tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post4765886010483685496..comments2024-02-04T05:13:04.501-05:00Comments on Nik at Nite: Lost 6.15 "Across the Sea"Nikki Staffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04463618183850438914noreply@blogger.comBlogger430125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-11138632681006685432010-05-23T14:26:20.010-04:002010-05-23T14:26:20.010-04:00Did you notice the drawings from the game board (o...Did you notice the drawings from the game board (old "bakcgammon")? They are the same that we can find in Ireland (see Newgrange). And when we saw that light, its impossible not to remeber the beginning of Wagner's ring: the "Rheingold". A light so beautiful and so powerful that needed to be protected afianst the men that want to transform it in a Ring (donkey wheel... lol) and obtain supreme power.Bhixmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06024008560039188271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-20364929593130093912010-05-18T20:54:06.440-04:002010-05-18T20:54:06.440-04:00Food for thought, but not Need To Knows:
Where Mo...Food for thought, but not Need To Knows:<br /><br />Where Mom refers to the light, she calls it the Heart of the Island. Does anyone interpret that two different ways? The heart of the island does NOT necessarily have to be the heart of the world, right? There is an implication when she's discussing the whole thing that it could be, or she thinks it is, but then she says, "Life, Death, Rebirth, (something), the Heart of the Island. Could the heart of the island possibly be something that is only important to the island? We know the whole life and death thing is screwy on the island, and rebirth is prohibited by something we don't know about yet. What about the heart of the island being taken out of context too? Keeping in mind that currently the heart of the island is underwater. (In a particularly well known movie, the heart of the ocean was a necklace. I hope there's more significance to this than that!)<br /><br />In this same area, Mom says that if the light goes out here, it goes out everywhere. She has spent the previous years telling these boys that there is no "everywhere". <i>THIS is all there is.</i> The island is the beginning and the end of the road. So could she mean that if the light goes out here at this particular place, it will go out all over the island? Is that an interpretation that anyone thought of?<br /><br />On two separate occasions, BIB/MIB is assaulted by Jacob. At no time does he ever raise a hand to ward off a blow much less try to actually defend himself. It appears as though he's not allowed (?) to defend himself. This has a sort of following for me when he quietly sneaks up behind Mom and stabs her in the back as though he knows that if she tried to stop him, he could not defend himself against her almost like he's not allowed to. The final time he is confronted by Jacob, MIB raises an arm and says, " Wait." but there is no defense at all. Why is that? The reason I ask is because I wondered if in the final set-up, where we already know the body of Locke is on one side, does the person on <i>either side</i> have to be incapable of offering a defense? Locke has been shown to be capable. In an argument with Jack, I think each side would be able to be defensive if they are "allowed" to be. Kate: each side is able. Sawyer: each side is able. Hurley? I don't know if I've ever seen Hurley raise his hands in anger to anyone to strike, or to strike back, and would need clarification on this point, but does anyone even think that matters? If not, why didn't MIB offer some defense? With the work it appears he was doing in the village, he should have been able to stomp all over Jacob.<br /><br />Regarding free will and choice: Mom tells Jacob that she sees now that it was always supposed to be him, and that he has to replace her because he doesn't really have a choice. Well, yeah, as I see it, he had a choice. He definitely had a choice, but he didn't want to leave the island anyway, so why not? Then I think either she told him something to push it over the edge, or he already knew what the stakes were, and saw that although he DID have a choice, it would be incredibly selfish to not look after this light. So although he did have a choice, he elected to follow Mom. Did anyone else catch that? Does it matter?Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-83310704294271815802010-05-18T20:16:50.998-04:002010-05-18T20:16:50.998-04:00Fred: Where you start out a paragraph saying, &quo...<i>Fred:</i> Where you start out a paragraph saying, "For myself, personally", I'd like to toss out something else to chew on. Most times a book is taken and turned into a movie or TV show. MOST of the time the book far exceeds the show because the book gives a lot more detail, and it's up to you to let your imagination run wild for the visuals. People disagree because they prefer the visuals or just don't like to read. I would love it if the writer's finished up Lost, and then gave us a Lost book. That would entail the <i>same story,</i> but with more detail in every area. Maybe there would be a few more concrete answers, but the ending would still be open to interpretation in most areas. Am I the only one who would buy that? I don't think so. Hardly!Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-40163425238283969552010-05-18T20:14:24.608-04:002010-05-18T20:14:24.608-04:00@Benny and Fred and your comments as they come tog...<i>@Benny and Fred</i> and your comments as they come together at May 17, 2010 12:41 PM: <i>I have to believe</i> that when the writer's first sat down and started writing this story, they saw a beginning and an ending that they wanted for it. To be able to believe in <b>any</b> ending, I have to hold onto my belief that they had one regardless of who or how many people disagree with me, because.....<br /> <br />To all of those who believe the writer's have been flying by the seat of their pants all this time and did not know at the beginning where this would go: I believe in that premise only to this extent: When you offer a show to network TV, you have to have a basic story line that you are selling. <b>IF</b> they pick you up, the original agreement might be for the first season, and we'll go from there. But everyone knows that ratings are what keeps you there. So even within the first Season, if the writer's didn't get the ratings, they could have been dropped by the network at any given time. Then the story stops right there. (For us that means this week you have Lost. Next week you discover it's been dropped completely be ABC.) They were not. The story went on. After three years, they had a religious experience with the audience, and the ratings were at the top. Plus there were Emmy nominations. (Being a newbie, I don't know exactly where the Emmy's came into play, so just work with me on that.) At that time, the three year mark, TPTB decided there would be only three more years. They knew THEN where they had to go, how they had to get there, and what they needed to do to wrap it all up. They also knew that at this point, it's a safe bet that if you keep your story moving along and holding your ratings, you're not going to get dropped.<br /> <br />Unlike other shows, this show has had a multitude of story lines all going on at one time. But I believe to the writer's and to the production team, there was basically only one story. Everything else was a story within the story. Jack's story was not THE story, but a smaller story within the big one. I have to believe that when the show wraps up on the 23rd <i>they will have finished the story that they set out to tell.</i> <br /> <br />If I'm wrong, then everything above and everything I've ever believed about this show will have been proven wrong, and my own personal devastation will know no boundaries. If I'm right, then <a rel="nofollow">that</a> story, <a rel="nofollow">the original story,</a> will be the story that had an beginning, moved along a story line, and came to The End. But, and this is big, I also believe that even if you did see it the first time around, you can watch the whole thing again, and walk away with more answers than you had the first time if you've already seen it, or with a different ending in mind if you've never seen it before. In other words, every time you see it, when it ends, it will have a different meaning for you, and that is individual. Each person will get something out of it that will change upon further viewing. Yes, Fred, I also believe the answers will be ambiguous. :) <br /><br />That's all the further I've gotten with the comments, and following another re-watch, I hope to have time to toss some other things out to give people an opportunity to reply if they wish. Penny for your thoughts sort of thing.Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-19095634537106752010-05-18T17:40:50.726-04:002010-05-18T17:40:50.726-04:00@Variabull - Don't people instinctively know h...@Variabull - <i>Don't people instinctively know how to lie? Don't they have to be taught how to tell the truth?</i><br /><br />You know, it's interesting; it's not that they know how to lie, it's that one of the first things humans want to do (besides eat and breathe, etc...) is please their parents. So, they <i>learn</i> to lie to get what they want (approval) and avoid punishment. We all start out telling the truth: "You're FAT and you smell bad!" says the (completely honest) 3 year old to the nice old lady. We teach them that lying is better sometimes; we teach them to lie just by punishing for bad behavior. It's a Catch-22. Then we try to drill in how 'good' it is to tell the truth - even though it sucks to get in trouble and small kids care little about morals.<br />Everyone lies <i>(I do love it Nana, really! Mmm, delicious!)</i>- if you don't lie, you're a sociopath and most likely are a danger to society.Joan Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04513335615114222374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-29265297975860400392010-05-18T12:01:42.697-04:002010-05-18T12:01:42.697-04:00Claudia: How did you get here?
Mother: The same ...Claudia: How did you get here?<br /><br />Mother: The same way you got here. By accident.<br /><br />So did Mother come to the "Island" by accident....or with the "Island" by accident.<br /><br />Mother: Jacob doesn't know how to lie. He's not like you. <br /><br />Don't people instinctively know how to lie? Don't they have to be taught how to tell the truth?<br /><br />The narrative shows Claudia delivering twins yet Claudia asks "May I see him?"<br /><br />Anthuriums surround the "Light Cave" and are used to frame only BiB. We have seen the red flowers before.<br />Yemi and Eko in the "garden"<br />David and Hurley on the way to the cliffs<br />Ben at the Orchid station and in his painting at his "Otherville" home (His mother??)<br /><br />So what are the tapestries made from...boar's hair?<br /><br />Original senet game seemed to be 3 white vs 3 black. Significant?<br /><br />Mother: They come, they fight, they destroy, they corrupt.. and it always ends the same. Just how long has Mother been at this? <br />This would seem to be the first conversation Mother has had with the Jacob and BiB about men, so how do they know what men are when they first see them?<br /><br />If Smokie is indeed MiB and he doesn't seem to run on rails as per some past theories why does he seem to have problems with banyans. Is it the spiritual aspects of the banyan (home of spirits)?<br /><br />Is Claudia's bracelet an oroborous (symbol of rebirth)?<br /><br />"Dead" Claudia seems to still be wearing it.<br /><br />Not-Locke, Sawyer/Ford, Desmond seem to be able to see the "apparition" of young Jacob. <br />Young Jacob cannot see "dead" Claudia and Richard cannot see young Jacob???? <br /><br />MiB: I spent 30 years searching for that place you brought me as a child--that...waterfall with that beautiful light. I've walked this island from end to end, not once coming close to finding it. But, then I began to think-what if the light underneath the island--what if I could get to it fomr someplace else? Figuring out how to reach it took a very long time. <br /><br />Close to finding it??? Sounds like allegory territory to me. THE LIGHT.. the quantum cosmic consciousness that we are all searching for?<br /><br />Sea turtle continuity...Mother and BiB on the beach talking senet?variabullnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-39854783688092811002010-05-17T23:34:33.209-04:002010-05-17T23:34:33.209-04:00Benny said: "Gracie: TextEdit is just a non-f...<i>Benny said: "Gracie: TextEdit is just a non-fancy typing application like Notepad, but for Mac. So basically, really similar to Word/WordPad/Notepad, no other differences!<br />RE: Ben<br />Remember Miles' words about what Jacob was thinking when he died, how he had been wrong about Ben and that he could still change.<br />@Fred/Gracie: RE: mother's words.<br />I go back to Occam's Razor. The idea is that if you question everything she says (that we don't know to be truth or lies) then you are left with a multitude more questions at a point in the show when you can't afford to have more questions.<br />Taking her words at face value, it actually (partially) answers questions, which is what the viewers and writers are looking for at this point.<br />Had this episode aired last years, or even at the beginning of the season, I would have agreed.</i><br /><br />Thanks for the TextEdit info. With WordPad, Notepad, and WordPerfect, I don't think that's something that I need. :) Info is always nice though.<br />Going with this theory, Jacob did always believe that Ben could change or change his mind. The problem with that is that Jacob never cared until he was "under the knife" to find out exactly what Ben thought about things. He left Ben to swing in the wind alone and completely unaided. Apparently Ben had sought an audience with Jacob several times but was never granted one, so Jacob just always "assumed" that Ben would be there. He picked a really bad time to find out he was wrong if you ask me, and with stakes this high, that was a <i>major fubar.</i> <br />Re: Mom's words. <a rel="nofollow">WE</a> don't have to assume to the degree that you think that Jacob no longer knows where she lied. We can assume that maybe by this point in time he knows exactly where she lied, and his actions that follow are a result of what he has learned to be what is actually the truth. When she passed off the cup and incantation, I think he would have gained a great deal of her knowledge. His original knowledge, for one example was, "She said we could not hurt each other, yet I just pounded his face in, and caused red goop to come out, and my hand hurts like hell!" Hello? That right there should tell HIM something. To some degree, he would know then where she had lied, to what extent, and why. So, I still have only my three questions. I guess what I'm saying is that <i>if I were Jacob,</i> I would not believe a word she had ever told me over the course of our time together leading me to question all of it. Since I'm not Jacob, I can only hope he's learned a few things, from her with the incantation, and on his own as a direct result of his own actions. Lucky for me, Occam's Razor doesn't play in it at all. My number of questions has gone up by exactly zero. I had three questions yesterday, and still have three today. Whew! LOL<br />That's it for me tonight!Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-12027907822855221812010-05-17T22:55:18.490-04:002010-05-17T22:55:18.490-04:00redeem147 said: "With the backgammon and the ...<i>redeem147 said: "With the backgammon and the senet board, I've been thinking that the game is the main structure of what's going on. But maybe it's really the long con. I mean, really long."</i><br /><br />That's exactly what I mean about the word "con". Everyone, including me, seems to be leaning towards a game. Could it be instead, a long con? If so, then you can remove everything that you think you know to be true about this island because the con itself would have to be run by ....who? Ben and Widmore? Ben, Widmore and Richard? Who would be running it, and to what end? Cons are usually run to make money, and we know Widmore likes money. But what does he get back, and from whom, if he is part of a long con? See? <br /><br />Because there are less questions if you believe the island to be a game, that's the way I've ended up going. But the con, if there is one, is still very much alive and a real possibility! It's just harder to see the "whos" and "what" they hope to achieve.Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-11246604118567036322010-05-17T22:44:06.398-04:002010-05-17T22:44:06.398-04:00Cont.
Everyone in this story has lied, some sever...Cont.<br /><br />Everyone in this story has lied, some several times over, including our beloved Hurley. But the biggest lies of the whole story <i>will be</i> the lies that Jacob has learned over time that his mother told him. Jacob would never have had any way to verify anything she ever said except through trial and error, and his own naivete would keep him buried in a deeper hole. And I agree that the current rules governing the island are Jacob's rules, as well as I agree that whatever those rules are, MOST of them are involved in the playing of a game. The Candidates should in fact be safe, killable only by each other, unless they can be picked off by someone like Ben. I said in an earlier post that if he's trying to play both sides, I would not be surprised. Maybe he is using the remaining Candidates and the security they offer in an attempt to pick off Widmore so he (Ben) can again claim the island. If so, this time there would be no Jacob, and the island would truly be Ben's. That only leads me further into my belief that it will appear everything is heading straight for Jack until life steps in and makes a mess of Jacob's plan. <i>Just as it happened to him,</i> Jacob will be forced into a secondary postition with little time to spare. There's my Candidate.Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-60275754968696083222010-05-17T22:43:42.780-04:002010-05-17T22:43:42.780-04:00Fred also said: "@Gracie: And I am having mor...<i>Fred also said: "@Gracie: And I am having more problems than most of the bloggers (it appears) believing that everything dear old mum said should be written in stone. I find myself questioning EVERYTHING she said because she proved herself to be a liar.<br /><br />Right on! Mother said she would make it the brothers could not harm each other. Now we think maybe Jacob killed his brother (some still believe Smokie possesses MiB's soul). But in a story in which promises are regularly broken, people constantly lie, why should we as the audience believe some character's claims just because she is dressed in 2,000 year old clothes! So far almost nobody has told the truth on this island--so why begin now. And if you want to fall for a con, then just believe what is being told to you is the truth. And that makes everything doubly hard, because we have no real way of verifying anything. The only thing we know is that rules govern the island, and more likely than not Jacob made up the rules. One of the rules is candidates can't be killed by Smokie--most extreme case in point if Nikki (of Nikki and Paulo fame); she was not killed by Smokie in the form of the Medusa spider, but only paralyzed. Instead she was killed when Sawyer and others buried her alive. On this point, the limited number of candidates implies they'd have to kill each other somehow. (At one point Locke nearly killed Hurley, when Locke threw the knife in the jungle and it hit Hurley's canteen).</i> <br /><br />Wow! Thank you. (There's that "con" word again!) Mother did in fact say they could not hurt each other. She made it sound like she had fixed it so that they were not <i>physically able</i> to do such a thing. Then we see Jacob is beating on his brother TWICE, which alone makes what Mom said questionable. I DO think for all intents Jacob killed his brother by pushing him into the stream. Thereafter, whether he died from drowning, hitting his head, or from something Smokie did to him, doesn't matter. The physical form that was MIB still died. BUT the part of him that lived within the body, the essence of him, including his memory and ability to think and reason, was sucked out of him and lives on within the Smoke Monster and MIB knows this, making it a fate worse than death. He knows what has happened to him since he "died" and knows what "he" has done. (The Smoke Monster must have the ability to do this, otherwise it would have no way of attaining the knowledge that it gets when it takes over a body such as all it knows about Locke, Locke's past, Locke's way of looking at things etc. Would Locke have still been suicidal if he'd known what was to happen to his body? Methinks not.) I will allow that if there's another way for Smokie to attain such knowledge that we don't know about yet, this could be all wrong and MIB simply died. But somehow the knowledge WAS attained, and it would have to be explained how Smokie could know what it came to know. <br />(cont.)Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-44825399723197904752010-05-17T22:26:18.049-04:002010-05-17T22:26:18.049-04:00@Fred who said: "@Gracie:I think that Jacob d...<i>@Fred who said: "@Gracie:I think that Jacob didn't think of "Ben as being of no real consequence". I just don't think Jacob really "thought" of Ben at all. You've hit on a very important point here. MiB says to Jacob that people are just means to an end. In other words, con them so you can get your goal, much as Sawyer did in his life. For so long we've seen Jacob as this good guy. And yet, there is nothing charitable in him........So which is worse: (a) to be conned by MiB, or (b) to be forced into a no win situation by Jacob? We used to see these two figures as diametrical opposites: good versus evil. Now we realize their just both indifferent to humanity. One sees humanity close up; the other from a distance."</i><br /><br />Me: Every word you say in this wonderful paragraph is true, but none so much as your first line. I refer again to my post at May 15, 2010 9:53 AM. For all intents and purposes, neither of them is good, and neither is evil. Both can "justify" their actions based on the situation they were put into at that time, both think they are in the right (good), and in a way, they both are (and aren't). Conversely, each of them thinks the other is evil (and isn't) depending on whose pair of shoes you're wearing. (I have not been convinced that Jacob is good since he touched everyone we saw and knew to be getting on that plane. If he were truly good, he would have led these people away from the plane, which he could not do.) I can see why Jacob feels as he does about MIB, but never so much as after he sees what he himself did to MIB. And I can see why MIB thinks he must beat Jacob with a loophole. (The final answer to this, if there is one, will lie in what is being protected. If it's something that meant a great deal to Mom and the rest of the world <i>at or during that time,</i> but doesn't today, we have a whole new outlook. If it's importance is vital to humanity at all times, well, it will kind of give Jacob a much needed leg to stand on IMHO.) If I had a disagreement at all, it would be where you say that one sees humanity close up. Jacob's relationship with Ilana has never been explained, but it appears that there is a relationship there of some kind. But maybe that's what we were supposed to think. I say that because if Jacob actually saw the effects he had on people's lives, including Ilana's, he would have to rethink the way he goes about recruiting. But it doesn't appear that he even cares what is happening in your life right before he pulls the rug out from under you. No feelings at all whatsoever. How close could he have been to Ilana to ask her to do something which I believe he knew would ultimately lead to her death? It's in the eye of the beholder, but where evil is concerned, I can't say one has an edge over the other. In your first sentence you use the word "con". Forever ago, long after I had been subjected to all the games involved in this show, and after seeing how all the cons came together, I wondered if the whole show could be in any sense just one great big con? The audience is the mark. But because I couldn't figure out who the writer's wanted us to think was running the con, and I never got much beyond that basic thought. But every time I see the word "con", I have to stop and rethink it all again. At this point it would not surprise me, if at the end, I learned I had been conned in some way.Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-90876578145452684292010-05-17T19:27:01.420-04:002010-05-17T19:27:01.420-04:00@ Teebore, Fred, Benny:
I'm with all of you, ...@ Teebore, Fred, Benny:<br /><br />I'm with all of you, I think (correct me if I am wrong)...I want the plot resolved in some meaningful way, but also want enough elements left open so that there is plenty of basis for future stories.<br /><br />But Teebore, I DO think we will get a satisfying resolution of this particular story arc's plot. Otherwise, you are correct that they have either been lying to us, or have changed their minds. And I truly hope this is not the case.Rainierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03673583306782535437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-8117016820478307672010-05-17T19:23:26.188-04:002010-05-17T19:23:26.188-04:00@Gracie:
It is true that the island, the light, t...@Gracie:<br /><br />It is true that the island, the light, the water, etc. are all underwater in the sideways story...that being the operative condition. I don't think, however, that when everything is finally resolved the island et al. will still be underwater...I think that scenario is a possibility, but is unlikely to prove to be the final outcome. I have good reasons for this, and if you want a tedious explanation of how quantum mechanics and 'possibility travel' play into this as well as how these things are usually viewed in science fiction, I'd be happy to provide it. But the bottom line is that I do not believe that the island is underwater in the reality that really matters here. <br /><br />So whatever it is that is so important about that light, I think it is still around...but we'll see, won't we? And we may also get a view of what happens if, in fact, it is really gone. That will be interesting, but not, I think, pretty.Rainierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03673583306782535437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-90120092064201444652010-05-17T16:34:31.470-04:002010-05-17T16:34:31.470-04:00Othermother: a woman caring for children who are n...Othermother: a woman caring for children who are not biologically her own.<br /><br />I believe McGoohan and Markstein never answered all the questions and "The Prisoner" DVDs are still selling 40 years later.variabullnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-64062694439905647252010-05-17T15:35:32.281-04:002010-05-17T15:35:32.281-04:00@Fred: I discuss whether or not Darlton are playin...@Fred: <i>I discuss whether or not Darlton are playing with our expectations of plot. I believe they have been, and this has made things even more difficult for viewers to ascertain what is really going on. </i><br /><br />As you'll see in my response, I don't believe they've been playing with our expectation of plot. Or, at least, they weren't until season six began to unfold. <br /><br />I suppose it's a matter of interpretation. ;) <br /><br /><i>One final point, I do believe LOST offers up multiple meanings for events. But for many audience members the assumption of multiple meanings is anathema. Some viewers work with not only one plot outline, but one interpretive meaning. The great thing about LOST is that that works just as well.</i><br /><br />I certainly share your belief that Lost offers up multiple meanings for events, and I have no problem with this. I'd probably have a problem if Lost didn't. And I'm not someone who needs one interpretive meaning, like my friend I mentioned in the other thread. I wholeheartedly embrace the notion of multiple meanings and interpretations. <br /><br />I do, however, believe the show's PLOT should only have one meaning. <br /><br />In the other thread you mentioned Sherlock Holmes, and I recently brought him up during a discussion similar to this on my own blog.<br /><br />The charm of a good Holmes story, I argued, was in both the presence of Holmes himself (one of fiction's great characters) and in the puzzling out of the whodunit elements of the story, followed by the revelation of, well, who dun it. <br /><br />While I love Holmes' character, and believe there should be many interpretive meanings regarding how Holmes feels about the events of the story, or what the author intended the audience to take away from the story in terms of social or political commentary, I would not love very many Sherlock Holmes stories if we never found out who did it in the end, if we never found out how our deductions matched those of Holmes. <br /><br />As Lost comes to a close (and there's still two episodes left) it's beginning to seem, to me, like a Holmes story where we'll never discover the culprit and how Holmes figured it all out. <br /><br />For me, despite all the interpretive meaning ripe for debate, that just doesn't make for a very satisfying story. <br /><br />Especially when, up until very recently, Lost seemed to be presented to its audience as a very traditional whodunit with a delightful overabundance of well-crated characters and opportunities for interpretation of meaning, theme and motivation by its audience. <br /><br />Now it's like we're suddenly being told "no, you've been wrong for five seasons: the plot doesn't matter. And all those times we told you, explicitly or implicitly, it did? Yeah, we were either lying, or we've suddenly changed our minds".Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-75239474819839889852010-05-17T14:44:28.996-04:002010-05-17T14:44:28.996-04:00@Teebore: I posted an answer to your last response...@Teebore: I posted an answer to your last response on the thread concerning MiB and Smokie, Nikki recently posted. <br /><br />Your point about "meaning" versus plot is well taken. But we should also be aware how plot is tied very much to narration. The undecidability of narrative events may very much undermine the assurance we hold in plotted events. You wrote:<br /><br /><i>My problem isn't that we don't know what it means; my problem is that we don't even know what really happened.</i><br /><br />You will see I am very much with you on this point: we don't know what really happened. And as I discuss in the other thread (MiB = Smokie?) I discuss whether or not Darlton are playing with our expectations of plot. I believe they have been, and this has made things even more difficult for viewers to ascertain what is really going on. <br /><br />Heck, Vozzek has even questioned whether Kate (off island) even had Aaron with her, or that Aaron was just a projection of Kate's own wishes. If that is really the case, how can any of us really grasp the plot of the story. Some will believe Aaron was off island with Kate, while others will assume not.<br /><br />One final point, I do believe LOST offers up multiple meanings for events. But for many audience members the assumption of multiple meanings is anathema. Some viewers work with not only one plot outline, but one interpretive meaning. The great thing about LOST is that that works just as well.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474623954925835867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-81556942975252076032010-05-17T13:20:28.625-04:002010-05-17T13:20:28.625-04:00@Fred If I am willing to consider multiple reading...@Fred <i>If I am willing to consider multiple readings of Dickens, or Shakespeare, or even the Bible, then why shouldn't I accept multiple readings of LOST? </i><br /><br />You addressed it more to Benny, and I don't intended to speak on his behalf, but I can say that I have no issues with the concept of Lost ending with multiple readings/interpretations. <br /><br />Heck, I was an English major; I have no problems debating various interpretations of films and novels and TV shows. Rather, I LOVE doing that!<br /><br />But I feel like while the themes and meanings and character motivations of Lost can and should be open to interpretation (and I wouldn't want them NOT to be) I do believe that the PLOT of Lost shouldn't be open to interpretation. <br /><br />I mean, for all the differing interpretations of Dickens and Shakespeare, at the end of the day, we still know the PLOT of their works. We know that a miserly Scrooge saw three ghosts which took him on a tour of the space-time continuum and in the end, he emerged a changed man. We know that Macbeth slew the King of Scotland, took the throne, and was then ousted himself, etc. <br /><br />As it stands (and hopefully the final episodes will clarify this some) there is still some basic plot elements of Lost that remain unknown. <br /><br />The issue of whether or not MiB became Smokey or Smokey was released and took MiB's form isn't, to me, one of meaning/theme/motivation, but one of plot. What the scene of Jacob throwing his brother into the cave and Smokey emerging MEANS doesn't need to be spelled out, but I feel like what HAPPENED in that scene does.<br /><br />My problem isn't that we don't know what it means; my problem is that we don't even know what really happened.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-5287230335785533662010-05-17T13:17:15.768-04:002010-05-17T13:17:15.768-04:00@Fred: Those, such as yourself who want the show t...<b>@Fred:</b> <i>Those, such as yourself who want the show to come down to some significant meaning which answers at least the big questions.</i> <br /><br />That's where you got me wrong. Throughout this season I've argued that many questions will no be answered and that's what I'm looking for. But I'm also looking at how the show has been built and how it is culminating.<br /><br />There is a difference between A] not answering questions; and B] asking new questions.<br /><br />I'm part of a group who believes that some big questions will be answered, those the writers intended to be questions. But at the same time, they are not going to start asking new questions. Any 'new questions' you might have should be subcategories of pre-existing questions.<br /><br />And that is consistent with my viewing of the last few episodes. Watching since at least <i>The Last Recruit</i>, I have personally not had any true new question. I've had definite answers, potential answers, dilemmatic answers and non answers.<br /><br />The writers have said that the show will have a lot left unanswered, but that the overarching story will be resolved, and for a story to be resolved you need a beginning. That beginning has been said to be this episode.<br /><br />If you ask questions about the 'Monther' and her history, and doubt what she said, then you are only asking what came before, doubting the beginning and preventing a clear resolution to the story, which we were guaranteed three years ago.<br /><br />So, while I'm not looking for answers, I'm expecting a resolution, as I've been promised. Doubting the words and story form <i>Across the Sea</i> ultimately nullifies any resolution we might have in <i>The End</i>.Bennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036549649615941601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-4170658383996206982010-05-17T12:41:30.109-04:002010-05-17T12:41:30.109-04:00@Benny:I go back to Occam's Razor. The idea is...@Benny:<i>I go back to Occam's Razor. The idea is that if you question everything she says (that we don't know to be truth or lies) then you are left with a multitude more questions at a point in the show when you can't afford to have more questions.</i><br /><br />Ah, Benny, but I can afford to have a multitude of questions, even as the last second of the show ticks by. How brilliant it would be to think that LOST is unresolvable, or at least remains a mystery for future fans to return time and again to puzzle out what it all means. <br /><br />For myself, personally, I am quite happy if the show does not precipitate into a single, undissolvable meaning. If I am willing to consider multiple readings of Dickens, or Shakespeare, or even the Bible, then why shouldn't I accept multiple readings of LOST? Certainly that's not the way television shows have ended in the past, but then LOST has managed to break a number of past standing patterns for television shows. <br /><br />So we might say there are at least two types of fans/audience for LOST. Those, such as yourself who want the show to come down to some significant meaning which answers at least the big questions. The second sort of audience is like myself, able to tolerate unstable meanings and a boatload of questions remaining. By analogy, we are like two music lovers, one who wishes a composition to return to the tonic key, while another accepts dissonance and atonality.<br /><br />Within this week and next, we'll see which way the writers of the show come down. While I suspect they'll satisfy many viewers with sufficient answers, they may do so in such a way that there remains some ambiguity in the answers (still yet, I do not think all the asnwers will be forthcoming, and we will be left with questions). I am hoping the writers are listening to Schoenberg, whiel you and so many others are hoping for Beethoven (great drama but that return).Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474623954925835867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-34006712675088162992010-05-17T10:43:24.890-04:002010-05-17T10:43:24.890-04:00Gracie: TextEdit is just a non-fancy typing applic...<b>Gracie:</b> TextEdit is just a non-fancy typing application like Notepad, but for Mac. So basically, really similar to Word/WordPad/Notepad, no other differences!<br /><br />RE: Ben<br />Remember Miles' words about what Jacob was thinking when he died, how he had been wrong about Ben and that he could still change.<br /><br /><b>@Fred/Gracie:</b> RE: mother's words.<br />I go back to Occam's Razor. The idea is that if you question everything she says (that we don't know to be truth or lies) then you are left with a multitude more questions at a point in the show when you can't afford to have more questions.<br />Taking her words at face value, it actually (partially) answers questions, which is what the viewers and writers are looking for at this point.<br /><br />Had this episode aired last years, or even at the beginning of the season, I would have agreed.Bennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036549649615941601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-55258124831625148322010-05-17T07:54:47.763-04:002010-05-17T07:54:47.763-04:00With the backgammon and the senet board, I've ...With the backgammon and the senet board, I've been thinking that the game is the main structure of what's going on.<br /><br />But maybe it's really the long con.<br /><br />I mean, really long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-82249229270779845852010-05-17T01:45:16.624-04:002010-05-17T01:45:16.624-04:00Fred I will answer that more fully next time I'...Fred I will answer that more fully next time I'm on, but for now check out what I said at May 15, 2010 9:53 AM. <br /><br />I'm off to bed.Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-9796940202810940072010-05-17T01:44:48.099-04:002010-05-17T01:44:48.099-04:00@Gracie:And I am having more problems than most of...@Gracie:<i>And I am having more problems than most of the bloggers (it appears) believing that everything dear old mum said should be written in stone. I find myself questioning EVERYTHING she said because she proved herself to be a liar.</i><br /><br />Right on! Mother said she would make it the brothers could not harm each other. Now we think maybe Jacob killed his brother (some still believe Smokie possesses MiB's soul).But in a story in which promises are regularly broken, people constantly lie, why should we as the audience believe some character's claims just because she is dressed in 2,000 year old clothes! So far almost nobody has told the truth on this island--so why begin now. And if you want to fall for a con, then just believe what is being told to you is the truth. And that makes everything doubly hard, because we have no real way of verifying anything. The only thing we know is that rules govern the island, and more likely than not Jacob made up the rules. <br /><br />One of the rules is candidates can't be killed by Smokie--most extreme case in point if Nikki (of Nikki and Paulo fame); she was not killed by Smokie in the form of the Medusa spider, but only paralyzed. Instead she was killed when Sawyer and others buried her alive.<br /><br />On this point, the limited number of candidates implies they'd have to kill each other somehow. (At one point Locke nearly killed Hurley, when Locke threw the knife in the jungle and it hit Hurley's canteen).Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474623954925835867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-1506729158152351382010-05-17T01:31:42.886-04:002010-05-17T01:31:42.886-04:00@Gracie:I think that Jacob didn't think of &qu...@Gracie:<i>I think that Jacob didn't think of "Ben as being of no real consequence". I just don't think Jacob really "thought" of Ben at all.</i><br /><br />You've hit on a very important point here. miB says to jacob that people are just means to an end. In other words, con them so you can get your goal, much as Sawyer did in his life.<br /><br />For so long we've seen Jacob as this good guy. And yet, there is nothing charitable in him. He brings people to the island (no choice on their part), and he lets them figure it out on their own. If they don't, they die. So far they've all died. It's a sort of survival of the fittest; only no one is the fittest.<br /><br />So which is worse: (a) to be conned by MiB, or (b) to be forced into a no win situation by Jacob? <br /><br />We used to see these two figures as diametrical opposites: good versus evil. Now we realize their just both indifferent to humanity. One sees humanity close up; the other from a distance.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474623954925835867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-65071902509821941432010-05-17T01:26:17.726-04:002010-05-17T01:26:17.726-04:00As far as the talking thing before you kill someon...<i>As far as the talking thing before you kill someone (and sneaking up behind them)?</i> We've been rewatching Lost all day, and at some times now, I'm not even sure who started this, if it's for real, or if it's been information passed on that's actually misguided (maybe on purpose). I really think that Richard <i>should know</i> the answer to this. In other words, it doesn't seem to matter sometimes. Again, I don't know. After listening to both of the podcasts this week (Darlton and Geronimo Jack's Beard), my mind changed or went into a confused state several times. <br /><br /><i>Rainier said: re: hope - I can't say that I particularly like this idea. I think it is too simplistic an answer to the power resident in the Source. Largely this is because the world will not vanish, and everyone we know & love will not die without hope. You can live a long, long time without hope. I know this is true because I have done it, and know many other people who have done so and still do. It is a nice thing to have, but not something so large that the lack of it will cause the end of the world as we know it.</i><br /><br />I more than understand what you're saying here. And the majority of the reason I'm sticking with it, <i>is</i> it's simplicity. But you have to look at it both ways, which I originally did, and then went with "hope". Sure it can be the be-all-and-the-end-all that Mom said it was, or it can be something a little more simplistic like "hope" that people can and do live without, although not very comfortably or happily. I went with the more simple because if in fact this is a world changer or a world ender, we are in deep sh*t. I feel it has to be something that maybe (?) mankind can find again and rebuild on. And I say this for one very simple reason: <i>The island as we know it is underwater now.</i> I don't see any way to bring it back up. Whatever would've been there is underwater with it. And the precious island water is now ocean water. So I went for something more simple. Hope can be lost and found again. And I am having more problems than most of the bloggers <a rel="nofollow">(it appears)</a> believing that everything dear old mum said should be written in stone. I find myself questioning EVERYTHING she said because she proved herself to be a liar. <i>Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me</i> sort of thing, and I look back at the show for ways to discredit her words. I very much believe in Nikki's idea that "love" is very powerful here, which is a simplistic answer IMHO. But once love is lost, it CAN be found again. Maybe not with the same person, the same intensity, or the same passion, but you can love, and then love again.Graciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488395834471648522noreply@blogger.com