A. Trust me, the next thing I say is true.
B. Okay.
A. The last thing I said was false.
B. Umm...
The namesake of the third season's seventeenth episode, Catch-22, was originally supposed to be called Catch-18; in Judaism, the character for 18 is also the character for 'life,' which is ironic given both the context of Joseph Heller's book and Charlie's impending bad end. It also happens to be the date the episode aired, April 18, and shares the same meaning as the Russian word жизнь, which begins with the character that looked so similar to the symbol on the tree from "One of Us" — Ж. Brother Campbell tells Desmond in the flashback that Des is now "one of us," and Charlie asks Desmond why he left Penny behind. Brother Campbell also keeps a photo of him with Mrs. Hawking on his desk. Right around this time in previous seasons, Boone died and the imaginary Dave jumped off a cliff; and we see Charlie (possibly) die a few times in this episode. And Desmond, the soldier who sees everything twice, has another flash which he tries to manipulate. We're in a new realm of echoes, as Lost pushes its literary mirror-twinning towards a text that's about echoes, circular logic, and its own form of deja vu.
The catch, of course, is that there is no catch. In Heller's book about WWII bombing missions, Catch-22 is a rule that states if a soldier is insane, then he has to be pulled from duty. However, if a soldier tried to prove he was insane, he must be sane, because the only sane thing to do is to try to get out of flying more deadly missions. Only a crazy person would willingly go on those bombing runs, but only a sane person would try to prove he was insane so he could save himself. Therefore, the insane thing to do is be sane, and the sane thing to do is be insane — which you can't really do. Get it? The thing undoes itself. This is the absurd circular logic that underpins the characterizations, dialog and the plot of the novel, which follows that trajectory to a number of logically absurd conclusions. And like the circular logic, events and themes recur throughout the novel in a way that echoes the recurrence we've seen throughout many recent episodes of Lost, especially since "Exposé." It's fitting that the protagonist of Catch-22, Yossarian, is nicknamed Yo-Yo.
That structural narrative recurrence of Lost has been occurring in at least three major ways: With characters echoing aspects of other characters and past actions (as many noted with Juliet and Hurley, and the seeming Jack/Kate/Sawyer games again — but with a more knowing Sawyer); with Desmond seeing things before they happen; and with us, the audience, witnessing the flashbacks multiple times and from multiple perspectives. We're privy to personal information the other characters aren't. That idea of recurrence is also of major significance in Dharmic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism (and possibly for the Dharma Initiative); everyone is on a suffering treadmill of birth, life, death, and rebirth, until they can jump off through enlightenment (which recalls the overstimulation chamber from Room 23 in "Not in Portland" — "we are the cause of our own suffering"). The only question is if the individual can grow and attain the enlightenment to end that suffering. It's doubtful Charlie ever will; twice now, we've seen his throat get wrecked (even if one was a possible Charlie). In Dharmic religions, the vishuddha chakra is related to growth and expression, and is located in the throat.
Desmond may be attaining some measure of enlightened thinking; perhaps not enlightenment, but a growing awareness, along with his growing beard; he seems to be the only one on the island who can grow a real beard, which is in contrast to his past determination to shave every day while in the Swan hatch. What he may be coming to realize is the nature of David Hume's compatibilism: For the first time Desmond tries to work with his flash rather than against it, at the risk of skewering Charlie. This is his test, which recalls his discussion with Brother Campbell about the name of the wine the brothers make, Moriah; was it a decent god who asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on Mount Moriah? Campbell's reply suggests that decency had nothing to do with it, it's the willingness to accept the test that qualifies one to pass. We (and Des) later come to know that Des's test is the island, and he willingly sacrifices both his life with Penny and nearly sacrifices Charlie's life. Did he pass?
The rhetorical banter between Des and Brother Campbell gives the nod to another rhetorician and Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, George Campbell. A Presbyterian minister and rhetorician (he wrote The Philosophy of Rhetoric), Campbell challenged the philosopher Hume's position on miracles. When it came to miracles, Hume was skeptical of testimony and argued testimony had to be judged against a record of direct experience. When testimony of an event occurred, we had to judge such testimony against a record of past testimony that proved to be true and testimony that proved to be false. If a testament seemed improbable, the next step was to question the veracity of the messenger. Campbell wrote A Dissertation on Miracles just to prove Hume wrong, arguing that it is human nature to accept testimony, and skepticism doesn't develop until later in life. If children didn't accept testimony uncritically, there'd be a lot more little burnt hands in the world. Whereas Hume claims experience is the default position, Campbell says it's testimony. Charlie is that uncritical child who accepts Desmond's testimony of Charlie's coming death, in part because Des seemingly has already had the experience of Charlie's death. In this way, Des is holding up Hume's part of the the equation, defaulting to a kind of experience, whereas Charlie is proving Campbell's side of things, believing in a testimony he has no way of verifying.
What this means is that something that doesn't actually exist — the occurrence of Charlie's death — is having a profound impact on the lives of the Lostaways, which brings us back to Catch-22. The catch, of course, is that there is no catch. Not only does the Catch-22 undo itself, but it doesn't really exist; one of the mandates of Catch-22 is that it is illegal to look at it. Eventually, Yossarian comes to realize that there is no catch, but because enough people believe in it, Catch-22 has material consequences. Charlie's death doesn't actually exist, but is having material consequences. We see the material consequences of the non-existent all the time; historically, the Gulf of Tonkin incident didn't occur, but it's what led to the Vietnam War (and there are echoes of that today with Iraq). In a broader sense, Lost is fiction and itself doesn't exist, yet it has impeded upon our material world via the alternate reality game and has lead to us being here online right now creating dialogs about this show and relating it to our broader lives. It's making life where it's not supposed to be — abracadabra, something out of nothing. (And 'abracadabra' seems fitting for a narrative that creates so much out of thin air, rather like the smoke monster; from its Hebrew and Aramaic roots, it means "I create as I speak," "it will be according to what is spoken," and "disappear like this word.")
Desmond also tries to create a possible something out of a possible nothing when he accepts the test and nearly sacrifices Charlie. Morally, he understands he should save Charlie. However, he thinks if he accepts the possible future as it is, Penny will drop from the sky, deus ex machina. In other words, Des knows that possible future shouldn't be, because it only holds a hope for Penny's arrival, while it determines Charlie's throat being pierced. Yet he's willing to try it — to a point. In the end, he does the moral thing and saves Charlie's vishuddha chakra, possibly changing the picture on the jigsaw puzzle box in the process. The Portuguese woman who parachuted into the island brought not only her own copy of Heller's book with a picture of Des and Penny in it, but a satellite phone that Sayid might be able to work with (if there's anything left in Otherville). 
She also brought another literary reference. The scene itself recalls the parachutist from William Golding's Lord of the Flies, when a British pilot parachutes onto the island the boys are stranded on but arrives dead. He is their deus ex machina, their savior, but when they arrive, their deus is mortuus. In mirror-twinned fashion, we have a live goddess, so to speak. She seems affiliated with the Portuguese-speaking men at the arctic station at the end of the second season, but we don't know yet if she speaks English, and the one Portuguese-speaker was buried a few days back (unless Vincent got to him).
Is that a logically absurd conclusion? Just tell me if I've got flies in my eyes or not. Go ahead. I can take it.
Books mentioned in this post
-
-
-
J. Wood is the author of Living Lost: Why We're All Stuck on the Island
Lost: “Catch-22″
J. Wood -
You didn't mention the 'Easter egg': the picture of Brother Campbell and Mrs. Hawking - shown briefly when Des turns in his robes. What's the connection there? What are we to think?
Also, the date on the label of the wine was 1995; we heard from 'Darlton' that Desmond's "Flashes Before Your Eyes" flashbacks were supposed to take place in 1996. But in that episode, Desmond tells Mr. Widmore that he and penny had been together for 2 years...
I'd be curious about your thoughts on those items :)
Juno
J. Wood-
Random thought. The Others keep calling their list of 'good' people "Jacob's List." Juliet's sister, Rachel, was presumably barren until Juliet's talents came into play. Rachel was also the barren wife of Jacob in the Bible...
Was Juliet perhaps brought to the island because what she could do was TOO powerful in the 'real world'? Hmmm...
I only mentioned Mrs. Hawking in passing, because the picture itself was seen only in passing -- "Brother Campbell also keeps a photo of him with Mrs. Hawking on his desk." (first paragraph.) I can't say/am not willing to say for certain what the connection is, beyond I'm not surprised. I'm generally not willing to make a claim without some corroborating evidence for that claim.
But both Campbell and Hawking seem pretty keen on Desmond's destiny, which suggests they know something he doesn't. Hawking seemed like she may be associated with the Others, just from what she knew about the island. Perhaps Campbell's in cahoots? Or -- and I'm just spitballing -- are Hawking and Campbell part of some other non-Dharma, non-Other group that has some association with the island?
I was about to suggest that since Hawking and Campbell seem to be jacked into others' destinies, perhaps they're something more than human. Off that, I was going to suggest since the gnostic element had been brought up in previous posts, perhaps Hawking and Campbell are something like the archons, beings who were intermediaries between humans and the demiurge creator. Then there's this; one of those archons was called Abraxas. Thomas More (him again) writes that his fictional island Utopia had an earlier name, Abraxas. Abraxas is the archon who created nous, or mind (knowledge). It's also etymologically linked to abracadabra. Man.
I'm wary of getting into the time problems. There's been a number of them, and Darlton seem pretty confident about them. Des was flashbacking; what he experienced was real. But was it the same time as we're in, or some parallel time? Perhaps when he was back, it was a different, parallel time that he wasn't supposed to be in, and that's why Hawking got after him. If he stayed in the wrong time, everything would go sideways.
What do you think of the names Ruth and Naomi used in this weeks episode? Any ties?
as I read about sane people vs insane people, it reminds me of the conversation Jack and Locke had in 'White Rabbit' where Jack tells Locke he thinks he is going crazy, and Lock says
'You're not going crazy'
Jack: 'How do you know that?'
Locke: Because crazy people don't know they are going crazy, they think they are getting saner.'
I'm inclined to think of a phrase I remember from a book I read once (I think it was a James Bond novel):
"Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; three times is the work of an enemy agent."
We've seen the 'three times' in Desmond's experiences:
Happenstance: He wakes up in the street after a bender, and Brother Campbell is there to help him.
Coincidence: Bro. Campbell has a picture of him and Mrs. Hawking on his desk, and she's the one who attempted to get Desmond back on the track to get to the Island.
Enemy Action: Bro. Campbell just 'happens' to ask Desmond to do one more favor before he leaves the Abbey -- help a customer load up the wine. And that customer just happens to be Penny. And it's because of Penny that Desmond winds up in the sailboat, and hence on the Island.
(Oh, and the abbey just happens to have made 108 cases of the wine that year. Gee, that number sounds familiar...)
I don't know who they're working for, but there was an effort by some outside agency to make sure Desmond ended up on that Island, pushing that button.
That of course leaves the question of whether Desmond using the fail-safe and completely discharging the force that built up in whatever was behind that wall was also in their plans, or if things have now gone all pear-shaped.
I have additional thoughts about Desmond, Penny, and the 'real story' of Lost, but I'm still putting them together. :)
J Wood...
I don't think you are spitballing. I thought the same thing. I don't want to say too much without any evidence, but going back to that arctic station. It appears that for whatever split second they were able to pinpoint where the island is. On the front, we think it's to find Desmond. But who is really finding Desmond? We really don't know much about who Penny is, but we do know she has a connection to Campbell right? And then we also know that Campbell has a connection to Hawking. And we also know Hawking has a connection to Desmond's abilities.
What I'm curious to find out is who is really trying to find Desmond and if it is for the purpose we all think. Especially since he is directly responsible for turning the key and alerting the monitoring station to the islands whereabouts.
I have this huge feeling that whoever is coming for Desmond is really coming for control of the island. I believe that is Desmond's destiny... to find the island for someone with connections like Whidmore.
Thoughts?
Great blog, as always. I found even more twinning in Desmond comparing his flashes to a jigsaw puzzle. Lost itself is just like a jigsaw puzzle, as we keep getting "pieces" here and there that are slowly (oh so slowly) starting to form a complete picture.
However, just as Desmond manipulates the "picture on the box" by his responses to the flashes, we as the viewers are also manipulating the "picture on the [TV] box" by how we respond to the pieces we've been given thus far.
AS for the wine saying 1995 and Des saying in 1996 that he and Penny had been together for 2 years - Do we know what month it was because if he left the monastery in Jan of 1995 and that happened in November or December of 1996 he'd likely say 2 years because it would be approximate. Right?
I have noticed from time to time in the show people with "gifts" pointing in the direction of the island. Rose's healer in Australia, Claire's psychic who is very disturbed at her reading, and his daughter who has the near death experience and connects with Ekko. Perhaps Hawking has the most clear seeing gift in that she initially recognizes Desmond and tells Campbell to let him go (because he does not originally see it himself) and then sees him again in the store and again recognizes that he is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
These people may be just humans with abilities to tap into the greater reality that is unfolding.
It is ironic that you bring up Buddhism, because one of the abilities that enlightened teachers supposedly have is to see reality in a non-dualistic, non separate way. They don't see time as linear with a past or future, or a separation between life and death. Reality without classification, directly experienced. Now it could be possible to be born with some of this knowledge, but without the training to recognize it, it would be difficult to manage or it would make you go insane, as we see with Desmond. Locke is almost better equiped for "visions" because he has endured great suffering that has broken him out of a conceptual world of "nice daddys and happy communes".
The other tie in of Buddhism with themes in Lost (and there are many) is that according to certain Tibetan texts, including the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the chief difference between life and after the moment of death is that although you see things clearly you lack the ability to reason and logically decide your fate. You experience reality so directly reasoning does not enter the picture. The Gift of human birth is that you have the ablity to reason and apply logic to survive and grow spiritually, but unless you can see past basic survival enlightenment is elusive. Another Catch 22.
Lost seems to thematically tread that fine line between life and death, so much so that many people have said the island is purgatory. But if we look as death as just another state of being, and that it exists as a part of a greater reality, people with different gifts that tap into this greater reality sense a big event on the horizon. And this island is at the centre.
And then some people are just worried about who they are going to sleep with that night. An interesting contrast.
"Also, the date on the label of the wine was 1995; we heard from 'Darlton' that Desmond's "Flashes Before Your Eyes" flashbacks were supposed to take place in 1996."
The year on the label indicates the wine's "vintage," that is, the year the juice is harvested. It is common for wine to be aged in oak or stainless steel for periods ranging from a couple months to a couple years. Expensive red wine (such as that being produced by the monks) is almost always oak aged for several months. Therefore, it is perfectly logical for "1995" wine to be bottled in 1996.
Hope that's intelligible , I've nearly polished off a bottle of "2003" Cabernet Sauvignon.
i noticed a minor (or maybe more significant) twinning with desmond being "fired" from the monastery and eko's initially duplicitous - and later delusional - claims to priesthood. there almost seems to be a certain repudiation of christianity in those threads, especially so much eastern thought rippling through the subplots. (i fully admit this is easily debunked by the ongoing biblical references and by the occasional christ allusions with locke.)
maybe it's just me, but with this season's episodes, i'm really starting to feel overcome by just how good i think this show might is. can there really be this much subtext and profundity in a piece of popular entertainment? exciting to think of how this might affect the narrative structure in future storytelling.
According to me Desmond Hume looks a little bit like Johnny Smith,the main character of "The dead zone" by Stephen King.
After his long coma Johnny Smith sees "flashes before his eyes" when he touches someone.Johnny helps everybody without any hesitation, because he believes that the gift he has can be used to resolve people's problems.He isn't afraid of changing the puzzle of his flashes.It is the main difference with Desmond , I think.
J. Wood:
Apologies for not remembering your mention of Mrs. Hawking in your first paragraph. I think I read your post too fast because I was too excited to get to your analysis!
I've read a lot of Nietzsche, and I've always been fascinated with the idea of 'eternal return'. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia about that, for what it's worth:
"On a few occasions in his notebooks, Nietzsche discusses the possibility of Eternal Recurrence as a cosmological truth, but in the works he prepared for publication, he treats it more as a means of life-affirmation.
According to Nietzsche, it would require a sincere Amor Fati (Love of Fate), not simply to endure, but to wish for the eternal recurrence of all events exactly as they occurred — all of the pain and joy, the embarrassment and glory.
Nietzsche calls the idea "horrifying and paralyzing", and also characterizes the burden of this idea as the "heaviest weight" imaginable. The wish for the eternal return of all events would mark the ultimate affirmation of life.
According to a few interpreters, the eternal return represents more than merely an intellectual concept or challenge: it resembles a koan, or a psychological device that occupies one's entire consciousness, stimulating a transformation of consciousness known as metanoia (Metanoia is also a term used often in theological discussion. When used in this context, it is associated, or often identified with, repentance)."
Boy, does that sum up Desmondo's predicament, or what? Maybe Des will be a truly great man ONLY when he accepts his fate and cultivates this 'Amor Fati'. I don't know how - or if - that fits into the over-arching LOST mythology, but it definitely gets my philosophical wheels turning.
Best,
Juno
What book was Sawyer reading in the tent when Kate came in to jump his bones?
I loved seeing all the little echoes in this episode. Hurley pulling the wire out of the sand, like he did in Numbers. Desmond calling out his own cowardice, and implicating Charlie in that practice. Charlie calls himself a coward in Pilot Part 1. Desmond runs away from love; this is practically Kate's mantra. Desmond keeps saving Charlie, and this reminds me of pressing the button. Save the Charlie, Save the World?
Speaking of Heroes, what about the compare and contrast of The Flash and Superman? They've raced each other for charity; we never get to see who would really win, because outside events always spoil the race. And I'm always reminded of Kill Bill 2 whenever Superman comes up. Superman is different from other heroes in that he wears a mask (that of Clark Kent) to protect his identity as Superman, to assume a normal identity; all the other heroes wear masks to assume a super identity, to protect their normal selves. Anyways, Sawyer's first nickname for Jack is "the hero".
I thought there were a lot of echoes around the theme of being used. Kate uses Sawyer to deal with her feelings for Jack. Desmond uses Charlie, ostensibly to find Penny. Charlie has been used before, when Shannon got him to catch fish for her, trying to prove to Boone that she's useful. Boone was totally used by Locke, becoming a sacrifice to the Island, echoing again Desmond's treatment of Charlie. Is Desmond being used by Campbell and Hawking as well?
Desmond's talk of destiny sounds an awful lot like Locke in Season 1.
I was wondering why you didn't link Desmond's experience to Fear and Trembling.
It seems to me Desomond had a higher "telos" in returning to his life with Penelope. It is something he has always "resigned" because resignation is easier than making the "leap of faith." At first, he could not rationalize why Penelope would want to be with him, a relative loser. He found it absurd. So instead of making the leap of faith and believing in the absurd, he resigned her and left.
This same choice/movement has repeated itself on the island. In this last episode, he again has the chance to reunite with Penelope or to stand in relation with his "infinite." In order to do this, he must, in essence, let Charlie die. As SK writes in Fear and Trembling, Abraham would be considered a murderer today, because morality and ethics are stuck in the finite world. In the infinite world, you believe in a higher telos or purpose.
To meet this test or to make the leap of faith, Desmond must resign the finite world, let go of morals, make the leap of faith into the infinite, and let Charlie die, so as to stand in absolute relation with the absolute - i.e. reunite with Penelope.
Again, Desomond failed because he chose to become the "tragic hero" instead of the Knight of Faith. SK would say it is much more heroic to let Charlie die and stand in relation with the absolute than it is to become the tragic hero and sacrafice your own relationship with the infinite to save the earthly world, or in this case, Charlie.
Just a little stream of consciousness:
Catch 22 > Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22 > Phil Collins, former Genesis singer > In the air tonight, by Phil Collins, where he sings *I can feel it coming in the air tonight --- I've been waiting for this moment for all my life*
Weird, huh?
F.
Thanks for opening my eyes on new ways to read this show. Your "mirroring/twinning" engagement is invaluable in terms of exposing the additonal layers of meaning under the surface text of the show. Keep up the great work; I hope you're having fun with it. -- Jeff Jensen, senior writer, Entertainment Weekly
Man, this is some seriously inane chatter. Go outside and breath the fresh air instead of asking "Is Desmond being used by Campbell and Hawking as well?" lest you end up lost on the island of tv-addled idiots whose skin went gecko-translucent from uv-deprivation and who only breath in the trapped fumes of their own lingering morning breath.
I should heed my own advice - I'm writing this...
J Wood
What do you think of Hurley's mentioning the Chupacabra after Jin tells his ghost story?
Okay, this is a stretch.
I've been trying desperately to find out where we've seen that hula doll before. I've reviewed Numbers (not in Hurley's hummer), Tricia Tanaka (not there either), Live Together Die Alone (it's not on Ice Station Zebra, Portugese version), Further Instructions (not in Locke's pickup), Exodus 2 (not in Hurley's rental vehicle), Everyone Hates Hugo (not in Johnny's van)... and I am coming up with nothing, absolutely nothing. I know we've seen it before!
What keeps coming up in the internet searches, though, is Season 3, Episode 22... of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. It's called "The Hula Doll Affair," and it's about a hula doll packed with a very powerful explosive. The next episode, Episode 23... is called "The Pieces of Fate Affair"... and it's known as the "lost" episode, because it was withheld from initial syndication. Spooky...
This episode made me think of the series Day Break that I just recently finished watching on the internet. This was the show that took Lost's timeslot while it was on its 13 week break. Actually it was cancelled half way through, but ABC did the right thing and made the entire series available for free on the internet.
Anyway, for those that paid no attention to it, it was about a guy that is forced to live the same day over and over again until he solves the mystery of who is framing him.
It is like a puzzle of sorts. Each day the main character Hopper finds more peices and is eventually able to put the puzzle together. Some actions he takes actually can make changes, for instance when he discovers that his partner is helping her boyfriend (who happens to be played by the same guy that plays Richard Alpert) maintain his drug habit, Hopper drops everything else to focus on how he can save this guys life. When he is finally successful, the day resets with his partner deciding to get her boyfriend some help.
Another aspect of the show is how many times he sees people he loves get killed - especially his girlfriend. He tries his hardest to solve the mystery and make sure the people he cares about stay alive each day. When he is finally able to save everyone and solve the mystery, he wakes up the next day.
This show turned out to be a fitting filler for Lost. Hopper is a lot like Desmond. He knows what is going to happen before it happens. He expends a lot of energy saving people that he knows are going to die if he doesn't do anything about it - sometimes at the expense of his own goals. We also see Desmond going back and reliving a portion of his life. He knows what the outcome will be and tries to change it so that he ends up with Penny, much like Hopper trying to change events so that he can clear his name and save his loved ones.
At the end of the series we see a mysterious man looking on in satisfaction as Hopper walks off into the sunset with his girlfriend. Presumably he is the one that put Hopper into the time loop to give him a chance to 'save the world' or at least his own world. This could be the role of Campbell and Hawking, to set things straight and make sure the right result is achieved.
Here is what I got out of this epp.
Des. "looks up" and takes it as a "sign" when that is the only direction he has to look when he is in the cutter. But when John is told to 'Look Up' by a stick it is not a sign.
Was it me or did any time Hugo or Des. said "flash" there was a "flash" of light.
And the whole thing with time on the island. Didn't Hugo whip Sawyer at ping-pong somewhere around day 77 and Kate said something about the names some 10 days later, Sawyer should be WELL into his Sawyerisms by now!
I think Sawyer and Hugo are more into this leadership thing than meets the eye.
General Observation - Anyone remember the movie "The Beach" with Leo DiCaprio? It was a forgettable movie, but I remember some similarites. Movie involves "peaceful beach dwellwers on an unknown/remote island". They share the island with a violent drug cartel. The two groups live in balance as long as the "beach dwellers" do not "cross the line" into the drug cartel's fields. Also, DiCaprio's character resembles Sawyer.
A difference is that in the movie, the beach dwellers made the choice to go to the island, whereas the Losties arrived not of their own "free will".
Johnny Longwind...
It's a beautiful day out here, and so I'm going to take your advice and go outside. (But I'm bringing my copy of Living Lost with me.) If anything, this discussion proves that the best way to figure out and enjoy the world is through great stories.
Also, it's awesome to hear from Jeff Jensen on this blog. His writing on Lost is always spot on.
so the catch-22 is the abraham-isaac scenario? if the vast overall understanding of Life clearly is asking you to sacrifice your nearest and dearest, so that the Greater Good can unfold, you see that you must do it? and the catch of catch 22 is that there is no catch? in other words, it's non binding? what it looks like is not what it is? but you have to go thru with it to find that out?
well, that's a releif. from now on, i'll just blithely disregard any catch 22 i'm faced with and do exactly as i deem fit, period. if you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, then it doesn't matter; do what you damned well please. the rest is other people's problem; they were the ones doing the damning in the first place, long before you came on the scene.
a word about charlie taking des on faith: charlie DOES dig in and say he's not participating, the first night on the beach, 'camping', when des insists they press on into the jungle in the dark, to look for whatever had the beacon. so charlie isn't a hundred percent surrendered to this Voice of Fate; he's still thinking for himself.
i have to say, from the time i saw the first foreflash of charlie getting the arrow in the neck, i kept thinking 'why not make him a wooden collar to wear during the trek?to fend off the jab?"
then when i saw desmond's eyes land on the poised arrow, i thought ' why doesn't he just reach out and point it away? or motion for the party to stay back? why the uncertainty of tackling charlie? that's dumb".
my experience of the unstoppable- fate- kind of unfoldments is that you can't act in any way to intervene, no matter how much you try and might want to. you're meant to witness it--but the players can't hear you, don't beleive you, ignore you, and the events have so much momentum already in play that nothing can cut it off or turn it aside. it would be like a peashooter at a tank.
witness the global uproar that met bush's intention to invade iraq. 25 million protesters, worldwide, and the effort went ignored. all the 'reasons' on each side were just dressing. the collective global consciousness knew something about it was 'off'and roared not for it to go forward, but to no avail. when you can't stop it, all you can do is stand rooted and watch. this is what mrs. hawking knows.
LOST must be a dramatic outworking of whether the human race, our care of the planet, is LOST--or not. are events moving with a momentum we can't change now? is it too late?
and if something 'saves' us, who might it be?
big corporations? [widmore, hanso, paik] idealists and purists [the dharma initiative? the exclusive Others with their Good People?] or a random mixed bag of ordinary joes and janes, who learn to live together-- or die alone?[ our losties?]
if planet earth is an island--
and 'no one can see this island' [SETI], so no one 'out there' can come and Save everyone....[ie, jesus, the space brothers, ET's, the crop circle leavers..] then it must be all up to 'us'.
like they say--be careful what you wish for. you just might get it. if you're praying for someone to come and save you, think hard about what that might mean if someone does. who will they be? how will they do it? what happens to you if its in their control? what will they want?
you might do far better to create your own fate, by saving yourself by your own way. at least then, it's yours.
I agree with KA about people seeing things i.e. visions. A few others that come to mind are when Locke and Boone are in the jungle (before they find the hatch) and Locke tells Boone that it's going to rain in 1 minute - give or take. Charlie also made a couple of interesting comments about "Adam and Eve" and "the people that have been here before us".
There has been a reoccurrence of different dolls too, as mentioned previously about the hula doll.
In reference to Lord of the Flies, Sawyer references it in Season One "In Translation". This is the episode that the raft is set on fire and everyone thinks Jin did it.
"The namesake of the third season's eighteenth episode, Catch-22, was originally supposed to be called Catch-18....."
Did I understand something completely wrong when I now ask: why do you think this is the 18th episode? It's "catch-17", the 17th episode .
I know it's not that important, but now I'm confused wether my english is not as good as I thought it is, or you just made a little mistake.
I believe the airing date was the !8th not the episode number.
@ Cheryl
Yes your right about Locke and Boone. To add to that Locke's dream about/sacrifice of Boone is very close to Desmond and Charlie. Except for the final choice.
[Ed.'s note: Corrected.]
Because of the great weather, I took my gecko-translucent skin and my beagles out to the woods. (My ancestors are Scottish and Irish, Johnny Longwind, so my translucent skin has nothing to do with how much time I'm in front of my computer.) I'm just now going over the comments, and I'm marveling at the depth of the thought put into the responses. A friend of mine who hasn't yet seen Lost, but plans to this summer, recently said to me that this is the text of the future. He's right; when's the last time you saw a book or film generate as much sustained public discussion?
First, I just want to qualify my archon statement; I'm not saying Hawking and Campbell are archons, I'm just saying they share some strange qualities. But a quick note on eternal recurrence: Hawking wears that ouroboros brooch, the snake eating its tail. That's a symbol of eternity/eternal recurrence, and it's also the symbol for a mostly-neglected 1990's X-Files offshoot called Millennium. Millennium tried to get behind the groups that Mulder was trying to expose in X-Files. The chief secret group within the series is called the Millennium Group, and they're a kind of mystical Christian sect, around for almost 2000 years, who are trying to enact prophecy. They factioned off just before the year 1000 A.D., and have been at odds since. The Millennium Group of the series is a kind of private law enforcement consultancy that works with the FBI, The frontman of that group, at least the person we see the most who's trying to recruit a certain FBI agent, was played by Terry O'Quinn, our own John Locke.
Is Juliet's ability too powerful to exist in the real world? That's an interesting question, and it suggests that she was tapping into something she didn't have full knowledge of (but the Others did). I'm further under the opinion that each time Des saves Charlie, he's altering everything. Let me stretch here: At one point in the book, I got into some questions of spacetime (but for different reasons). The idea is that time is a fourth dimension of physics; a German physicist named Minkowski realized that by adding time to the three-dimensional Euclidian space that we all know and love, Einstein's theory of relativity made all kinds of sense. This Minkowski spacetime welds time and space together, making them part of the same thing. So if time and space are basically the same thing, and all space is already out there, so is all time. If you go with that, the future isn't about to occur and the past didn't already occur, it's all occurring at once; we just experience it in a mediated way so we don't go nuts.
So whenever Des saves Charlie, he's not only changing an already-existing future, but an alaready-existing past as well. This may help explain why he's in a monastery before he meets Penny in 1995, but in 1996 was with her for two years; he changed spacetime by saving the hobbit. (It also may help explain the date discrepancy in the Pikki episode with the Sept. 24 newspaper, when the crash occurred on Sept. 22.) We tend to look at time as causal; we assume that because one event occurs after another, the prior event lead to the current one. This brings us back to Hume; he argued that causal time was a bit of an illusion. We don't see causes, we only see effects; causes are essentially the narrative we impose to explain effects. Which is what we're all doing here. It also plays into the way the Lost narrative has been developing for us; we tend to look a the events we see in an episode and assume one event has caused another, but later on (like with the Pikki episode), we see other past events that change our entire understanding of what's going on, and the picture on the box is changed for us.
On to Locke being better-equipped for the visions: Locke is samsara. He knows suffering. Whether or not he's come to terms with it is yet to be determined; he's managing his own world better, but it's not clear if it's in a positive or negative (or neutral) way. But it reminds me of something else: Nietzsche and his idea of eternal recurrence was brought up; We could take the Superman/Flash debate as a nod to the übermensch (and Yossarian refers to himself as a Supraman in Catch-22 – when he's asked if he meant Superman, he declares no, he's a Supraman, which is actually a better translation of übermensch (“über†means over, as does “supraâ€; “super†means exceeding or greater; Yossarian's job was bombardier, so he was flying over everyone). If Nietzsche thought the most life-affirming thing would be to embrace eternal recurrence, pain and all, Locke has a lock on that.
I didn't mention Nietzsche in my post for two reasons: A.) I'm trying to keep the posts as focused as possible, and B.) I'm just wary of building a critique of something without some secondary evidence to clearly support it (like a name or a book shown or something basically corroborating an idea beyond happenstance and coincidence into enemy territory). I actually think there might be more to say about Nietzsche, and the line from Superman to Yossarian as Supraman lends support to that. Doc Jensen left a note above, and like many of you here, he's done a fine job of getting into some of those possibilities, as well as with Kierkegaard. I have no doubt that there's some very Kierkegaardian elements going on (and SK's tendency to write under pseudonyms also recalls Borges's play with authors who didn't exist, which brings us back to Gary Troup). But I'm watching these at the same time as everyone else, and want to get the post up as soon as I can the next day, so one of the restrictions I've put on myself is only writing about what is clearly, directly referenced in the narrative. Ye gods, do I envy Doc's previews. But that's why I went with George Campbell – who had a real conflict with David Hume – and forewent Kierkegaard and Joseph Campbell. But here's a Kierkegaard question: How do we know Penny is Des's infinite? One thing the narrative has shown is that an individual's infinite is mutable; the Swan station was Locke's infinite, as was Helen.
Back to Catch-22: Anyone notice that the Pearl orientation video says that the Swan station is a lie, but then the Swan's function proves real? So which video was lying? It seems like an example of Catch-22-like circular logic. And Janet, you're reading of how a Catch-22 works is dead-on, from Heller's point of view in the book. Heller was pretty pessimistic about these things, and he had some reason to be; like Yossarian, he was a bombardier in WWII, the most deadly job in the war. Very few of those guys survived. But in terms of the show (and the biblical story), the catch of the sacrifice is that you have to be willing to go through with it in order not to have to go through with it, which means maybe Des hasn't passed his test yet; and his monastery experience certainly mirrors his (known) military one, two other tests he didn't pass. Also, on whether the planet is lost or not – that's actually what the Valenzetti equation was all about.
As for names, Noami was Ruth's mother-in-law in the Bible, and the Book of Ruth is all about outsiders being accepted as insiders (Ruth married into a Hebrew family, and after her husband died, she pledged to stay with her mother-in-law). The theme of Others being accepted into the group is certainly present. Since they were just introduced, though, I'm not sure yet how the Lost characters will be developed or interconnected. But I like how “ruth†means compassion, or from Old English/Old Norse, it's sorrow or regret (from hreow/hrygdh – metanoia?). We don't use ruth as a noun anymore, but we use ruthless, and Des was willing to be ruthless in order to get Penny back.
As far as the chupacabra goes, it's Hurley telling the story, and the chupacabra is a specically Latin-American monster (big in Mexico and Puerto Rico). The only thing I'd say about it is it also figures into conspiracy theories; some think that the Puerto Rican chupacabra is the result of a U.S. military genetic experiment splicing alien and earthly animal. I just thought that was funny (but Jin's hook ghost story was priceless).
SmallQ: The book "Catch-22" was originally supposed to be called "Catch-18." It actually went through a few title changes, before settling on "Catch-22." One of the things Heller liked about that title was the doubling of the numbers, because it reflected the doubling theme in the book, like the soldier who saw everything twice.
Dagnabbit -- you're right, I meant episode 17; it aired on the 18th.
The Ruth and Naomi connection is important (if it is indeed important at all), in a similar way that the Benjamin/Rachel/Jacob allusion is important (if that is indeed important at all). More on this later; I need to sleep for now but will rap Torah style later if people are interested.
This episode was so rich with waves of allusion into the Torah, beginning with the Abraham/Isaac structure of the whole episode (that reaches further into the whole Desmond/Charlie arc, not to mention the "mirror-twinning" arc of Locke/Boone), and leading into the Ruth/Naomi allusions, that I cannot imagine the subtext is coincidental. It at least deserves analysis.
Also, in brief, did anyone else notice that Brian K. Vaughan was credited with a co-writer credit for this episode? Lost has brought in some of the cream of the crop from the world of comic book/ graphic novel writing since the first season. Again, more on this subject later.
Apologies for not being able to address these two subjects here and now, but I will go into them when I have the chance, for those who are curious.
I am just a lurker. I read your posts every week! I just want to tell you how much I appriciate your analysis! You do a great job! Keep up the good work!
You make LOST even more enjoyable!
Thanks!
Dharma Bum -- I'm curious about the connection with the Book of Judges. That's about a fight with the tribe of Benjamin (if I have my facts straight), and the Book of Ruth was once part of it.
And Brian K. Vaughan is a fantastic mind at work in comics, and now television. Check out his latest book Pride, about the lions that escaped the Baghdad Zoo after the invasion. I have friends who fought over there, and they told me about the lions before Vaughan ever wrote his book. Some (other) lions were kept at one of Hussein's palaces, and were fed zebras. Vaughan interpreted the zoo lions' story from their point of view, in anthropomorphic fashion. It's kind of like a fable, but in the midst of the warped world of war. Worth a look.
"Brother Campbell also keeps a photo of him with Mrs. Hawking on his desk."
Campbell has a relationship with Widmore, at the very least insofar as Widmore buys wine from the vineyard. Lets extend that, however. We know that Mitellos Bioscience is a shill company because Juliete couldn't find any info on them. Similarly, that monestary could be a shill also, and all of the monks merely in the employ of Widmore and friends as a testing ground...
Note that Desmond is being tested over and over again.
1) Desmond's extraordinarily long oath of silence (it tests devotion, and also ability to be seperated from human contact, such as he'd experiance within the hatch.)
2) Whether Desmond would come back for Penny after being falsely accused while in the military, and after Charles Widmore tried to buy him off.
3) Whether he would continue to push the button for days upon days in the hatch on no more than faith (or lack thereof) for what he was told.
4) Whether he would continue to save Charlie despite being told that it is a pointless endeavor.
4a) Whether he would continue to save Charlie when the idea of being reuinited with Penny entered his head to sweeten the temptation.
In many respects, Desmond appears to be in the crucible and someone is trying to determine his true nature. Is he one of the good ones?
"Right around this time in previous seasons, Boone died and the imaginary Dave jumped off a cliff;"
Speaking of which, Dave was telling Hurley that the only way off the island (which was an imaginary place to Dave) was to jump off the cliff. In other words, Hurley would have to sacrifice this life for true life.
Boone also seems to see the big picture now that he's dead (assuming that it's Boone at all.)
Since Lost's literary references are the focus of J.'s blog, an additional one from this episode just occurred to me that I would like to add to the pile.
When Sawyer fails to convince Kate to join him in an "afternoon delight", he sarcastically asks if she wants him to make her a mixtape.
The reference is to Nick Hornby's novel "High Fidelity" and the excellent movie based on that novel. In the novel the main character, Rob, expounds on the art and science of creating a mixtape and the art form's efficacy in the pursuit of women.
Rob's other main obsession is the making of all sorts of top five lists. This feature is reflected in Sawyer's joke about Juliet and Jack discussing their favorite Other.
J.Wood,
You are probably the most literate guy playing this game. I'd like your take on this video:
--mel
Thanks to Losty38 for bringing up Kierkegaard--J Wood, you know I have really been hoping you'd comment on the Kierkegaardian aspects of Lost, but I appreciate your (completely reasonable) decision to look at literary/philosophical/other allusions only when they are referenced directly by the show--but I'd like to respond to Losty38's comment about how SK would view Desmond's action "allowing" Charlie to die--I don't think SK would see this as heroic, at all. The ends never justify the means, etc. Desmond is struggling, but his choosing thus far to act morally is what is heroic(seeing Charlie ultimately always as a "subject" he cares about rather than a mere "object" that he can stand by and watch die so that he can get what he wants--to be with Penny.)
What I'm getting out of Lost these days, is a reminder about the value of recognizing how much I/we don't know. Desmond gets this and we the "viewers" do too, at least to some degree. This is the gift of the Skeptics (ancient school of Greek philosophy--Sextus Empiricus, anyone?), and it is skepticism that saves humans from the dangers of hubris, i.e. every time we remember that there is so much we don't know it is a blessing.
J Wood--good point; it may well be that Penny isn't Desmond's infinite; he surely feels/thinks she is now, though...
The puzzle about the "tests" going on in Lost is fascinating...who is administering the various tests and why?
janet in venice--you wrote a lot of things that are spot on, but I'm going with the "live together, die alone" motto which has been a recurring theme for the losties many times...we can't give up hope, even when our efforts seem futile (the people of the world did speak up, clearly/loudly, before the U.S. started warring in Iraq, but Bush disregarded this, which makes it all seem like it was in vain), but we don't know what the outcome of any of our actions is ultimately, so we've just got to be hopeful, to keep on keeping on, like Desmond and Hurley, because we don't know what effect our actions have; but we are creating the future, together.
It is my understanding that the Book of Ruth was placed by the editors of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Torah) right after the Book of Judges because chronologically it occurs at the same time as the events in Judges. While it shares certain themes and addresses many of the same issues addressed in Judges, the book also portrays Yahweh and Israelite law in a somewhat contrasting light to the tone presented in Judges, which is the bloodiest book in the Old Testament. Because of this, and because of stylistic similarities in the writing, some scholars believe that Ruth was originally part of Judges and separated later for reasons that can only be hypothesized and are not worth examining here (at least at this point).
Beyond the chronological connection between the two books, I am wary to overstate the Ruth/Naomi connection to the Book of Judges, at least in reference to Lost. If we get more Naomi and Ruth storylines in future episodes, I will continue to explore the connection.
However, on its own merit, the story presented in the Book of Judges greatly resembles the events unfolding in the Lost storyline, and if these similarities continue, the show could take a turn in a very shocking direction as this season ends and the next begins.
“In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes†(Judges 21:25).
This line from Judges sums up the theme of the book well. Judges is a story about the transition of the Israelite tribes from after the times of its great leaders, such as Moses, and before the times of King David. During this time the leaders of Israel were called judges; these are not judges like we would think of them today. Here judges are militant servants of Yahweh who lead the tribes into warfare against Israel’s enemies. While not in battle, they have leadership roles among their tribes in the form of civil servants/administrators. The setting of the book is one in which Yahweh considers Israel as failing in its divine mission. Israel fails Yahweh, and Yahweh makes the Israelites suffer in consequence. The judges are divinely selected to correct the course of the Israelites, generally through violent and sometimes internecine means.
This sounds very much like what is occurring with the Others on the Island. They no longer have their great leader, Jacob. Instead they are left with Benjamin and perhaps a few other “judges.†Like with the Israelites in Judges, the Others (‘Hostiles’) apparently decimate their enemies (the DHARMA Initiatie) in a righteous manner. And like we have seen in the deaths of Bea Klugh, Mikhail Bakunin, and Danny Picket, the Others have little to no qualm about self-sacrificing themselves for whatever the hell mysterious crusade they are involved in on the island. This mirrors how the Israelites are supposed to behave when they regain their righteous path; sacrifice and self-sacrifice, including death, in service of Yahweh’s wishes, is revered and necessary.
While the whole cycle of stories in Judges mirror the events on the Island, I will focus on only one story, that of the “Outrage of Gibeah,†as it involves the tribe of Benjamin, making it the most relevant one to the text of Lost.
This particular story begins with “the Levite†(an Israelite) and his wife passing through the town of Gibeah, which is “of Benjamin.†Gibeah is considered a corrupted and sinful society at this point in time, its men “a perverse lot†(19:22). The Levite and his wife take refuge at the house of an old man (who is not a Benjaminite) for the night. “A perverse lot†of the Benjaminite men come to the house and demand that the old man set the Levite outside so that they “may have intercourse with him†(19:22). Instead, the Levite, with the old man’s help, throw the Levite’s wife outside in order to keep himself from getting raped. The mob proceeds to gang rape her throughout the entire night. Upon leaving Gibeah the following day, the Levite dismembers his wife, who is presumably still quite alive during the process, in a sickening sacrificial ritual that is a perverse mirror image of the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice story; Yahweh has asked for no such sacrifice.
The Levite sends the twelve pieces of his wife’s body across the land to the tribes of Israel. The tribes gather and demand an answer for the dismemberment message. The Levite claims that it was the men of Gibeah who are responsible for this travesty, that they raped and killed his wife, and he asks them for counsel. He does so to protect his reputation; if the other Israelites were to discover that he nearly was homosexually raped, this would ruin his reputation. The Levite also does not reveal that he threw his wife to the mob in the first place. The tribes believe the Levite’s blatantly dishonest version of events, this “outrage of Gibeah.†(It can be argued that the “outrage†is the Benjaminites’ actions, the Levite’s actions, or the whole series of events that ensues.)
Thus begins the genocidal decimation of the tribe of Benjamin by the Israelites. It is an act of retaliation and moral judgment upon the wicked Tribe of Benjamin. Four hundred thousand Israelites over a period of three days slaughter 26,000 Benjaminites. All Benjaminite children and women are killed; only six hundred men are spared out of “compassion†by the rest of the Israelites, and, in another act of “compassion†(if one can indeed use the term compassion), these six hundred men of Benjamin are given six hundred virgins forcefully “seized†from the towns Jabesh-Gilead and Shiloh (21:7). (The Israelites are unwilling to give Benjamin their own women; instead they turn to murder, kidnapping and rape.) And so the tribe of Benjamin is allowed to continue procreation and the chance to once more gain favor in the eyes of Yahweh.
This story, among the others in Judges, shows how wicked and anarchic the Israelites have become without their great leaders. “Every man did what was right in his own eyes,†greatly displeasing Yahweh, but the Israelites end up unifying to “act as one man.†By doing so, the tribes of Israel begin to move in a direction that would more please their God.
How does this relate to Lost? Quite a bit, and not just in name. The Others can be compared to the Israelites. They consider themselves to be “good,†contrary to what we the viewers, as well as the castaways, perceive. Like in Judges, the Others appear to have “lost†their way, and also like in Judges, the Others appear to be receiving harsh and judgmental punishment for their actions. Instead of Yahweh, on the show we have the Island, and it is the Island that makes the Others suffer. Benjamin, the apparent leader of the Island’s Others/Benjaminites, is punished with cancer and the loss of the use of his legs. This mirrors the severe punishment that the tribe of Benjamin receives. As for the rest of the Others, they are similarly made to suffer in yet another mirror of how the Tribe of Benjamin is punished; their women are decimated. Every woman who gets pregnant is killed by the powers of the Island, and, in effect, this “Other Tribe of Benjamin†is also robbed of the lives of their children by that same act of power. The Others are slowly being wiped out by the Island; if they lose all their woman and cannot have children, they will become extinct. This mirrors how the Biblical Tribe of Benjamin is punished when, by the power of Yahweh, all of their women and children are slaughtered. Perhaps by means of the crashed flight 815, the Island is “compassionately†allowing for the Others the chance to repopulate (through murder, kidnapping, and rape).
While it’s difficult to argue that anything in the Old Testament could be considered feminist, the Book of Judges presents some strong female characters, something somewhat unusual for the O.T., even though it also shows women as completely male-dominated. Regardless, these women (such as Deborah, Jael, and Delilah) are strong in very similar ways to the female characters on Lost, such as Kate, Juliet, and Rousseau; it could be argued that the female characters on Lost also are male-dominated. Along those lines, there is substantial reason to believe, given the apparent Biblical naming scheme in the show, that Rousseau’s character and her storyline are in great part based on the story of Daniel. (That can be explored another time.) As previously mentioned, Ruth and Naomi are also examples of strong woman, but, again, we have little evidence about the versions of Ruth and Naomi in the context of Lost thus far. Ruth, we at least know, is a strong woman on Lost as we see her essentially tell Desmond to go bugger himself.
While most people know of Delilah and Deborah, Jael has a fantastic story worth mentioning here in reference to Lost. Even though Jael is a non-Israelite, she is considered to be in favor by Yahweh (or at least by the writers of the text). Either way, she is a non-Israelite celebrated by the Israelites. In that regard, she reminds me of how the stewardess from flight 815, for example, is selected as a “good†person even though she is not one of the Others; presumably she is on Jacob’s list of “good†people, otherwise she would not have been taken.
In the Book of Judges, Jael approaches a Canaanite military commander named Sisera, an enemy of the Israelites. In an act of subterfuge, Jael asks Sisera to “turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me†and so he “turns aside to her into (her) tent,†and “she covered him with a rug.†(4:18). The implication here is clearly sexual. Sisera asks Jael not to tell anyone that he is in her tent. She complies, and after he falls asleep, she slips away to find a tent stake. She returns, and, in a symbolically phallic manner, she repeatedly strikes the stake through Jael’s mouth into his skull with a massive hammer, driving it “until it went down into the ground†(4:21). How emasculating is that? Would it be much of a stretch to imagine Juliet heatedly doing the exact same thing to Ben, or perhaps even the same thing coldly to someone on the beach in the middle of the night if she believed it to be the right thing to do? We already saw her kill Pickett for similar reasons. And what about the stewardess? Was it not odd how she seemed to have been absorbed by the Others as seen during the scene in which she examines Jack as if he were a zoo exhibit?
If the story of Judges, and the Israelites during that period in their history (living in a manner that displeases their higher power), indeed is being used allegorically by the writers of Lost as a way of presenting Ben’s Others and their errant actions (that also displeases their higher power, the Island), then there are still questions to be answered. If the comparison holds up, I still predict that we are about to see some truly crazy actions during the final episodes of the season: episodes of violence and rape. The rape will be metaphorical. Because The Other Tribe of Benjamin cannot have children, they will rape the Losties of their woman and their children. We’ve already seen them do that with Claire, Walt, and some of the Tailies, and it looks like we will see it continue to occur with Aaron, Sun, and Sun’s unborn child. As for violence, that will be quite literal as it has been since the beginning of the show. Unless the killing is over and done with for the most part with the extermination of the DHARMA Initiative, the death of the Others’ women and unborn children, and the killings brought on by conflict between the Losties and the Others, I predict there is still much more violence to come in the form of wrath and suffering inflicted for the same reason presented in Judges: “Every man did what was right in his own eyes.â€
Until people stop acting out of their own selfish motivations and thereby harming those around them, and, in effect, displeasing the higher power that is the Island, an escalation in suffering is inevitable. After all, is there anyone on the Island behaving in a unifying manner, driving all of the island’s inhabitants to “act as one man?†Until a “true†leader steps forward to unite these people, a Samuel that leads to a Saul or a David, they will continue to suffer at the hand of the Island.
The Book of Judges can be summarized as the story of a chosen people who suffered due to a higher power as they struggled to create a new society during a transitional time in a world that was ruled by oppressive political and social systems. The same can be said for the story of the people in Lost.
As for Naomi, I want to hold off on that analysis until we see more of her on the show. Suffice to say for now, the Book of Ruth, which contains the story of Naomi, shows how Yahweh’s care for people is not just for Israelites but for all peoples. So far, if we view the Island as reprenting Yahweh, this appears to be true. The Island both punishes the wicked, be they Others or Losties, much like Yahweh punishes Israelites and those of other nations. Naomi’s storyline could turn out to be one that plays out this thematic element; after all, she did not die on the Island. Smokie, which could be compared to the “right hand of God,†did not take kill Naomi when she crashed. We will just have to wait until her story unfolds.
I have not yet read Vaugahan’s “Lions of Baghdad†graphic novel, but his work on “Runaways†is top-notch reading (for a branded comic book). Looking back at the whole Superman/Flash debate, I only just realized that Vaughan probably was the hand behind that bit of dialogue.
In a larger sense, comic book series are the only format comparable to what Lost is currently doing in creating an interactive meta-fictional experience. I think landmark comic book series such as Watchmen (referenced within Lost), Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman collection, and Grant Morrison’s The Invisibles collection are the only examples of literary format that compares to the groundbreaking work being done on Lost. The latter two series originally appeared in installment form but have since been collected in graphic novel format (much like Lost being collected into DVD format). As opposed to mainstream comic books, both of these collections are two epic stories presented in installments for the pleasure of the public. Both form cohesive whole stories with beginnings, middles, and endings, much like how the Lost creators plan on shaping the show; this is as compared to the ongoing mythology presented in books such as Superman and Spiderman (as well as shows that merely peter out once the writers and viewers get sick of them).
While having their own merits, these latter formats lack the satisfactory quality of having a closed storyline while simultaneously retaining a meta-textual format. Like Lost, these collections contain an abundance of literary and philosophical references. Not only is there that, but comic book writers interact with their readers through letters pages and more recently online forums, and the fans also create some intense discussions not at all dissimilar to the kind we see on Lost forums. These examples of graphic novel media (and some more recent ones such as Brian K. Vaughan’s Ex Machina series) in comic book media are the only kind of media that I would consider a forerunner of the meta-textual sensibility of Lost.
To me, Lost and these written/drawn work of art are of same spirit. Even the initial forays into the world of film (the stylistics, the dialogue, and cinematography) are attributed by many filmmakers to what they learned from studying the structures and art from the early works in the comic book medium. The same is true vice versa; Bob Kane’s original Batman team repeatedly viewed Citizen Kane in order to study camera angles to help them structure their paneling and inking schemes. Seeing how the two media intermingled in the beginning of the twentieth century, it only makes sense that today in the beginning of the twenty-first century we see the same co-developments and intermingling of creative forces occur between the producers of Lost and the industry leaders in the comic book media. Lindelof himself was tapped by Marvel (for whom Vaughan created Runaways and writes on other titles) to create an Ultimate Wolverine Vs. Hulk miniseries, which unfortunately is on hold after the second issue due to Lindelof’s tight scheduling on the production of Lost. Personally, I don’t mind waiting another two years to see issue three if he keeps up the fantastic work on Lost.
I don’t think there is any evidence that Desmond planned to let Charlie die, contrary to what most people seem to think. In fact, I think there is none at all. I think that the show’s writers and director were using misdirection by starting the episode with that scene in which Charlie bites the dust.
No one has mentioned that in Desmond’s “flashforward,†we saw Charlie (after Desmond supposedly allows him to die) helping Jin and Hurley use the parachute to catch Naomi. I only noticed this on watching the episode a second time. Since we have not yet been privy to Desmond’s flashforwards until now, I do not think there is actually any substantial evidence one way or the other that Desmond intended to risk Charley’s life. If Desmond clearly saw how Charley would die this particular time, and then he also saw Charlie later in his future-vision still alive and well helping with the parachute, I posit that Charlie was in no danger from Desmond whatsoever.
In fact, if you examine Catch-22’s “flashforward†and compare Desmond’s behavior to the other instances in which he had visions of Charlie’s death, you can see how each situation including this one fits this “death/ alternative to death†profile perfectly. Each time Desmond sees both how Charlie dies and also sees a way in which Charlie does not die. In Catch-22 he sees the arrow in Charlie’s neck but he also sees Charlie helping with the parachute. In each instance Desmond involves Charlie in a specific activity in order to prevent Charlie’s death. For instance, Desmond forces Charlie into a boar hunt instead of allowing him to look for Claire’s bird. To Desmond, it could very well be that leaving Charlie at base camp while he hunted for the parachutist was far more dangerous.
Desmond says that he sees Charlie dies each time, but that no matter what he cannot save him. However, Desmond consistently ensures Charlie’s survival up through and including this episode. I posit that the REAL Catch-22 is that Desmond knows that eventually he will be unable to protect Charlie in some inevitable circumstance. At some point Desmond will probably have to allow Charlie to die so that Desmond can fulfill a more important mission, say, something like turning the key. Because Desmond knows that Charlie is dead without his constant intervention, and because he also knows that at some point he will have to leave Charlie to some inevitable death, I believe Desmond recognizes that he is constantly reliving a paradoxical cycle: Charlie dies, Charlie does not die, Charlie dies, Charlie does not die, Charlie dies… and so forth. This is the real Catch-22 in the episode. This is mirrored in how in Desmond’s visions he both sees Charlie die and Charlie live. That kind of paradox must be maddening. That is Desmond’s Catch-22; Charlie is in a constant state of both being dead and alive as soon as he is out of Desmond’s control. Charlie is the Island’s version of Schroedinger’s cat, living in a constant state of quantum flux, being both being dead and alive simultaneously. On the Island, Schroedinger’s box is replaced by Desmond’s immediate sphere of influence. As soon as Charlie is out of Desmond’s range of observance, Charlie exists in both states (dead and alive), at least until Desmond arrives upon the situation and “opens the box,†so to speak.
“Clevinger was dead. That was the basic flaw in his philosophy.â€
A minor point. Cute how the arrow pierces the "neck" of Charlie's guitar due to Desmond's intervention instead of Charlie's own neck.
In other words, the guitar was sacrificed, not Charlie.
- dharma bum says:
"I don’t think there is any evidence that Desmond planned to let Charlie die, contrary to what most people seem to think. In fact, I think there is none at all. I think that the show’s writers and director were using misdirection by starting the episode with that scene in which Charlie bites the dust."
In my opinion the writers made it more then clear that Desmond wanted everything to happen in exactly the way he saw it, but then couldn't go through with it.
Pointed out in those lines:
"Hurley: Isn't that the point, preventing something bad? - Des: Not this time - Hurley: so your not trying to stop something from happening, you actually want it to happen."
charlie:"look, if whatever your seeing leads to your girl getting us rescued why did we want to change anything? - des: exactly"
I think the scene with charlie holding the parachute isn't something desmond was supposed to see or deal with, it was for us. a hint, that nothing is going to happen to charlie (a least this episode).
I would compare it to the "production error" in 'One Of Us', the 'male' cancer patient in that chart ben gave to juliet. There is no way that was an mistake by the film-crew. that was for the audience the hint, that ben is playing juliet, that her sister infact never got sick again. juliet should have seen that 'male' thing, but, hey, she just didn't. but the writers knew that we wouldn't oversee this.
I think that seems like something the writers would do.
Or I'd like them to do. :)
Those Book of Judges references are pretty convincing in terms of the narrative similarities. I must admit I had to read them with an almost morbid sense humor in order to cope with the extreme misogyny prevelant in them. I kept waiting for a punchline like " So you killed all the Benjaminites because they raped and killed this man's wife? No, because they didn't pay the seven goat fine." You can sort of see why they needed an angry God.
Would this mean that Locke or Jack are true inspirational leaders like David or Moses?
This also starts to explain the concept of good again as good not in the global sense but as it applies to one small defined group. The Others have mission that that they consider good and it requires sacrifice. So do the losties.
The ambiguity of being a good man could also be a part of Desmond's catch 22. In order to be a good man he has to save Charlie, in order to be a good/great man he has to let him die and focus on the bigger picture like the shop lady says.
Charlie living/dying clouds Desmonds judgement and interpretation of his own visions. For instance in the first vision we see the parachutist hanging and then the vision follows the ropes eventually leading to Penny. So this may be telling Desmond that these lines lead to Penny (metaphorically) and that she is the puppet master. But He is too caught up in the Charlie dilema to properly see it and gets caught up in literal thinking, like any of us would if we were trying to deal with the complexities of seeing the future and time travel.
Hmmm, just a thought, perhaps the Charlie decision didn't change who the parachutist was, but who is the puppet master.
dharma bum, thanks for the thorough rundown of The Book of Judges. That was fascinating. I'm really looking forward to seeing what comes of all these near-allegories.
Something occurred to me when reading over the posts; if Des is changing past/present/future every time he saves Charlie, perhaps his flashforwards are versions of those possible new timelines that he may bump over to. Charlie dies / Charlie does not die reminds me of Boone, "Teresa falls up the stairs, Teresa falls down the stairs." I'd like to think the writers were planting this little bomb way back in the first season.
Let me fling this one out, one which I'll completely disown in the future if need be: If Des is changing past/present/future on each saving, what if Naomi is Penny? What if by changing up things, the Penny Des knew and loved historically became Naomi?
Mel -- if that is indeed the Mel I think I know (and if not, you had no idea I know at least three people who go by Mel) -- you may have found the secret to life, the universe and everything in that video.
Wait wait, I want to know more about the video now!
Also I want to note that as Desmond has been tested over and over again, he is gaining evermore, the clear difference between what is rite and what is wrong. i am writing this after the episode 'D.O.C' where Desmond (in a VERY convicting manner) points out to Charlie and Hugo that their group has killed more of The Others, than The Others of them.. to which Charlie replies; "Well they started it!"
The lines of what is rite and wrong have been LOST (Jack with the Others? Charlie wants to kill more Others? Locke and his quest to purify the island? Juliet's motives and how she has been warped from her original intentions to bring life, to now, lieing and manipulating the survivors? And this list goes on!) and it seems that only Desmond (the one who has suffered and been tested) can see the difference.
Something has been bothering me about the Superman/Flash argument in this episode, and I didn't realize ABC was going to rerun this episode tonight before the new one, so if anyone still has this tivoed, check something out. In Desmond's flash-forward, Charlie was arguing for the Flash, and Hurley for Superman. In real-time, it was the other way around, which makes sense since it was Hurley's Spanish version of the Flash comic that Walt was reading way back when. So if I'm remembering correctly, the future was already changing (or the past had changed? My head hurts) when they got to the rigged arrow.
And one more 'literary' reference that mentions of Dave telling Hurley to jump off the cliff to get back to his real life reminded me of -- a pretty good Spanish film called 'Open your eyes' (kind of pointlessly remade with Tom Cruise as 'Vanilla Sky'). In it, the protagonist is living a 'dream life', and he wakes up and returns to his real life by jumping off a building. He essentially kills himself in order to live again. That's what Dave was telling Hurley to do. And in light of tonight's episode, it may not have been an offhand reference.
You are giving the writers entirely too much credit. The reason for the mirroring? They aren't smart enough to come up with new and or better ideas.
Renegade...Don't you think keeping mirrored/twin plots credible while moving an ensemble story forward would be much more difficult than telling a straight, linear story? Whether the mirroring is intentional or not, J. Wood's analysis is correct: mirrors and twins drive the show. And I'm grateful to Wood for showing us what's behind the curtain.
Um, Viking... Looking at the transcripts, it's Charlie for Superman and Hurley for the Flash both times through.
Sorry. No mirroring there.
I think it's also important to make a distinction between "mirror" and "carbon copy." Perhaps J. Wood could elaborate, at some point.
SmallQ: You're probably right, I was just trying to stimulate an alternate perspective. With such a complicated series of timelines being recorded from the same shooting set-ups, I can easily see a script supervisor forgetting about or not thinking of shooting the parachute scene twice, once with Charlie and once without. No offense to the script supervisor if that is the case, though! I've had that job before, and it's the kind of easy mistake where you kick yourself for the rest of the day as soon as you realize it. Or it could be an easter egg situation like the medical chart.
Ka: Yeah, the misogyny is disturbing and requires some gallows humor to get through the analyses of many Old Testament passages. As for who this leader could be, from following that particular line of thought, I would have to put my money on Jack Shephard. The name Jack is the protagonist name of "Jack of all fables," the Jack who appears in many stories and fables as the hero of wit who wins in the end. And the last name Shephard... well that seems like a pretty direct allusion to Jesus. Who knows? It could be Aaron (celebrated brother of Moses); Aaron's birth, recognized as a great thing by both "tribes" on the Island, could somehow end up uniting these people into a greater society by ending the feuding through bringing about a higher set of laws (a la Exodus).
I also enjoy the idea of redefining the concept of what is "good," how there is a relative sense of what being a good person or people are to the two tribes on the island, and how there is also a greater sense of good that both tribes could probably ascribe to while still retaining relativistic differences about specific aspects of what "good" is to them.
J. Wood: It was my pleasure. I will keep on working with these sorts of analyses as they appear. Something from D.O.C. and the upcoming previews, plus revelations about Ruth, make me continue to think that this is an area worth exploring. Even if the ties between the storylines are not intentionally written to be so directly reminiscent of Judges or other O.T. passages, such stories are so large and so pervasive throughout our culture that we tend to retell them without even realizing that we are. We even do not remember having heard the stories many times, perhaps because we were told the same story but in a very different form. Great works tend to be recycled, consciously or not.
Quick word on mirror-twinning: It's an equal-but-opposite twinning, instead of a carbon copy. So my nose kind of bends to the left, and I'm right-handed; my mirror twin's nose would bend to the right, and he'd be left handed. It's a real form of twinning that occurs in nature, and was first brought up in Gary Troup's book. Actually, it didn't become nearly as much of a motif until the second season, when they started to toy with it, and after the ARG, they made it a full-blown narrative technique.
I should go back to "Dave" and see if there's more of Abre Los Ojos in there. I've taught that film before; there's certainly the lost grip on reality both Hurley and Cesar are undergoing; although Hurley only has Dave, and everyone in Cesar's world is a product of his imagination.
Just getting caught up, so sorry for the late posting. For anyone interested in J. Wood's reference to Minkowski's spacetime made above, you may also want to look at Bakhtin's notion of chronotope. Since Bakhtin was a literary theorist, his work might provide a vocabulary that would be useful to describe the ways that Lost's structure is both similar to and different from that of other narratives.
dharma bum: Watchmen was also originally a comic-book (mini) series (of 12 issues) before being collected into a trade paperback collection. It did not start out as a graphic novel.