. Des only remembers his own experiences, already lived through. Thus, Des had to be lying to Charlie. Des would have to be present when Charlie flips the switch, it seems to me.
I think a better question about Alex's questioning of her parentage is this: Why did she ask Karl about it, as if he had some inside information? His facial expression seemed to say "Don't ask me this as I'm about to leave you." Her kiss was her willingness to put that issue aside.
And I liked the handing over of the gun from Ben to Alex. It answered a question (with whose gun did Ben shoot Locke?) and made a clear, if ominous, statement (here's the gun you gave Locke. he had an accident, and there's blood on your hands.)
I really liked this episode, because it was independently fascinating, as well as an excellent tablesetter for the finale.
J -
It's interesting that you hint that "When Des saved Charlie, how much of the past and present, as well as the future, are changed?"
In one of the flashbacks, when Liam wakes Charlie from his ménage à trois, he says something like "you're the only rock star not on drugs" or something similar - I'd have to re-watch the episode. Maybe Des has changed Charlie's past; maybe he is now a swim champion, too.
Maybe the Looking Glass hatch is some type of portal (wormhole?) that gets people to and from the island, and the submarine is only for use in the "bloody snow globe" of the island. Maybe if Charlie were to survive and find his way back to 'the real world', he will find himself changed - or he won't realize he's changed, but he in fact has. Does that make any sense?
Excellent post, as usual.
Juno
A note about the Looking Glass... it's a mirror which is the delineation between "reality" and a secondary reality, which appear to be the same as the first. In Carol's world, it was possible to step through the looking glass and travel between realities.
Perhaps this is how it is all reconciled. The Looking Glass station exists in two seperate realities at location in space where they overlap and the distinctions are spread thin. Airplanes and helicoptors that enter that space can move between one reality and the other, and submarines as well.
When flight 815 hits "the looking glass", one side crashes with all dead while the other side survives on the island?
Desmond's vision suggested a flooded hatch... and yet everything appears perfectly normal. Perhaps it's flooded in one reality but not the other?
We've been set up for this by the Brief History of Time.
Alternative theories are that Charlie WILL flood the hatch to prevent the ladies inside from flipping the switch back, sacrificing himself in the process.
Since we didn't actually see Desmond's vision, how can we be so sure he's telling Charlie everything?
Also, in the season recap shown last night with the producers, we saw Ben professing again that the Others are NOT killers. However, this week, he tells Richard to kill anyone who gets in their way on their mission. Do you think Ben's rash actions will have severe consequences?
Something Doc Jensen noted in his recap is that the sacrificial swap recalls the Charles Darnay/Sydney Carton sacrificial swap from "A Tale of Two Cities" (which was the title for this season's first episode). Darnay is to be executed, and Carton offers to take his place. When Darnay says no, Carton drugs him and takes his place. It's similar, but these things never map exactly; if it did, Des would knock out Charlie -- but then Charile wouldn't be able to fulfill that hero's journey.
BookPolice: I worked over that one, because the strange thing is that the past isn't the past and the future isn't the future -- it's all present, but we experience it in a mediated way. (Which is how a book or television show or movie work -- all the events are existing at once in the medium itself, but we experience it in a mediated way). So when Des saveD Charlie, everything IS changed. But this may be confusing -- if it doesn't work, I'll request a change of "d" to "s".
koralis - Schrödinger's DHARMA station?
You know, I assumed the Helsinki scene was before Liam got Charlie hooked on scag, but maybe not -- maybe in the changed world Charlie was just a polyamorous drinker.
Watch the finale carefully, because there will probably be all sorts of little tells like that.
Nice how we've been set up for the Looking Glass since the first season when Sayid found Rousseau. I wonder if some of the haters still think the writers have no plan?
J
Kudos for another amazing analysis. The show has taken on a new level of interest for me after discovering your erudite blog.
Is it not true that Darlton stated (paraphrasing) that everything in the show can be explained using actual science?
1. Can they be believed/trusted?
2. Doesn't this blow up a number of hairier theories?
How many other former Rathskeller denizens do you think are writing for TV?
Keep up the great work.
Hey, long time reader, first time poster...
I just had some answers to the questions posted...
1. Jack doesn't want Danielle to stay behind, because he needs her to lead them to the radio tower, and he wants to be sure they get there in time.
5. About Alex...Sayid said that her mother was alive when she saw him at the playground, I'm sure that's been on her mind.
Keep up the great stuff!
I think it might have been Jeff Jensen who pointed out that the names Dexter and Stratton are from the '80's sitcom Silver Spoons wherein the father-son roles are reversed. Perhaps this is to suggest that Aaron taught Charlie how to be a man?
Is it not true that Darlton stated (paraphrasing) that everything in the show can be explained using actual science?
1. Can they be believed/trusted?
2. Doesn't this blow up a number of hairier theories?
That's not what they said... it's what certain people want to believe. They've said before that things can be interpretted by either faith or science, and that things can be explained by "psuedo-science" which is not the same thing as "actual science." Think parrallel dimensions in star trek, etc.
Here's from one of their podcasts...
Thanks to Sick_Passenger for the extended highlights below.
- The Other's are on their way to "someplace".
- Think pseudo-science and borderlands of the supernatural for explanations of LOST.
- They will be revisiting the psychic's predictions for Claire in the future as well as Walt's abilities.
- The Others' obsession with children & pregnancy goes beyond the inability to successfully bear children on the island.
- The Other's definitely have an interest in children with special abilities. That's why they took Walt.
- There are two factions of The Others & and are in no relation to the hatches/stations.
- They will be getting back to the statue before the show ends.
J - I can handle that. Just so long as we don't get Michael Dorn in place of Claire next season.
Kisses? What about the kisses? I came here looking for this, and I feel oh, so let down. [/sarcasm]
There were two kisses that I saw: Alex kissed Karl before he went off to warn the Castaways, and Claire kissed Charlie before he went off to flip the switch.
Two kisses, both woman to man, both from a very independent woman to a man who is going to save someone else.
There's not a lot of kissing in this show, and when it happens it's significant. This is too parallel-y not to be important.
I just went back to "Fire + Water" to see if Charlie wore the DS ring in the flashbacks. If he didn't have the ring and was taking smack, then we have more proof that things changed.
In the first flashback, it doesn't look he is wearing one. This is when Liam's baby is born and Charlie finds Liam nodded out on the couch with the belt around his arm.
The next one, when they're shooting the diaper commercial, Charlie is wearing the DS ring -- but that could also be after the Helsinki incident.
I loaned out my first season DVD, so not sure if it's there in "The Moth" or "Homecoming" flashbacks.
What do you make of Charlie's checkered show floating off his foot has he descends into the deep?
Alex doubts her father because Sayid has planted seeds and is now bearing fruit
J--
In answer to moment #7... I'm pretty sure that we just haven't come to the end of Desmond's flash. My thinking is that he flips the switch to cut off the jamming radio signal, which in turn floods the station & he is then drowned. He just hasn't had the opportunity to find that flashing light & switch yet...
I am enjoying your analysis of each show!
I am not enjoying this pregnancy and conception storyline and would hope they would move onto something interesting. I can see Ben's obsession with this line of research since his mother died at his own birth and his father seemed to remind him of this and blame Ben for his mother's death but enough already.
Just watched "The Moth." In the flashbacks, Charlie was wearing a "DS" ring, but so was Liam. In a scene about 2/3 through the episode (when Chaz turned to drugs for the first time), you can see the rings clearly on both of them. I can't imagine that the writers did that on purpose. It seems that we won't get much by reading into the whole ring situation.
Koralis wrote: "When flight 815 hits "the looking glass", one side crashes with all dead while the other side survives on the island?" That's interesting. It would be like the Icelandic Spar theme in "Against the Day" as well as in Philip Pullman's trilogy "His Dark Materials."
In response to #1
I think Rousseau did not stay and shoot because she was the only one who knew where the radio tower was. Hurley knew about it, but not it's location.
I guess Rousseau could have told them where to go.
My question is: How are the three shooter suppose to find the Losties after they shoot?
It doesn't look like they will have a chance judging from the previews.
For Joe Brown:
Try to think of the pregnancy issue from a practical perspective. If the women continue to die in pregnancy, there are fewer women available for the remaining men. Generally speaking, men like the company of women, and it might be harder for Ben to keep his already tenuous hold on his people without them. I suspect its hard to recruit new people to come to the island to do whatever it is they have been doing since killing off most of the Dharma Initiative staff.
The song running through my head right now is Hotel California: "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
Why is it that I'm 100 percent sure Bernard is going to get iced in the finale? Maybe because he'd vanished for so long and then is suddenly introduced again in the buildup to the finale, and of course he's going to be one of the few still on the beach on the hostiles arrive. And I bet his wife dies trying to save him too.
Thanks J. Wood for a provocative analysis. A couple of thoughts:
On the ring: Unless the editor/producers goofed when Liam and Charlie were both showing the DS ring in Moth and other earlier season episodes, it's possible that Charlie has been changed and the ring (in earlier episodes) is a clue planted to indicate the future of Charlie's transformations.
(apologies is this has already been discussed, I'm new to this site this season)
Another thought: J you mention existentialism and Kierkegaard--which is surely relevant and applies to individual characters in the aesthetics/ethics to religion problem.
I'm intrigued by the idea of existentialism thematically in LOST. For example in Sartre's Being and Nothingness, he presents the elegant idea of Pierre (who is not) in the cafe. That the lack of Pierre's presence actually makes him more present in his absence (to whoever is waiting for him).
Sartre also wrote a play, Last Exit, where the characters are in a room (hell) and they can't leave. I don't suggest LOST is hell, not for a minute. But I am intrigued by the idea that our Lost characters are manifesting existentialism on all levels: individualism and the freedom to choose how they will re-make them"selves".
Some begin exercising this freedom of "becoming" their chosen selves, on a subconscious level--I don't believe all are conscious of this freedom, but do enact it. I believe Eko (who I miss very much) was conscious of his transformation. I'm not sure Sawyer or Charlie are especially conscious of this freedom. But I could have missed something.
Maybe my ramblings are way off, and I'm not sure what they mean, but your excellent post provoked my thinking. Thanks much
But in existentialism, there is no reason for being, that is, no reason for existence. There is no "meaning of life" to find. In response to suspecting this, have any characters so far asked, "what is the point?" If Charlie did, he came up with the point being to save Claire and Aaron. He also believed his life had meaning--recording his greatest hits is proof.
The other characters both our lostaways and the Other/Hostiles also believe there is a point to living because they struggle at all odds to stay alive.
Another aspect of existentialism is eschewing reason (rationalism--Descartes, Spinoza) as path to understanding existence. So, it seems there are characters opposed to one another because of inherent philosophical leanings. For example, Jack and Locke, Eko and Locke.
Apologies for typos and sequence issues in previous post. I wanted to edit, but couldn't find the edit option tonight.
In Alex Garland's "The Beach" a slacker Brit takes a leap of faith and swims into an underwater cave to reach the access to the mainland for the betterment of his island family. Not being European, "The Beach" was the first place where I'd encountered the Adventures of Tintin - of which "Lost" seemingly is partially based on "Flight 714". (I think Spielberg has an upcoming Tintin project). This slacker Brit goes from hero to goat and back again many times, and even has an unrequited love for a young woman on the island. There is a battle of sorts with the locals as well as an internecine one which finally resolves itself into a humdrum existence back in ol' Blighty - a slap-happy ending. Alex Garland and Nick Hornby seem to be cut from the same cloth at the same time period (twins) as the Oasis-singing Charlie (Mancunian with a brother named Liam). Also, was that Naomi (hatted) in the crowd as Charlie was busking at Covent Garden?
On existential Lost:
Being and Nothingness is evocative of the existence/nonexistence of the lostaways. The outside world can't see the island; Naomi claims they found flight 815, but there were no survivors. Therefore, they exist but alternatively, in their presence they are absent. Some characters want to be rescued more than anything e.g., Jack and Juliette; others prefer to stay lost e.g., Rose and Locke.
On another topic (maybe), I have one burning question: if Kate and Sawyer are fugitives, why do they want to be rescued so badly? I would think they would be conflicted about being rescued.
Reading my five year old Le Petit Prince last night I realized while apt to focus on how Lost correlates to adult literature, one has to think that perhaps the creators being in the midst of raising families are also being influenced by children's literature. Was curious as to your thoughts on this, J. The Little Prince hit me while reading it (plane crash, apparitions, precocious child, need to leave your shell of a body to return home, and the main theme: what is essentiel is invisible to the heart), however Neil Gaiman's Coraline as a modern day "Through the Looking Glass" might be worth a glance before Wednesday.
J, I'm seeing references on other blogs to an old (1918) sci fi book by A Merrit called The Moon Pool:
http://www.upne.com/0-8195-6706-X.html
the description sounds eerily familiar. Are you familiar with it?Actually see its online ala gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/765
Koralis: Thanks for the correction. Note that Lindelof said in the review show Thurs that the Lostaways exist "somewhere in the space time continuum" leaving lots of possibilites for parallel existences, etc.
Thea: re "they...struggle to stay alive." I always wondered why the woman with Bakunin at the communications station wanted (asked) to be shot. Was it because she had been alive for too long ( a common theme among those granted immortality) and had grown tired of continuing? Or did she know she would be healed by the island's powers?
Theories?
Thank you J, for another informative entry (I had never before completely understood what Kierkegaard was on about.) So, "Greatest Hits." Since Charlie is a rock star, I'll raise my glass and sing a rock song about Doppelgangers: "Another round for my 'Dark Companion.'" As I stated in last week's thread, I used a whole box of tissues during the episode, so kudos to Dominic Monaghan & the writers/director.
Phu, as to your post of yesterday (Pynchon, Pullman,) agreed. Thea, agreed that Lost has always had a very "No Exit" ("Huis clos") vibe, which is why I never care if the average viewer says "I think they're in Purgatory." No, we know they're not actually in Purgatory, it's not "Steambath" (which I watched recently but found it badly dated) but it's as if they're in Purgatory. In answer to your question re: Kate and Sawyer, I think it's a pretty prosaic explanation: even if you're a fugitive you might prefer to take your chances in a motel in podunk America than deal with island life, an island with polar bears. I was raised in the city, Robinson Crusoe is a not an adventure but a horror story to me. Le Renard, I too thought of Le Petit Prince in terms of "the shell of the body" when pondering the arrival of Cooper. I'm just not convinced he's "real" in the way that we normally call "real." Brockman, I dislike the term "post traumatic stress disorder" as in a way I'd rather just say "insane" -- it seems more evocative and respectful of the experience -- but I think one of the themes of the series is to show how people behave when they're under more or less extreme stress on a daily basis. I don't think that TV is ready for a weekly show about an average middle class family living in Baghdad, or for a show which takes place in a middle class neighborhood in New Orleans post-Katrina, but perhaps the Losties and their experiences are a kind of mirror twinning of how some of us in the US feel disoriented and insane for the past 6 years, even while most of us sit watching TV with a roof over our heads and with (over)full bellies.
I'm sorry to ask such a newbie question re: the "Answers" show on Thursday -- I've never listened to a podcast or anything like that -- if those guys say "Danielle arrived at the island 16 years ago with an exploration expedition" does that mean that the sentence is factual, or do they really mean "Danielle is a character who told the Losties that she arrived at the island 16 years ago etc." Their demeanor was so, um. . .laid back. . .the Mysteries were presented as being decidedly underwhelming. Is it that in these kinds of clip shows, their purpose is to try to get non-regular viewers (of the Grey Doctors or the Horny Housewives) to feel they can enter the narrative and watch the series? Did anyone else seem to think they hinted that the next season will take place off the island? Sure would be cheaper. Maybe it will take place on Naomi's boat, talk about a Skinner box! (with an exterminating angel?)
(J, I need to think more about this parallel universe/time travel Lathe of Heaven-type line. Over at GalleyCat, Ron Hogue had some interesting thoughts on this theme in literature in entries of May 16 and May 14. re: Charlie and his ability/inability to swim: When I watched the episode, I guess I lived in NY too long and knew too many rapid patter BS artists [one of my favorite films is The Sweet Smell of Success] but when Charlie rattled off his swimming prize and breath-holding ability, I assumed he was lying in order to get what he wanted.)
J. thanks again for another enlightening analysis and kudos to all for the intelligent ideas presented. Jacob seems to be another example of existence/nonexistence as well. Regarding the reference to the Moon Pool, I understand there is a story of the same name about underground dwellers and super-scientific wonders, and a monster unleashed in the South Pacific. (I plan to read it this weekend.) Perhas this reference foreshadows the next portion of the is journey underground similar to Journey to the Center of the Earth. Is that why the original hostiles and the LG women wear brown? I just wonder if our island isn't already close to the center of the earth in an huge air pocket. That may explain bumpy rides, extreme electomagnetism and bridges between realities. If the plane is 4 miles below the ocean in a trench perhaps the portal is close-by and can be assessed via the LG. In this manner the island will also avoid a catastrophic tsunami in the next few days.
Great post as always J.
JoeBrown and Tresbien: Interesting takes on the Ben's obsession with the pregnancy issue. My thoughts were that Ben is obsessed with it now since his daughter is coming of age and has a boyfriend, Karl. He wants to solve the issue before his daughter gets pregnate and ends up dead. Yes, Alex is adpoted, but if he's raised her since she was young, he probably still loves her like a real daughter (ask any real adoptive parents). Also this would explain why Karl was being brainwashed, the message would be clear, stay away from Alex.
good points on existentialism. the task of existentialism is essentially "how do we live a meaningful life within a potentially meaningless existence?"
the show goes far beyond this though. i don't think that it's a matter of "Who is Jacob?" or "What/Where is the island?". it's more a matter of "WHO is the island and WHAT does Jacob (as well as everyone else) signify about ourselves?"
i think the show is likely going to follow a solipsistic parabola in the coming seasons. this has already been primed with Hurley's episode "Dave" and Drive Shaft's song "You Are Everybody" to just name a couple of examples.
a possible ending might be similar to that of St. Elsewhere where it is revealed that the whole series took place in the head of an autistic boy. only with Lost, we the viewer are now assuming that role.
also check out matters of eternal recurrence and panexperientialism. thanks for the blog j.wood. brilliant stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_recurrence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panexperientialism
a possible ending might be similar to that of St. Elsewhere where it is revealed that the whole series took place in the head of an autistic boy. only with Lost, we the viewer are now assuming that role.
I'm not criticizing, but the show will NOT end that way. The producers have gone on record as saying that this isn't all happening in someone's imagination (shortened to "no snowglobe ending.")
Leviathon, I appreciate your more precise interpretation of an essential task in existentialism: "how do we live a meaningful life in a potentially meaningless existence." And it really applies to our lostaways/Others. This is the issue they were all dealing with before the crash, although in various unsuccessful ways, and now are confronted with head on living on the Island.
Your questions of "Who is the Island?" and What are we supposed to do? reminds me that the directors/producers may be taking us in a solipsistic direction and also that they are indeed involving the audience beyond the Fourth Frame that J mentioned in an earlier episode(correct reference?).
Nietzsche's eternal return was something I thought of the other day, but didn't pursue. In Beyond Good and Evil he tackles religion. I'll have to check out the links you provided and piece some thoughts together. Thanks.
Leslie, excellent example--Jacob. He is the quintessential exhibitor of existence/nonexistence!!
Miss G. Thanks so much for your perspective on the fugitives (and other ideas too). I guess you have a point. When I read RC, I also felt horrified on so many levels. I'm from suburbs but a city lover too. Country living is scary--too much work.
I'm *so* happy my two favourite columnists (J Wood and Doc Jensen) acknowledged Tolkien's influence on this outstanding episode. I can only add another parallelism, which was quite evident to me: Desmond as Faramir, accompanying Frodo just before his entrance in Mordor.
A little correction, J, from a proud Tolkienologist: Sam dives into a river, not a lake, to follow Frodo. Along that river, the Anduin, the Fellowship sails near the two giant Argonath statues: in the LOTR movie we can see - from the boats' perspective - a colossal foot I find now very familiar...
Keep up the good work!
F.
Thea -
I like your (and J. Wood's) discussion of Existentialism in regard to LOST.
Sartre delivered a lecture in 1946 called Existentialism is a Humanism in response to critics of Existentialist philosophy. In it, he states:
"Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality...We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism."
More relevant to LOST, however, is the following:
"If people condemn our works of fiction, in which we describe characters that are base, weak, cowardly and sometimes even frankly evil, it is not only because those characters are base, weak, cowardly or evil...But the existentialist, when he portrays a coward, shows him as responsible for his cowardice...he is like that because he has made himself into a coward by actions. There is no such thing as a cowardly temperament...A coward is defined by the deed that he has done. What people feel obscurely, and with horror, is that the coward as we present him is guilty of being a coward. What people would prefer would be to be born either a coward or a hero. One of the charges most often laid...is something like this: “But, after all, these people being so base, how can you make them into heroes?†That objection is really rather comic, for it implies that people are born heroes: and that is, at bottom, what such people would like to think. If you are born cowards, you can be quite content, you can do nothing about it and you will be cowards all your lives whatever you do; and if you are born heroes you can again be quite content; you will be heroes all your lives eating and drinking heroically. Whereas the existentialist says that the coward makes himself cowardly, the hero makes himself heroic; and that there is always a possibility for the coward to give up cowardice and for the hero to stop being a hero. What counts is the total commitment, and it is not by a particular case or particular action that you are committed altogether."
Echoes of Desmond; of Charlie? What did Nadia tell Charlie...
I, of course, disagree with the Existentialists on one key point: I don't believe we are self-made. But you'd have to read my blog to know why I think this.
Juno
yogi, I'm absolutely on board with your suggestion that Ben wants to protect Alex from becoming pregnant and dying, and that may well be his primary concern.
Miss Gretchen, oh, if only there was a good answer to your question about the answers show. I've listened to most of the podcasts this year. Often, Damon & Carlton sound like they are watching along with the rest of us and simply speculating. Other times, it seems like they want to put particular ideas to rest, eg. the losties aren't dead or in purgatory. The dialog often goes like this:
Damon: So, Carlton, what do you make of the smoke monster?
Carlton: I don't know, Damon. What do you think?
Damon: Well, Carlton, I'm pretty sure it's not nanobots.
Carlton: I think you're right Damon. Maybe we'll find out more about it in this week.
In regard to Danielle, I think it's all a mystery as we only have her version of events to go by.
Great Post. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before but I was curious if you think there are any connections to the ways Charlie was supposed to die and the names of the sations.
Arrow Station -- Arrow to Charlies throat
Flame Station -- Lightning bolt
Swan Station -- Charlie trying to grab a bird for Claire and then drowning
Hydra Station -- Mirrors the Swan station
Pearl Station -- Charlie diving deep to the Looking glass (Pearl diving)
I realize that there are still two stations unaccounted for, but it still seems curious.
I find it wholly upsetting that every single episode we don't see people making different attempts to get off the island... I know, I know, they tried to contact the boat.. butpreviously, they built 2 rafts, and tried the carrier pidgeons. They seem to be getting comfortable about living there in a very gillianian manner and over fascinated by the others instead of ignoring the others and constantly trying to find some way to make contact with the outside world. ...you would think the camera crew could lend them a working cell phone, no?
I always enjoy your posts, J, and reading everyone's responses. I've never posted before, and I realize I'm going way off on the pseudo-science tack, but I figure if it's been opened up by the producers, we might as well let the speculations and questions fly!
let's say we're dealing with parallel universes. Perhaps the island's unique electromagnetic character warps space-time and occasionally allows two universes/alternate realities/parralel worlds to cross paths, spilling some people who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time (somewhere over the south pacific...) from one reality to another.
Could it be that electromagnetic anomalies on the island act as catalysts for dimensional warping/crossing? We've seen two examples of such anomalies - the first took down Flight 815 when Des was manning the hatch (I can't remember what caused it - I just remember the Losties reading a log of activity in the hatch and seeing an anomaly on the day their plane crashed), and the second when Des blew the hatch - we have no explanation for the flash; some of the characters who were near the hatch seem to have gaps in their memory, and it remains unresolved. Perhaps characters' pasts and presents were changed / a different version of them switched places from another universe / the same character switched quantum states on some kind of pseudo-y level / fill in with your own theory. If this is the case then in the world Naomi came from, 815 really did go to the bottom of the ocean with all of the passangers on board. If so, whose bodies were found? Did they play yankee swap with losties from another reality?? I'm reminded of the 1989 movie Millenium, in which future folk froze time right before planes crashed, removed the passengers, and replaced them with dummy corpses.
Might another electromagnetic anomaly be responsible for Naomi's arrival on the island?
Does the island exist in an alternate version of similar realities, in which case it should be possible to physically leave the island and interact with the rest of the world within that dimension/univerese..... or does the island represent some sort of nether-region between dimensions/universes - the pools between worlds in the Chronicles of Narnia - in which case leaving the island is futile as the island and its immediate surroundings are the sum total of that world. Rings had special power in the Narnia universe. Enchanted rings had the power to cross worlds, and this power rubbed off on the wardrobe that Lucy passes through. Does Charlie's ring have any power to facilitate reality-crossing? How important was it to Claire and Aaron's rescue that he passed the ring on to Aaron?
To echo a sentiment someone I beleive already expressed, what role does the LG actually play as it regulates signal flux around the island's perimeter? What effect will flipping the switch really have?
Finally, how does ole Jake play into this? I'd like to think Vonnegut would have had our back on this one - at some point Jake entered a chrono-synclastic infundibulum - possibly created by the island's electromagnetic field - and now he exists as wave phenomena, only materializing periodically. The Sirens of Titan echoes many of Lost's references to seeing the future; Rumfoord uses this ability to set up a rich man as a savior, ultimately banishing him to the moon of Titan to live out his life, but through his actions, the world becomes a peaceful, unified place. Is Des setting Charlie up? Will Charlie become this savior, and, if he does, will Des's prophecy be fulfilled? Will yet another electromagnetic anomaly result in the losties being rescued? (We've been told there's another 3 seasons to go, so I seriously doubt it, but who knows what another anomaly might change / have changed / will change ???)
My burning question: What does Des see? Is it a possible future? Is it the future that would have happened had he not had the flash and been able to act with extra information? Is there something essentially set or predestined about his visions? Does Charlie have to die, or is it just a possibility? Is Des an agent of free will, or are his present actions a slave to already predicted future outcomes? Okay, that's more than one question.
Thanks for indulging me,
dBo
Don't you think Charlie is more of SK's "tragic hero" for diving into the water? Committing suicide for the community is not a teleogical suspension of the ethical - because it is also the ethical thing to do. That is what the tragic hero of Greece did - think the Spartans. This is not what SK had in mind because it does not go against the ethical.
A modern example of SK's work is the movie "Breaking the Waves" or a more commercial and less nuanced example is "Frailty."
J. Wood,
This episode contains the second reference to Nick Hornsby's "High Fidelity". As I noted in a comment about your article on the episode, "Catch 22", Sawyer's reference in that episode to making a "mix tape" for Kate also recalls Hornsby's hero, Rob's passion for making the perfect mix tape.
Charlie's top five list this week is, of course, much more direct.
One other book that the episode title brings to mind is John LeCarre's "Looking Glass War", which is about the British Intelligence Service sending an agent to spy on the Ease German military during the cold war.
We are certainly entering a period of war on the Island. And, we've had spies before. Are the authors signaling that there is another, presently unknown, spy in the picture?
I wonder if Locke will make his comeback during the battle with the Others ala Sir Lancelot in the film 'Excalibur" with the "old wound" in his side. It's funny Losty38 mentioned a Lars Von Trier film as I had just remarked today that "Lost" is the best example of deep TV since "The Kingdom I&II" - not the other SK's version on ABC but Von Trier's. SK stands for Stanley Kubrick as well - not a bad triumvirate at that.
So the existence/lack of existence of the DS ring in flashbacks could be considered evidence of the past being changed as a result of Des' visions? Would that mean that the way we as a viewing audience have understood the entire "flashback" structure be flawed? If the past of each character is constantly changing, then maybe those characters are not what we have come to believe as we took each flashback to be the true and only history of each?
One of the pleasures I get from LOST is watching how the writers shoe-horn new events into an increasingly complex past. So wouldn't it be kind of disappointing if Des truly has the power to randomly unlock and shift the history of the narrative?
Time to catch up here.
First on the existentialism: It seems to me that existentialism is also an extension of the free will/determinism/Hume's comaptibilism debates that have been laid out. Existentialism, as we now understand it, is a development of a huge issue from previous centuries (the Anglo-Saxons had a great saying from Beowulf; "Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel" -- fate goes as it will). They've played with the idea of hell in recent episodes, and I think Sartre's line is "hell is other people." If I was around Cooper, I'd feel the same way. But the responsibility angle in interesting, and brings me, anyway, back to Hume; Hume rejected both free will and determinism because both eliminated the idea of personal responsibility. In a determined world, you were doomed to eat the last of the pizza. In a completely free-will world, current actions were dissociated from previous determining factors, so responsibility slipped away. (I'm still working with that one; it makes sense when Hume explains it.) But perhaps we're seeing a development of Hume's compatibilism into existential responsibility.
I went back and looked at another clip, and I think Charlie had a different DS ring than the family one Liam gave him. That's understandable. But yeah, if Charlie was hooked and didn't have the family heirloom, that's more proof things have changed. I don't think it means our understanding of the flashback structure is flawed, because if we caught it in the first place, we're not mis-reading. In fact, I think this may be the new "game"; if the Losties don't realize/recognize how things have changed, then it's our responsibility to note it. This is why I think "Through the Looking Glass" will be such a key episode. I'm *assuming* that there will be other elements that have shifted, and we'll have to watch carefully to note them. And the name of the episode is the hint: Carroll's text is all about finding assumptions turned inside-out, and part of our assumptions are based on the stability of history. I *assumed* Charlie couldn't swim because he said so and because Des saw him drowning. That assumption has been turned inside-out. And no, I don't think Charlie was just fast-talking to make sure he could drown and get them off the island, because hey, he made the dive with no trouble. The guy can swim.
On kids' books: Tintin is definitely there in the background of things (I wrote about that in the book, too). But as far as "The Beach" and "The Little Prince" and some other texts go, I think there's something important to note: There's a long tradition of literature. concerned with lost worlds and the hollow earth. Poe started something with "Arthur Gordon Pym," Jules Verne riffed on DeFoe and lost world mythology with "Mysterious Island," and then we get Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Merritt, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and scads of pulp authors. (I'm working up something on one; if you were interested in "The Moon Pool," search around for Olaf Jansen.) These texts all share some key features; many were first written when the island lands were still unknown and mysterious, and therefore represented a kind of blank slate to superimpose a cultural imagination. What "monsters from the id" could exist out there? Once those islands were known -- especially after the 20th C. wars -- that imagination was displaced to other worlds. Then we get the rise of narratives that take us to distant planets and science fiction displaces science, which serves a very similar function for cultural imagination. (There's got to be a dissertation in "lost world literature" either floating around or waiting to be done.)
What's interesting about Lost is that the writers are clearly conversant with this tradition, but none of the texts that they're alluding to will be the perfect key. In fact, it reminds of of scratch DJ work, a kind of active mash-up of the various texts to create a new text that's in conversation with the past but also forging its own thing. I think it's safe to say Lost is the first text to ever "sample" Agatha Christie and Watchmen.
Just imagine how many undergrad essays will be written on Lost and name-your-author in the next few years?
I hope I did a decent job with Kierkegaard. Anyone who understands Hegel so thoroughly unsettles me. I'm not sure if I'd agree that Charlie didn't suspend the ethical; Charlie's Catholic, and suicide is a pretty solidly a sin in that tradition (Kierkegaard was Protestant). But as far as the suspension being an appeal beyond community ethics, just look at what the community ethics demanded; time after time different people told Charlie not to take the job, and at the last minute, even Des said no. I'm sure Des was thinking we've gotten this far, maybe I can save Charlie again and there will be some less monstrous way for him to go. And Charlie suspended a certain measure of ethics when he bonked Des on the head. Concussions hurt and can be dangerous.
(And on "bringing Iraq into our living rooms," you might want to check out what Wafaa Bilal is up to.)
Tresbian, you're dead-on about how Cuselof deal with the story. First, they're the only writers who can talk to the press. Second, they approach it all as if they're part of the audience, which is a great deflection tool (G.B. Shaw did a similar thing). The problem they have to deal with is how to satisfy the audience's need to know *something* without giving away the game. There's nothing less satisfying than getting what you want.
Quick note on Jaocb and what he may mean: I really think Doc Jensen's find about Virginia Woolf's "Jacob's Room" may be important. Basically, the text is other people describing this Jacob character, but there's no direct narrative point of view of Jacob, nor does Woolf present Jacob's point of view. In other words, the Jacob of that text is just an amalgamation of other people's perceptions; and the way Jacob's scene was shot supports that notion.
Faramir, you're right, Anduin is a river. And what I love about that is Tolkien's language-play; in Gaelic, "an daoine" means "the folk". The river running through everything is the people.
On how they don't seem to be trying to get off the island: I think we need to remember that it's just been over a week between the seagull event and finding Naomi's phone. But for us it was nine weeks. That said, something Cuselof once complained about in the podcast was how the characters never seem to ask the right questions.
As far as the electromagnetism goes, there's a hell of a lot going on there that I won't get into here, because it took me pages and pages to parse in the book. The short version is it's related to the "vile vortices" and the creation of wormholes (which the vile vortices may be -- vile vortices: places like the Bermuda Triangle, which occur along the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn in regular intervals). But the parallel universe thing gets tricky for two reasons: At the beginning of the entire series, there was a website up stating that the Hanso Foundation was managing the recovery of Flight 815. They could have easily faked that. And once that theory was out in the wild, Cuselof again (the devils!) suggested in the podcast that Hanso was capable of pulling off such a con.
I don't think Des's flashes *have* to come true, because we've already seen a few that didn't come true. But in the background we have Ms. Hawking, who told Des if he didn't go back to the island everything would be destroyed. So maybe if Charlie doesn't die, the same fate bodes. Des has a lot of responsibility on his shoulders, and may not have any idea how far it reaches.
On the mix-tapes: Since different writing teams wrote those two episodes nodding to Hornby, I wonder if one team reads the other scripts and finds things to riff on? (Which goes along with the scratching/mash-up idea, the writers sampling from each other.)
Time to catch my breath...
Mikhail Bakhtin>Rabelais and His World> Gargantua and Pantagruel>Abbey of Thelema>Crowley>Others/Hostiles/DI
Interesting episode.
Big question I have that doesn't seem to have caused many questions is who are the people in the Looking Glass station? Are these original Dharmists or Others? It strikes me that the looking glass station would have been one of the hardest stations to capture, and perhaps not one of particular importance to the Others, if entry to-and-from the island can occur without it.
The super-fast hostile response when Charlie entered the station seems to suggest that they are high alert for intrusion by someone (the Others?), not necessarily air crash victims, which must be a pretty rare occurrence. :)
I am waiting for John to come back reborn on the third day with super-human powers, a la Christ or perhaps Gandalf.
gregtramel, that's clever.
It's been my opinion, in response to why "the characters never seem to ask the right questions" (from the Official Podcast), that with the crash of Flight 815, the individuals all suffer from anomie and respond in various manners. Hurley's near-suicide when he almost followed "Dave" off the cliff, is probably the most recognizable example in reference to Durkheim's views/writings of the effects of anomie on individuals.
The effects of suddenly experiencing the loss of a greater society and the resulting normlessness seems to be a pretty clear reason as to why the Lostaways never ask the "right questions." We as the audience are frustrated because we think we know the "right questions." However, the Lostaways experience their reality from a very different mindset. Likely their questions involve their survival primarily (food, water, safety from Hostile forces) and not so much why the island and the Others are so weird. Locke is an exception to that mindset and a good example of how anomie affects every individual differently. The characters on the show provide a spectrum of interesting case studies in reference to anomie, with some asking the "right questions" and others seeming to be clueless, but this is only from our perspective as viewers who are comfortably living within the very societies (and their sets of norms) from which the Lostaways were so violently extricated.
I also bring up the sociological phenomenon because of its ties with existentialism which have been so thoroughly discussed this week. I'd be interested to see where (if anywhere) someone could take it.
I really like the alternate universe idea (similar to Lewis Carroll or Pullman's "His Dark Materials", as others have previously mentioned). However, after watching the "Answers" show, it seems like the explanations that Cuselof give--and also the ones that play out on the show--are much simpler and straightforward than anything that we come up with. As previously mentioned, they seem to have scientific explanations and steer clear of supernatural explanations. One example of this would be the "death" of Bakunin. We the viewers were speculating that he had somehow cheated death, whereas the writers explaned it as the sonic fence was set to stun, not kill. We the viewers only know part of the story, so we tend to fill in with some pretty fantastic ideas. So, as much as I like the alternate world theory as an explanation for why the island is so hard to get to, hard to find, and hard to leave (yes, Hotel California, Tresbien!) as well as the reported deaths of everyone aboard Flight 815, I have a suspicion that it is going to be explained in a scientific, and less of a science-fiction-type manner. Perhaps the footage of the wreck was faked and the island is hidden by... a... ummm... cloaking device (a much more scientific explanation, haha).
But---I'll stick with the alternate universe idea until proven wrong.
Mr. Wood -
What do you think about Desmond being the one faced with a "teleological suspension of the ethical" dilemma? Doesn't he, by allowing Charlie to go to his demise, essentially have to commit an act of faith to a higher power which goes against his ethical instincts? This seems to be the core problem Desmond faces. He knows that under normal circumstances he would be inclined to save a man he knew was about to die. However, he also seems to believe that he must allow Charlie to die in order please some "higher power."
I'm not sure that we, as an audience, even know what the "right" thing for him to do is at this point. Should be interesting to find out.
The first Lost World reference I've found comes in episode 6 of the first season, House of the Rising Sun. Charlie calls Locke "the great white hunter," and from Wiki:
"Great White Hunter is a phrase coined in the late nineteenth century as a reference to white men who explored the remote lands of those times, typically in pursuit of big-game hunting in Africa and Asia. Their exploits were romanticized in adventure novels that became the so-called "Lost World/Lost Race" genre. Perhaps the first fictional Victorian adventure hero to appear was Allan Quatermain, a great white hunter who appeared in books by H. Rider Haggard."
Quatermain is also characterized in Alan Moore's graphic novel, "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," which also features Jules Verne's Captain Nemo of Mysterious Island. (And let's just pretend they never made it into a movie.) Moore, of course, wrote Watchmen.
Interestingly, Sayid is nicknamed "Omar" and "Sheriff" in that same episode. Omar Sharif hit it big in Western filmmaking with "Lawrence of Arabia," which also deals with European hegemony in Africa. Omar Sharif is also well-known for his writing on the game of bridge. But all this is more of a pun than a full-fledged reference, yes?
In White Rabbit, Charlie doesn't say that he can't swim. He says, "Jack! Jack! Jack! Hey Jack! Someone's out there. You've gotta... the current's... there's someone out there, look. I woke up and she's... I don't swim. I don't swim." He's saying that he will not swim, that it is something he will not *do*.
To me, he's coming across more the coward than the incompetent (which is Boone's role.) He's hopped up on heroin, his self-loathing is high, he's apt to lying, and he's very much shirking the call to heroism. I think it's a much more likely scenario than all this time-travel trickery.
But...
We do hear Desmond's name being called out in the scene where Charlie jumps into the pool. Might it be that in an other timeline, Desmond accidentally interfered with Charlie's learning to swim? Maybe he bumped him in and he nearly drowned in surprise, frightening him from future swimming. Or maybe little Des knocked Charlie down, and Charlie never jumped?
For such a scenario to emerge, Des would need to "flash back" again, but that doesn't seem likely at this point since the Swan station is totally destroyed.
So maybe as we enter the Looking Glass, we're not seeing literal reversals of our characters but metaphorical ones. We're starting to see other sides of our characters that we haven't seen before. We've only seen three months of them in action. We think we know them, but do we really? I'm beginning to think that we don't.
That said, I'm totally looking forward to seeing our characters turned inside out, although it seems it's been happening for a while. Charlie and Des turn out to heroes, not cowards. Locke turns out to be a manipulator instead of manipulated. Jack is turning out to be an awful dictator, not the good leader. James is turning out to be, well, James instead of Sawyer, at peace rather than haunted.
Actually, lazarus, I think Desmond does fit in with the teleological suspension of the ethical; it's something he's been grappling with for some time now. The socially ethical thing to do is to save someone you know you can save. His "higher power" isn't necessarily god, but Des still has to suspend the socially ethical in order to make sure a higher ethical purpose is fulfilled.
But this is my problem with Kierkagaard's proposition in the first place: If Desmond's "suspension" succeeds, it only benefits the community. So it was in essence for the community. Kierkegaard's suspension is just for a deity, and has no clear benefit for the community. That's when people start asking "what kind of a god is this?", because the whole test is only to see how faithful Abraham his to that deity. Abraham's value is only contingent upon his suspending the well-being of not only his community, but his own flesh aand blood.
This is why a lot of rabbis have read the story as Abraham getting carried away, misreading god's command. Some even note that at that period in time, a human sacrifice to a deity wouldn't be odd; the odd thing would be to stop a human sacrifice, and maybe that's what we're supposed to take away -- that's what sets this deity apart from the rest in the late neolithic/early bronze age.
since I think Des is an estranged Other, I think he realizes if he allows everything to happen exactly like his visions the castaway women will be captured so he needs to make self corrections to trick fate
A further comment about the Looking Glass station. The logo is a black circle (the looking glass) with a rabbit's head superimposed on it. The rabbit's neck has a black circle on it. Perhaps more appropriately, it has a hole through it.
Where does that leave us? Again, by referrencing a rabbit-hole, it brings us back to Lewis Carrol (and others who have previously made the allusion, such as The Matrix.) Lets see how deep this rabbit hole goes, indeed?
A further correlation can be made though, between Charlie and the rabbit. Charlie was seen in one of Desmond's visions with a hole through HIS neck, and Charlie is now also inside the Looking Glass just as the rabbit is in the logo.
Is Charlie "The White Rabbit?" Did someone follow him to the island? Does Charlie work for "the queen?" Probably not to any of these speculations, but it makes for fertile discussion.
Take a look at the Looking Glass logo again. That hole is a clock, set to 3:35 -- or, I guess, 7:15.
The white rabbit from Carroll's story was always frantic and running late for something, which just brings us back around to time issues again.
Carroll's text is also about finding out how your basic assumptions are mistaken, and since the station's logo brings us back to that text and specifically to a symbol of time, perhaps our basic assumptions about how time is operating are mistaken. And with that I'm brought back to "Not in Portland," with the backward-masked film soundrack repeating "Only fools are enslaved by time and space."
The Others ain't no fools.
http://snipurl.com/1lhmx This link to the Lostpedia page about the Looking Glass logo shows clock hands that appear to show 8:15 in the hole on the rabbit, which I think is important to indicate a transition of both space and time.
J, just before you posted about Charlie being Catholic, I was thinking about that, too. My take is that Charlie did not commit suicide at all but rather took a risk that could result in his death; we have nothing to indicate that he desires his own death but rather he's made his peace with the possibility. If Desmond's visions do not always come to pass, how accurate are they really? Do Catholics believe that taking a great risk is equivalent to suicide?
We pushed the submit button at the same time I see. Now that's freaky! I do think the time is 8:15, though. Wouldn't it be interesting if only the flight 815 passengers can use that portal, but Desmond cannot leave that way?
More on Desmond - I think his precognitive ability is going to be pivotal to our understanding of what's going on in LOST. The writers have spent a lot of time focusing on it and have yet to answer some key questions, such as:
- What (or who?) gave Desmond this ability?
- Why has Desmond been given this ability?
- What is Desmond meant to do about it?
- Why Desmond?
http://en.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:Lookingglass.jpg
http://en.lostpedia.com/images/e/ef/Lookingglasslogo2.jpg
You know, I don't see a clock when looking at the original... I have NO idea how they assigned hands to the circle. There's not enough detail.
Ah... here's the promotional material shot. It's info that was not available to mere viewers of the show. http://en.lostpedia.com/images/e/e8/Schematic_promotional2.jpg
Apparently an allusion to the pocketwatch the white rabbit carried as well as a hint for the purpose of the station, obviously.
The Flame got its name as a reference to the fires lit upon watchtowers to spread news of impending attack quickly... it's a method of communication.
The Swan recalls the story of the ugly duckling... I've speculated in oth er forumns that the station (combined with the drugs Desmond was taking) was an experiment explicitely designed to bring out psychic (and telepathic?) abilities... to transform the ugly duckling into a swan.
As you noted, J, you can't really tell which is the "short hand" on the watch... there's deliberate time-ambiguity involved in the logo. That's probably a hint in and of itself. WHEN are they? In a previous episode, Hurley tuned the radio and heard an oldies station playing and made a remark to the effect of wondering when it was broadcast, not where.
I'm sitting here watching the X-Files episode "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'" to put me in the proper light-hearted mood for tomorrow -- that episode is not only hilarious, but has some poignant lines from the writer as to the role of the storyteller and the Imagination.
Just wanted to say, J, in reference to people's mentioning of other books/stories here -- since this blog is hosted by Powells, I myself think it's only polite to mention as many books and DVDs as might be pertinent -- "if you like this, you might like this" kind of thing. Just after last week's episode I got in the mail a book by the Norwegian cartoonist Jason called "The Left Bank Gang" which is a kind of film noir of Joyce, Pound, Fitzgerald, Hemingway et al in a cross between Kubrick's "The Killing" and Kurosawa's "Rashomon." I was going to mention it here as it seemed extremely apropos. . . but now it really doesn't. ;-)
As to John Locke, I'm sensing a King Amfortas kind of thing (riffing from what Jeffrey says) as well as thinking in terms of Parzival of the Grail Maidens of the Looking Glass Station. re: those two maidens: I'm also hoping that the season finale gives at least some idea as to the Others/Hostiles militaristic readiness to kill and be killed -- again, maybe I don't watch enough TV, but I just don't get the motivation, as yet.
PS My childhood CCD classes are far behind me, but as to Charlie, his religious beliefs, and suicide: just because some guy tells you that an action will result in your death, I don't think that the Catholic religion would consider that suicide, the same as if you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.
The best example in popular fiction of a blogger I can think of is Dennis Hopper's character in "Apocalypse Now". He is manic, uncalled for, and quick with the literary allusion (Kipling's "If" for ex.) He also brings up the concept of dialectics. So, whether I believe that the creators of "Lost" actually had "The Beach" or "The Little Prince" or "Ziggy" for that matter in mind is not the point. This amazing show is the Looking-Glass Onion of which anyone can peel. Its reason for being (beyond popular entertainment) is to allow all viewers an opportunity to interpret its meanings as per their experience, and a blog as rich in ideas as ONLY this one a chance to offer those interpretations for discussion. Do I believe in every allusion I cite? No. Am I constantly inspired by those who see things differently than me? Yes!
In a way, then, the use of allusion/citation works like a Rorschach test; one of their functions is to show the audience what *they're* getting out of the narrative. That also plays into how Smokey manifests differently to different people, depending on their state of mind or impression of things. And he even looks kind of inky. I like that.
(I have no problem with running with allusions; it's just my natural tendency to look more at the how than at the what, but that's what you get trained for in grad school.)
Isn't the Jose Chung episode the one where Alex Trebek and Jesse Ventura play Men in Black?
The more I think about it, the more I think Desmond is the one who suspends the ethical, and not Charlie. Charlie does the Frodo/Christ thing, but it's Des who is appealing to a seeming supernatural power (his flashes).
J, indeed that is the X-Files episode. It contains a fave bit of dialog (here I've stolen from the IMDB page) where a sci-fi fanboy-type describes our heros, Scully and Mulder, as being other Men in Black to the writer Jose Chung:
"One of them was disguised as a woman, but wasn't pulling it off. Like, her hair was red, but it was a little too red, y'know? And the other one, the tall, lanky one, his face was so blank and expressionless. He didn't even seem human. I think he was a mandroid."
I think it's a gentle poke at fans who read all kinds of things into a show like X-Files or Lost, where what we've seen on screen may have to do with a quirk of the actor rather than a "hint." I like your idea of Smokey as Rorschack. Maybe tonight we'll get a final scene with Locke in the pit, and we see from his memory's POV that he did have a view of Jacob, and it turns out to be the host of the gameshow of Bingo that ABC is promoting so heavily now. (lame joke. heh.)
I'm sorry, but there's just no way LOST will have an explanation like the one set forth on ew.com today. You can't create a popular mainstream show and base it around theoretical physics that less than 1% of the population will be able to actually get their mind around. This is television. If you have to understand Stephen Hawking to understand the show, then it should be on the science channel and not passed off as entertainment. Yes, LOST more than any other element of pop culture in the past requires its viewers to think, but nothing in pop culture can require its participants to have a physics degree, otherwise it is by definition not pop culture, and not mainstream TV.
J-
I just read Doc Jensen's latest post which includes your explanation of your theory on how Des' flashes affect the present, past and future. Now, I'm a little shaky on some of the science here, so bear with me. Isn't there a physics theory being put forth by some scientists that essentially says that electrons and photons travel over all possible paths simultaneously when travelling from Point A to Point B? When an observer then views a particular particle at a specific location at a specific time, the observer is then in effect choosing a particular path or set of paths that allow for that observation. Thus, by making observations, the observer is choosing the past that allows that present to exist. I'm sure someone else out there can verify/explain this theory better than I just have, but this would certainly fit into and around your theory on Des' flashes and their consequences.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20039837_2,00.html
J is a contributor to Doc Jensen's column on Lost this week. If your head hasn't exploded yet, here's more on Minkowsky:
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html
By the way, Frodo's birthday is Sept. 22nd (just mentioning that for no particular reason).
Isn't it odd that a supposedly official diagram of the Looking Glass Station is titled "Looking Glass Hatch"? I thought the term "hatch" was just Locke's rather ad-hoc nomenclature from back in S1.
Wouldn't it be interesting if, now that we're at the series' midpoint, and now that we are looking at a mirror, if tonight really was "the end" for all involved and from here on time runs backwards and the tale is told from the point of view of the "whisperers" who have so far been heard (often talking backwards, I'm told)but not seen. Now that would be some strange TV!
and Doc Jensen make me feel soooooo dumb.
If the Lost writers are half as smart as all these theories portend....
I've read two Updike books and both were big wastes of time: The theme is so obvious that the writing comes off trite. At least the Lost writers, if at times trite, keep us guessing about the dominant theme.
With all due respect, artists are not 'supposed' to hold a mirror to society: Artists merely express 'their' vision of 'their' reality.
I think the finale 3 gimmick will reveal the Dharma group's return.
Or what be more funny is...everyone gets off the island!
I haven't seen Doc's piece (or my commentary) yet because I've been at work; I was just told about it recently. The commentary came from an email exchange. But I'm not sure what the "wrap-up" theories are, so I can't comment on them.
However, the spacetime thing isn't all that out there; it was a major part of Alan Moore's graphic novel Watchmen, and is where I first came across it as a kid. (Dr. Manhattan experiences all time at once.) Watchmen has been a pretty steady reference throughout the series so far, always there just under the surface. In certain ways, Des is echoing Doc Manhattan. At least Lindelof has read Alan Moore *carefully,* and probably multiple times. He's talked about it. Just about anyone who's involved in comics (as a writer, artist or reader) knows Alan Moore.
On the observer changing the observation just by observing: That's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Photons and electrons do all kinds of wacky things -- they're unruly little gits, and only seem to behave like the *should* when they're being watched, a lot like middle schoolers. It's made a lot of researchers wonder how much consciousness alters the physical world. Take the studies of Tibetan monks and meditation done at the University of Wisconsin; the monks can reach such an intense concentration through meditation that they can raise their body temperatures and dry wet sheets wrapped around their bare torsos -- in freezing weather. That's consciousness altering physical reality. (It takes some practice.)
But this raises an interesting question: Throughout this blog, one of the underlying arguments being developed is the way the show responds to the audience response, even incorporating elements of audience response. Looked at from that perspective, it seems we're actually seeing the uncertainty principle playing out in a narrative sense -- Lost changes according to its being observed. And that's how we ended up with Ben as a steady character (for instance -- he was originally slated for only three episodes).
Lost wouldn't be the first to play with a narrative in that way; it's just a new implementation of an older narrative experiment that was in full force in some literature back in the mid-20th century, especially after Einstein's findings. In the way Victorian literature responded to Darwin, 20th century lit responded to Einstein (and science in general, especially after the bomb). On top of Watchmen, off the top of my head, there's Buckaroo Bonzai, some of Philip K. Dick's work (does reality create consciousness, or does consciousness create reality), Tom Stoppard, hell even Faulkner toyed with it in a section from The Sound and the Fury. But comics were a perfect medium for playing with those kinds of spacetime ideas, because the form itself is more flexible in how one can present both space and time. Chris Ware is fantastic with those sorts of experiments.
Just read what I wrote to Doc -- that was a while back. I have no idea at this point whether the island is immune from anything, or if time was just changed. I *do* think we have some good evidence that the past and present were changed with the future after Des saved Charlie, but I doubt the plane crashed and was found. It seems like Hanso staged that (given the website in the first season stating the Hanso Foundation was managing the recovery).
As far as some of the theories put out, none of them will explain everything, but some are useful. There's actually a lot of work being done on how narratives -- especially commercial narratives like television and film -- are in effect audience feedback devices, whether we realize it or not. With the new digital media available now (*ahem* like this blog), that kind of feedback has reached entirely unprecedented levels, and who really knows how to manage it? This is all dark territory.
The evolution of media being embedded into the narrative seems pretty clear. As far as its being an allegory on how such interaction affects artistic integrity (metaphorically, we end up being the Hostiles Dr. Candle warns of after the chess game), I think all one needs to do is see the kind of hostile responses the writers get. They made few friends and probably more enemies with the "Answers" clip show.
In some ways, I think the different factions we get on the island are reflected in the different factions of the audience, ranging from the entirely trusting Hurleys to the entirely incredulous Others.
http://www.huge-entity.com/2006/02/hyper-real-wikipedia-and-evolution-of.html
The amount of traffic on this blog has grown tremendously since its inception! It is fantastic, but also more challenging just to keep up with reading all the posts and thinking about them, much less having enough time to send in comments...thanks J Wood for the Kierkegaard commentaries this week; I knew (hoped!) this SK (who could have imagined there would be three SKs?!) would have to figure into the Lost world/discussion eventually, and I think your thoughts about Kierkegaard are spot on here (I've been meaning to go back to read the Kierkegaard books I have since my college days, but haven't gotten to it yet, unfortunately.)
I also really appreciate your mention of those rabbis (and others) who think the God of the Abraham sacrifice story can read as one in which Abraham misunderstands what God is asking him to do. I have long been troubled by the more conventional, common reading of the story--how/why would a loving, ethical god ask someone to sacrifice anyone--let alone his own child? I never could imagine Abraham treating his own child as an object to be dispensed with even if the action is framed as a sign of devotion to God/a necessary sacrifice, because it isn't consistent with the nature of this new God who isn't looking for human sacrifice.
I think Desmond is the one who has been repeatedly challenged/confused by what he should do as a consequence of the flashes rather than Charlie in the particular scene when he conks Des on the head and dives down to see if he can't save the day after all. Charlie seems pretty consistent in his moral thinking (as other's have pointed out); it is Desmond week after week who is challenged/not sure what to think & do, but it is this lack of clarity, AND his desire to do the right thing, that make him such a sympathetic character. Desmond often feels uncertain and unhopeful about the efficacy of his actions, but he still acts with concern for others and he does care about the consequences of his actions.
Also, J Wood, I think your statement about the Lost audience reflecting the different factions/characters on the show is very perceptive. That's why the discussion generated on this blog is so engaging--instead of simply sitting individually with our thoughts after watching an episode and maybe talking with a few people we know about it, we have the opportunity to engage with all kinds of people all over the world, initially strangers, but over time not so much strangers; people who like each of us, find Lost to be somehow compelling, and the fact that there is some level of interaction between the creators/writers on the show and the audience and the fact that the observers/writers impact one another in both directions rather than one-way, which was the old paradigm when reading a book or watching a TV show--this is truly amazing for someone from my generation (I'm 46 and just got a cell phone and am not tech-savvy at all.)
Communication is happening on many levels and having an impact on the people who participate (the audience) and on the show itself, in the way it unfolds and develops--and maybe this is too great a leap, but I find this really hopeful for democracy--who knows what this kind of dialogue/communication might mean eventually in the political arena and for changing the world?
Kudos to Phutatorius! Also, Jack sure looked like Captain Haddock with that beard. And Charlie strapped in the chair looked like Alex the Droog. Great blistering blue barnacles! The funeral (of who?) is certainly based on "Watchmen".
Redundant, redundant.
*SPOILER ALERT...?*
So. About that finale.
If those "flashbacks" were supposed to be set in the future, then why did Jack say "Call my dad, if I'm drunker than he is you can fire me."
Isn't Jack's father dead?
lsdkghksjf
hjortron flicka -
I hadn't mentioned it earlier because it didn't really seem to fit, but now that J. has mentioned that interpretation of the Abraham text, I want to toss something out there about Egyptian gods that I neglected to discuss last week (?). (I think Miss Gretchen asked?)
In brief, the story of the plagues are directly analagous to the Egyptian gods of the day. For example, the eclipse is a thinly veiled statement that this new god YHWH has more power than the Egyptian sun god Ra. The eclipse is a visual image of a symbolic battle in the sky between YHWH and Ra, with YHWH trumping Ra. Each plague corresponds with a particular Egyptian god and the individual defeat of that god by the Israelites' god.
The original textual message is that YHWH is a singular god among many other gods, but that he is more powerful than the rest. He demonstrates this power in Egypt to show both the Israelites and the Egyptians that he is essentially bigger/badder/better than the rest of the gods that are out there in the many lands.
As J. pointed out, YHWH was (at the chronological time of the stories) initially just one new god cropping up in a world filled with many, many deities. Much of the story in the early books of the Bible are spent dealing with this issue, this god proving himself to be different. The Abraham/Issac story is a great example of that. It's only through editing and reinterpretation by *today's* society that people are preached to read different meanings in these old stories.
That's how this particular religious text works (and arguably others); the people in power use the text to implement social rules/mores and uphold governmental law according to the morality that they interpret from the stories. Initially, these stories had a particular meaning in order to retain control and social order of these tribal societies.
That's why there are hundreds of commandments in Exodus, not just ten, that most people don't know. For example, it is forbidden to boil a calf in its mother's milk. That commandment made sense then, and well, it still seems pretty wrong to boil a calf in its own mother's milk... but we never hear about those commandments today because they are no longer applicable to our society.
Today religious figures in power/with authority, politicians, and parents use the text to serve their vested social interests. The stories are interpreted by the powers that be to make sense to the masses, to the children, to instill a set of morals and ethical imperatives that are applicable to *today's* modern society and the role of the individual within it. Stories about boiling calves are don't mean a whole lot to the electronic generation; stories about adultery, however do.
That's why we don't hear about YHWH being one god among several, or that those passages from Exodus are really a show of YHWH's power as he systematically defeats one Egyptian god after another. Instead we get the interpretations that make the most sense to us in the 21st century. We make the text relate to us and reflect our own modern lives.
To pull this back around to Lost, we are seeing this very thing happen with Ben. Whatever the power and history of the island is, whatever the power and history of Jacob is, Benjamin is twisting whatever stories and information he received in his Benry Potter days to serve his own personal interests. He is taking the oral tradition of the Hostiles and crafting it with his "Word Power" (see previous post, i have no idea how to make a link) to control the Others and also to control (perhaps in futility) the Lostaways.
Who knows what the stories were back in the day when the ancient statue of the foot was originally built? Over time, it is very likely that Ben, and those before him, changed the story to adapt it to more modern society to address topics like medicine (cancer) and science (elctromagnetism), etc.
This season's final episode was rife with allusions to Exodus, so I'll leave it at that until the new post goes up, but it's all very exciting and stimulating. The Tribe of Benjamin and Exodus allusions are really playing out in some very interesting ways.
dharma bum -- you are one thoughtful, interesting cookie!
I think your explanation of the way people use texts (including/especially the O.T./Torah) is right on (though I'm not sure adultery is a particularly salient commandment for the electronic generation in the way that it was to previous ones...) but I take your point that the ten commandments are the ones that have the most resonance for modern folk versus the legions of other rules like the calf-being-boiled-in-its-mother's-milk one...there have always been people interesting in rules and regulations, and legalism has often triumphed over an understanding of the "spirit" of the law...sorry, that's off topic (I just returned from my first stint ever on a jury--a fascinating/sobering/awesome experience; sitting in judgement with a group of strangers on the fate of another stranger...)
I think you are absolutely right about Ben using/twisting/changing the history and stories he knows from his boyhood days in ways that serve his purposes now as an adult. It seems to me that people have always both unconsciously/unintentionally adapted what they know (history & story-wise) to fit what they believe/want to believe, AND also purposefully manipulated information & narratives to further particular agendas.
And you really illuminate the old gods/new god dynamic clearly with the recounting of the YHWH/Ra battle--thanks for that.
What I'm REALLY impressed with, though, is the way you picked up on the "Word Power" allusion in a previous episode (I don't remember which one it was, but I do remember it), and pointing out how Ben uses his words to shape what people believe and do on the island. Ben has become remarkably powerful because of his cunning with words; not his physical strength (though in last night's episode he did strike out violently at one point in a way that shocked me...) Last night, Ben even said that he was going to talk the Losties out of leaving the island--directly naming the power of his persuasive abilities/his Word Power, when one of "his" people asks him how he can stop the Losties from going up to the radio tower...Ben has, until recently, had an uncanny knack for using speech to gain and hold power over most of the people he encounters (perhaps Jacob and Locke have been the only solid exceptions--though both of them have been manipulated by Ben, too--now there are many more doubters when it comes to Ben's authority/trustworthiness and his power seems to be crumbling around him...but it may be too soon underestimate Ben's ability to use his wiles and powers of speech to turn things around; we'll see...)
So, thanks for the great commentary(ies), dharma bum!
The central question driving Lumber-Jack’s flashback last night; was who is in the coffin? As I’m sure many of you have, if you cue the mighty Tivo just right, you can make out a little from the clipping that almost sent Lumber-Jack to his concrete grave.
Someone was found dead in downtown L.A. The clipping reads “the body of Je………..entham.†Or at least that’s what I could see. I’m betting, knowing LOST’s infatuation with all that is philosophy, we have a dead Jeremy Bentham on our hands.
“Bentham is primarily known for his moral philosophy, especially his principle of utilitarianism which evaluates actions based upon their consequences, in particular the overall happiness created for everyone affected by the action. He maintained that putting this principle into consistent practice would provide justification for social, political, and legal institutions. Although Bentham's influence was minor during his life, his impact was greater in later years as his ideas were carried on by followers such as John Stuart Mill, and John Austin.†From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
This is especially interesting in light of Jack’s decision to let Sayid, Jin, and Bernard, get ‘shot’ last night. He made a utilitarian call to value the overall happiness of the Losties over that of the few. It also informs his decision to ignore Locke-Ben’s warnings, and yes I said warnings, and still contact Naomi’s people.
Since it wasn’t Penny’s boat, it looks like Jack, inadvertently brought down a plague of Other-other’s on the Island. These are events that Locke, and eventually Lumber-Jack, both said were never supposed to happen.
If Jack was wrong, and his actions have lead to a downward spiral that puts him back in the real world battling Oxycontin, play Nathan Petrelli without the genetic mutation, and keeping a secret that he cannot live with, then we must re-evaluate what we believed to be right and wrong. Was Ben telling the truth? Is he the one that is truly looking out for the overall good, and thus he the morally good one?
And this brings us back to the mysterious man in the coffin, a now mirror-twinned motif in Jack’s life. Only this time, there is someone in the coffin we just don’t know who. Or do we? Kate’s back in the real world, but with her record we can be sure she isn’t going by Kate Austen. She’s using one of her many aliases. It is reasonable to believe that others are as well. Others that like Jack who were forced from the Island. Others like the leader of the others – Ben. If Ben is the one making the utilitarian moral decision, and the Losties have been forced/rescued from the Island, then maybe he’s the one in the coffin. And his death, the death of the one who was right, the death of Lumber-Jack’s last link to the Island, was almost too much to handle.
Sandra ...
No, I don't think Jack's father is dead in the future. I think there is some ironic/karmic twist occuring where Jack, Kate, and (one might assume) the other "lostaways" leave the island, as a result of leaving they do not face the issues they were encouraged to confront on the island, and then they are somehow destined to lead the life they had judged others for leading. Jack becomes an oxy-addict (as opposed to an alcoholic), and I think it's likely Kate is in an abusive relationship, probably with Sawyer - who is unfortunately leading Cooper's life. Pure speculation of course, but I think it's likely.
The good news is, since the future has been demonstrated to be maleable, there is still hope for these characters ... they may yet resolve their issues and escape their pasts/destinies.
Regardless of the outcome of Jack's decisions, I cannot judge his action as wrong. He had no reason to trust either Ben or Locke based on their prior acts/motivations. Do you choose the evil that you know or take your chances on getting off craphole island? All of Locke's actions were to stay on the island where he wasn't paralyzed and thought to be special. Ben was in charge there even if his hold on power was slipping. What would any of us do in that situation?
Just a quick note to wrap things up: thank you dharma bum for the illumination on the Old Testament stories, and thank you hjortron flicka for thanking J for the Abraham/Isaac explanation, ditto for me.
The new post hasn't gone up yet, but I can't wait: did anyone else note that the climactic revelation means Jack's dad is alive after they got off the island???
I can't believe I have to wait 'til next January to see what happens next!
Brockman, I think the status of Jack's dad is unclear. Jack could have forged the prescription, and he could be in a drug-induced haze and have forgotten his father is dead...or not. It has stuck with me that his body was not found after the crash, which makes me wonder if he's alive somewhere on the space-time continuum.
Why would Jack and Kate and whoever else come's back to civilization have to come back to their future? Is it possible that they came back to a time before they left Sydney?
Sorry, I realized I had one more thing to say on this thread, re: the "Answers" show. Look, why does someone get hotheaded about a show like Lost? For myself, hey, if I think a writer is doing their best and then they don't measure up to my expectations, I might be disappointed, but I won't be angry. When I do get angry, is if I feel like a writer is disrespecting me and wasting my precious time. For me, that show was a clip show, a recap show, not an "answers" show. It was not informative nor for me entertaining. So, let me say something positive, and also in the spirit of this "new" fan-influenced form of entertainment: how about if in future on a recap show, they have not only those two guys Damon and Carlton, but also the two cute girls from the Washington Post, Liz and Jen, who introduce some of the clips and give the fan's perspective and the fan's speculations. That would give the show some energy and pizzazz (I could say "why not J and Doc" but those gals at the WP seem very bouncy to me, they would play off the deadpan writers, and it would be "something for the ladies.")
Lumber Jack - Bentham wrote a book "Auto-Icon, or the Uses of the Dead to the Living". In it he suggests that "if all bodies were embalmed, every man might be his own statue." The actual skeleton of Bentham was indeed the foundation of a wax effigy that presided over meetings at University College, London.
Lumber Jack: I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the obituary is for Jeremy Bentham.
In my opinion, a Bentham reference in Lost may be less about Utilitarianism than about his proposal for a Panopticon. It is Bentham's Panopticon provides the inspiration and basis for Michel Foucault's ruminations in "Discipline and Punish."
Any ideas about who witnessed the flash forwards? Jack may have, of course, but it does not seem like an open and shut case to me. Furthermore, if Jack saw them and had some understanding of what they implied, he might have hesitated a bit before calling Naomi's ship. So, if this hypothesis is not bunk, did anyone - besides the viewing audience - have these premonitions? Locke? Jacob?
I clicked the "Submit" button too early.
Foucault's ruminations on the Panopticon fit what we have witnessed so far in this show: physical and social control, powers of mind over mind, and ubiquitous surveillance. The architecture of daily life.
I haven’t re-watched the episode yet, but I plan to do so tonight. From just one viewing, these were my impressions. The funeral was Locke’s. Based on two considerations: Locke is one of the oldest losties and we’d expect him to die first. Second, the finale’s theme of a conflict between Jack’s judgement regarding contacting the ship/getting rescued, and Locke’s judgement. Jack is now apparently wishing he’d gone with Locke’s judgement and the regret appears to be ruining his life.
Two apparent deus-ex-machinas bothered me. One was the loaded revolver in the mass grave. We haven’t seen that before, have we? The other was – uh, I’ve forgotten. Also, why was there a video link up between Penny and the Looking Glass if it was “not her ship?â€
I'm not sure if anyone else has really mentioned this, but I'm curious about the significance of "Good Vibrations" as the code for un-jamming the signals.
That particular song has a rich and peculiar history (not to mention the album it was orignally to have gone on, "Smile"), as well as a complicated, carefully layered composition (much like the narrative of Lost itself).
The title also makes me think of string theory, since I recently read a book about it. It posits that all elementary particles in physics are really vibrations of strings that exist in as many as 11 or 12 dimensions.
Then there's the whole "good and bad" thing, especially in relation to how Brian Wilson got the idea for the song/title to begin with.
Finally, Penny magically appears right after Charlie plays Good Vibrations on the keys. Some intersting (Mike Love, as I don't know the original Tony Asher) lyrics:
Close my eyes
She's somehow closer now
Softly smile, I know she must be kind
When I look in her eyes
She goes with me to a blossom world
...
I dont know where but she sends me there
Anyone more erudite than me have ideas on this?
Close-ups of the newspaper clipping:
http://lost.cubit.net/viewEgg.php?id=294
hjortron flicka and Miss Gretchen - I want to thank you as well for your contributions that create very stimulating conversation. Your references to other media (also recently read Left Bank Gang!), horizontal thinking to explore new areas and create theories, and excellent questions spark and propel the conversation in this forum. This being the first forum with which I got involved, my eyes are opened. I find myself following up on your references and ideas, which is great. It's fun. Everyone's contributions here make this a wonderful Lost think tank; this week I realized I needed to brush up on my existentialism. The forum enhances the whole experience to such great heights.
And for that we have to thank J. Wood for his great analyses and committed involvement in answering questions and initiating the rapport. It's fantastic that this forum jumped up from thirteen comments to a hundred or more per week in such a short time. I have to thank J. Wood for his writing and his direct involvement in answering questions and expanding on his and our ideas and theories in such a professional and attentive manner. Thank you.
I totally agree with the three of you who think the name is probably Bentham. It fits the motif. I think it's really a very mysterious easter egg that could have thematic consequences/reflections. Did anyone else notice that on Ben's map their was an area marked Pascal's Flats? It's funny because he's triangulating a position, but the name also has deeper elements to it. Nuff said, hushing up until this week's new post.
sorry about previous post, I hit submit by mistake. To complete my thought:
Since the past may also be maleable, I suppose perhaps the window isn't quite so narrow. But if that's the case, there is no "baseline" for analyzing anything, and I'd have no clue whatsoever how to interpret this week's events.
Seeing the growth in traffic has been very interesting. Did anyone else navigate here originally through Escapist Entryway? Just curious.
sigh - 99, my first post clearly never made it through. I actually asked myself the same question:
"Why would Jack and Kate and whoever else come's back to civilization have to come back to their future? Is it possible that they came back to a time before they left Sydney?"
But it presented a couple of problems. If they went back (to the past), why did Jack's ex consider it "inappropriate" to give him a lift home after his stay in the hospital? Some period of time had clearly transpired since their separation/divorce. Also, she appeared to be in her late second/third trimester of pregnancy, suggesting a certain amount of time had passed since their separation.
Hmmmm, second/third trimester of pregnancy? Any thoughts on that?
I definitely agree with dharmabum's comment on the common modern interpretations (and consequent abuse) of bibilcal text. Both the context of Abraham's "new" God competing with old gods, and the context of sacrifices being the thing of the day (hjorton flicka) can be true. Multiple levels of analysis do not necessarily contradict each other (at least,to an open-minded believer). Here is my evangelical-protestant upbringing and education coming through, but I learned that God was testing Abraham's Faith (not devotion, and not just belief but TRUST) in God, and his faith is strong enough that he begins to go through with the test, but also strong enough to not truly believe that God would allow him to go through with it. In the NIV version of the book of Genesis, Abraham, taking Isaac up to the mountain alone, says to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." Now, I doubt he was worried what his servants thought of him going up to make an offering without an animal, and therefore did not say "I'll come back," only Isaac questions it. I'm not sure what difference this makes on inferences in the overall parallels with the biblical stories. It just seems this perspective hadn't been addressed...seems all interpretations of a god who would ask for a man to sacrifice his son have been that he is, at best, not a caring god. The interpretation I present implies (to me)that Abraham knew all along the outcome of the test. The sacrifices to the island actually happen, whereas Abraham's do not. Unless Boone is actually still alive? The island gave a reprieve after all?
and J, at one point you wrote something like the old and new testaments' dicotomy is that of law vs. fighting misplaced roman law to attain justice? again, i'm coming from a different perspective than many people commenting on the biblical allusions, but i think the NT is more about grace from God...Jesus rarely spoke to roman law ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" referring to taxes) but in that time, Jews a lot of freedom to worship as they chose. NT speaks to social justice (the meek inheriting the earth, the first shall be last) but not justice from roman law... So the Others aren't forgiving, but the island is mercy/grace-ful...locke is healed, mikhail recovers, charlie is constantly saved from death. locke has faith in the island--in the NT, faith is what grants God's grace, not burnt offerings--and he is healed...Ben has faith in the island (?) but got a tumor...a test of faith, which is so OT? maybe it's not such a strict dicotomy after all. In the OT God has mercy on Rahab, a non-Hebrew prostitute.
wish i was more literate in philosophy to be able to comment to those aspects of this blog, which i love, and i could kick myself for not taking those last few classes to get that philosophy minor...I'm considering reading the blog and everyone's comments to be my continuing education :)
Jeremy Bentham believed that the guiding rule for society should be the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The altruism of Charlie, Sayid, Jin, Desmond in this last episode would back that up. But Bentham and his friends the Mills father & son team (as dysfunctional as the Shephards) didn't allow for emotions or imagination in their cold heaven of rationalism. Dickens' "Hard Times" shines a gas light on this. How many times in this episode did somebody do something thinking it was heroic and altruistic only it to be the wrong thing to do? Charlie unjamming, Jack (with that look of personal satisfaction) commanding, even the chief of surgeons telling Jack to have a drink. Leaving the island was wrong - Ben, Locke, nature-girl Rousseau (her namesake THE inspiration for the French Revolution) knew it. The greatest number is not the 40 Lostaways but the rest of humanity. They must go back.
Also, when Jack was driving in the hood going to the funeral home I thought I was watching the only other show I watch: "The Shield". Imagine my surprise when that show's police chief appears as the funeral director.
J., about the story on Lost changing based on being observed, you give the example of Ben becoming a regular character (though he was originally slated only for 3 episodes). I don't think there's anything remotely unique about Lost doing that. This has happened on TV since there's been TV. Fonzie, for example, was a minor character on Happy Days, but became the star because he became popular with the audience. If the uncertainly principle is responsible for Ben's increased prominence then it's responsible for Fonzie's too. I really see no difference between the 2 examples.
I don't completely follow what you're trying to say when you talk about the "Answers" clip show, but it does seem like you're "few friends and probably more enemies" theory is based solely on online reaction. Given this is a blog, I guess that's understandable, but I strongly believe (though admitedly have only anecdotal evidence) that the vast majority of people who watch Lost are not spending much if any time online discussing the show.
The new post for "Through the Looking Glass" is all sent in, but there's a number of screencaps included, so the Powell's people will need to set that up. I attempted to answer a few of the questions that I see popped up here (like Christian Shepherd being alive).
I'm going to respond in more depth to some of the comments here after I get my head back on straight from writing the last post, but two quick things:
As far as those bouncy girls from the Washington Post, I wrote with Liz and Jen this morning about the season finale. That was the second time, and they're a lot of fun to work with. They ask some fantastic questions too.
Also, since we know the newspaper clip shows someone who's name starts with J, any chance it could be Jacob?
One thing I'm really hoping for over the summer: A release of Geronimo Jackson's "Greatest Hits," with Carlton Cuse on banjo.
dharma bum, have you seen those theories about the Old Testament Hebrews actually being the northern Egyptian Hyksos people? The idea is wild, and pretty interesting (if you're into biblical history). The Hyksos broke severely from the southern Egyptian people after the zodiacal shift from Taurus to Aries. The Egyptians kept sacrificing bulls and worshipping many gods, while the Hyksos moved on to rams and monotheism. When that volcano at Santorini blew, Thera, the Hyksos saw that as evidence that god was angry because people hadn't moved on to the right zodiacal moment, and Thera's fallout lead to what was written down (allegorized) as the plagues. (That's not to say writers couldn't take an event and say the ash cloud that blocked out the sun was like an eclipse blocking out Ra, and that's our god outdoing the rest.) The Hyksos then migrated because of the fallout damage, and wended their way up into the Middle East and around the Mediterannean.
One of the more interesting claims in this theory is that Mt. Sinai is actually the great pyramid at Giza. In some translations, Moses goes into Sinai rather than on top, and the pyramid has a passage/cave going inside of it. The priests cordonned off Mt. Sinai, and it'd be a lot hard to fence off a mountain as opposed to a pyramid. Sinai is supposed to be the highest mountain around, and that the pyramid is. And apparently Sinai was to have a black basalt platform at one side, and black basalt has been found under the sand on one side of the pyramid.
No matter what, it's at least a fun thought experiment.
Remember the pounding that the Looking Glass pulsed out after Charlie tapped out the tune? That was the signal. And Penny says that the LG contacted her -- she asks how they got on that channel. So it doesn't seem that Penny was tapped into the LG, but that the LG's signal contacted Penny.
Two things:
Someone posted that Christian Shepherd's body "was never found" after the crash. It was my understanding that Jack was escorting an empty coffin back stateside b/c he was unable to clear the body through customs.
Secondly: has anyone read their Wrinkle in Time lately? (Besides Sawyer?) Check the wikipedia entry/summary. VERY INTERESTING parallels to our beloved show. Thoughts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrinkle_in_time
From looking at the obit screencap, I think the name is a play on John Latham, the philopsher/artist who passed last year and beleived in a theory of "flat time." Check out his Wikipedia page for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Latham_%28artist%29
Whew.
I'm glad that all the time-travel references have been shown to be metaphorical. The real time-travel occurs for us, the viewer. When we started watching, the events of the story and the events of our lives matched up. But the story moved slower than we did, to the point that 32 months had elapsed for us, versus only 3 months for the survivors.
Two games have changed. First is the real time-travel, the narrative structure of the show. The "flashes" are post-Island, not pre-Island. They will show us the consquences of our characters' decisions, but unlike Desmond our characters won't have access to this information. (More withholding of information! I love it!) And we'll see how they finally get off the Island.
The second game-changer puts Gilligan to rest. We know they get off the Island. Now the game shifts in the other direction. Can they get back to the Island? How will they find it? How will the Island have changed? What will they do to fix the damage they've done?
I'm delighted.
If we see Charlie again, it will be in the form of his Resurrection, probably as an avatar of Jacob. Charlie is dead, but by his dying in the form of sacred sacrifice, of dying Christ-like, his Return in Spirit may be foreshadowed.
Well, it's my coffee break time, where is my Lost blog post? :P OK you sleepy West Coast webmasters, I'll check in later today.
I received J Wood's book in the mail yesterday (I should have paid for overnight mail!) and I'm enjoying it very much. WrinkleInTime, just to let you know that he mentions that book/series in his book (Living Lost: Why We're All Stuck On the Island.) Those books turned the childhood G into a big sci-fi freak, I love them. I was trying to think of a list of summer reading for people who like Lost, and besides the L'Engle books, I thought of the Dune series (already mentioned) and the Canopus in Argus series by Doris Lessing (the most popular book is called Shikasta.) I pulled out from the to-read pile Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder as my meta-Lost-related beach reading. While we are waiting for the finale blog post, some of you interested in esotericism might be interested in this article I found randomly (through Google, but now I see it's referenced in Wikipedia) on Wagner's Parsifal:
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/arts/ar-rmay.htm
(I'd never been to that site before nor heard of the author, so no endorsement is implied.) Wagner's opera is in many ways quite different than the story by Wolfram von Eschenbach (for instance there is no spear in von Eschenbach, and there is no question ["Brother/Uncle, what ails thee?"] in Wagner) but it's probably a more familiar version of the story to modern folk. I offer this article only as an example in general cultural literacy; as some themes which may resonate in the Lost-world.
As to how we got to this blog and traffic, I have to admit that in the past weeks I read J's post on Thursday evening but didn't realize that there were many comments in the days afterwards. . .I just wasn't trusting Lost (as I said, sometimes I skipped the show altogether and only read J's blog.) So recently I've been going back and reading the comments and enjoying them very much, thank you everyone. Oh, and I got here thru the Powells portal, I enjoy reading the book news every day, it's just enough, not too much (blogs can make you read more about reading, than actually reading, for me at least.)
JUtah-
Interesting catch. My first thought was that it looked like "-antham," but the "Jeremy Bentham" angle was too tantalizing to ignore.
If we're supposed to find John Latham rather than Jeremy Bentham, then we're totally discussing the wrong aspects of the show. Panopticon out, Watchmen in!
Zot-funny you should mention 'Happy Days'. I was just telling my wife that I fully expect Chuck Cunningham to be on the island. Maybe it was Chuck who died? Maybe he's in a box with a cat?
Seriously though-does anyone think it's possible that the 'flash forward' was a flash back, and the 815 gang is already on the island for the second time?
JUtah, I thought the newspaper clipping said Latham, too, and I just got this link in an email from a friend. Well done on your work!
http://speakerwiggin.livejournal.com/415710.html?view=3980766
>It was my understanding that Jack was escorting >an empty coffin back stateside b/c he was unable >to clear the body through customs.
They never stated for a fact that he got through customs or not with the body, so you may be right. But you have to wonder about his reaction at seeing an empty coffin when he opened it then. He seemed shocked.
Maybe to calm him and get him on the plane someone at Oceanic pulled the body out and shipped just the casket, so that Jack thought there should have been a body?
It's just been pointed out to me that the name on the newspaper clipping is Lantham not Latham.
J. – I only vaguely remember the Hyksos connection, and it is a very interesting theory. I recall it tangentially based on the eruption of Thera coinciding potentially with the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus. It has been supposed that Thera’s eruption could have caused a geological event that made it appear that a lesser sea or body of water (cannot recall name…) was parted; instead what could have occurred was that the volcanic events caused the draining of this lesser body of water, making it shallow enough for the fleeing Israelites to cross. From that geological/historical connection, I have heard of the connection.
That Mt. Sinai as the great pyramid of Giza theory rocks. (I’m such a geek.)
With all of the discussion about cities called Portland, I wanted to add one that I read about on the 'lage. There's a Portland in Michigan, and in that area is a river called Looking Glass River. Michigan has a special relevance to Lost because Gerald and Karen DeGroot, founders of The Dharma Initiative, were doctoral candidates at the University of Michigan. I googled it to be sure it wasn't a joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Glass_River
Okay, I live near there, I've attended Univ of Mich, walked the "diag" etc. many times -- and I've been to Portland, Michigan. I think what you turned up is just a coincidence with nothing to do with Lost. There are Portlands in many states.