tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post5021022006585717090..comments2024-02-04T05:13:04.501-05:00Comments on Nik at Nite: "Recon" RevisitedNikki Staffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04463618183850438914noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-86622248994594448532018-12-04T00:43:04.952-05:002018-12-04T00:43:04.952-05:00Thanks for sharing this information. online book T...Thanks for sharing this information. online book Ticket through <a href="https://www.redbus.in/" rel="nofollow">Redbus</a><br />Sarah Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861717512362514856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-75357186200488276092010-05-18T19:24:34.020-04:002010-05-18T19:24:34.020-04:00@Teebore...Nah, you're not missing anything.
...@Teebore...Nah, you're not missing anything. <br /><br />Thanks pal! I'm sooo mad at missing all of the back and forth due to work, wedding planning, life in general... so I took Monday off so I can spend the day with you awesome folks! We'll laugh, we'll cry, we'll hypothesize, we'll cry... you get the point!Jessicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04465366984953974907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-85029878175641571332010-05-18T09:34:59.697-04:002010-05-18T09:34:59.697-04:00@Jessica: Am I totally off base here? Did I miss s...@Jessica: <i>Am I totally off base here? Did I miss something? </i><br /><br />Nah, you're not missing anything. My "reading" of the events of the episode was very similar to yours. Other people saw the same events, with no additional information, and came to different conclusions. <br /><br />No one's missing anything, they're just interpreting the events as presented in different ways. <br /><br />That's Lost! ;)Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-41964041657599733452010-05-18T09:03:05.076-04:002010-05-18T09:03:05.076-04:00Unrelated to the topic, I just want to say that LO...Unrelated to the topic, I just want to say that LOST message boards are the best on the internet. This one is, of course, the best of the best. These posts, like the show itself, are thoughtful and well written. Well done, folks. I will miss these discussions almost as much as the show.alltim7noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-27768238140946489082010-05-17T23:03:23.495-04:002010-05-17T23:03:23.495-04:00I have to say, that I haven't been able to get...I have to say, that I haven't been able to get on here much lately (wedding planning ugh! 33 days to go!) But as I have been reading through the comments on "Across the Sea" and this post from you Nikki, I'm confused! <br /><br />Until I read others' comments, stating/guessing that Brother is truly dead and that Smokey was an entity prior to his death in the Light, I never thought of it! Upon initial viewing and a review of the episode, I totally came away from it believing that the soul/life essence of Brother was transformed into the smoke monster! When Nutty Mummy stated that the result of going into the Light was worse than death, it seems to me that she is talking to/about a person... as in "what will happen to YOU will be worse than death" It did not seem to me that she was referring to what the world would suffer from the release of an evil smoke monster. I also wanted to comment on the questions that have popped up over whether or not Jacob was truly not allowed to kill his Brother. Some comments have made it seem like Jacob really did KILL Brother. IMHO it seems like Jacob knocked out his Brother and the stream carried his unconscious body into the Light...<br /><br />Am I totally off base here? Did I miss something?Jessicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04465366984953974907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-67487960804497952032010-05-17T19:08:57.586-04:002010-05-17T19:08:57.586-04:00@Ninja Raiden - I thought Dogen's deal must ha...@Ninja Raiden - I thought Dogen's deal must have been made with Smokey as well, except, 1. The deal was made off island (I think), and 2. Dogen kept Smokey out of the temple. The idea that Jacob made this deal has never sat right with me - it is an outlier, but it would have been difficult for Smokey to have made it. Though, if Jacob had made it, what did he do, bring Dogen back with him in a boat? This I think will have to be part of an explanation as well.JShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219841452322761803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-39463881534609299222010-05-17T19:05:31.108-04:002010-05-17T19:05:31.108-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.JShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219841452322761803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-60355084175085225342010-05-17T17:26:29.574-04:002010-05-17T17:26:29.574-04:00@Teebore: Thanks. I do take my analysis with the c...@Teebore: Thanks. I do take my analysis with the caveat that there are three hours left and that there is more info to consume. That being said for me I have faith that Darlton will wrap up the story with the resoluion that is reqired with a healthy amount of speculation. After all, their careers and reputation are on the line with the finale. I find it hard to believe that they are not taking this seriously.<br /><br />@JS: The deal with Dogan and the knife are what makes me believe that he was making a deal with Smokey not realizing that it wasn't Jacob. Even Ben,the leader of the Others, has never seen Jacob. And like you said, other than Richard(his start to his Long Con(note the realization on Jacob's face before he asks Richard to be his avatar).<br /><br />I think he's fooling Smokey into thinking he's got the advantage and has a ace in his sleeves. Just like when they were playing games as kids, "Adam" thinks he knows the rules (or even thinks he's found a loophole )while Jacob lulls him into a sense of surety and blindsides him(my theory:see KATE),ninja raidenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678201901265468137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-43011410946339653992010-05-17T17:11:03.888-04:002010-05-17T17:11:03.888-04:00@ninja raiden - ditto on the conversing. It seems...@ninja raiden - ditto on the conversing. It seems I was typing while you were posting similar thoughtsJShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219841452322761803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-89873060323627625062010-05-17T17:06:22.670-04:002010-05-17T17:06:22.670-04:00@ninja raiden: Great points on lack of clarity wor...@ninja raiden: Great points on lack of clarity working on a meta-fictional level, and the relationship between island believers and the audience. Those sort of connections are what I love about Lost. <br /><br />Though never as devoutly as my aforementioned friend, I've always been more of an Authorial Intent guy; I lack the self-confidence to truly embrace Reader Response. :) <br /><br /><i>Jacob is primarily hands off except for Richard and ,more recently, the castaways. And it is stated onscreen, in Ab Aeterno, that he is containing Smokey/the Source on the Island. Smokey needs technology to get off the Island, so Jacob, like Mother has to shut down attempts at Smokey getting off and has to "purge" the attempt at escape. </i><br /><br />Here is where our mileage varies. I agree with, and am satisfied by, everything you mapped out there. <br /><br />What I want, and what I find Lost lacking as it comes to a close, are the details of the plot, the little things glossed over by those broad strokes. <br /><br />Jacob is containing Smokey/the Source: ARE Smokey and the source one and the same? Is Jacob keeping people away from the Source while also keeping Smokey on the island? Or did his job change once Smokey emerged, and now it's just one of containment? <br /><br />If the Purge was a move by Jacob to cut Smokey off from Dharma's resources, further keeping him on the island, why did Jacob wait almost 20 years to purge them? <br /><br />If it's so important that Smokey stay on the island, why does Jacob keep bringing people to the island, people that could help Smokey escape? To prove his point that people aren't all that bad? Is proving a point worth the risk of Smokey getting out and destroying existence? If so, why is it worth the risk? If not, why is Jacob so cavalier about it? <br /><br />Granted, these ARE relatively minor points, and otherwise covered by the broad strokes you outlined, and I can certainly come to some conclusions myself based on the material we've been given. <br /><br />But again, varied mileage and all, I KNOW my conclusions; now I want to know the SHOW'S conclusions. <br /><br /><i>As much FUN as it is to type thoughts out, I wish we all could conversate and have a richer and more fluid conversation about Lost, but to you Teebore and the rest, this is on of the things I'll miss when Lost is over...</i><br /><br />Most definitely agreed on both counts, though I think in the end Lost will give us plenty to think and talk about for quite some time.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-61648671280338960762010-05-17T16:56:56.292-04:002010-05-17T16:56:56.292-04:00I have been thinking lately about whether or not t...I have been thinking lately about whether or not the Others have been under the influence of Smokey all this time, instead of Jacob, and glad to see this question come up here. <br /><br />As I've written elsewhere, if we are to believe Jacob's hand's off policy, then we can believe that only way Jacob has interacted with the others has been to provide lists to Richard. It doesn't seem he has given them any directives, at all. He was not given a choice about his protector role, and has made the rule that people need to do things because they chose to, not because he told them to. Even with Dogen and Richard, he gave them choices. We could argue about the quality of the choices, but he made deals with them, and lets them decide what they want to do. It seems the only two people he interacted with on the island were the two he made deals with – Richard and Dogen, both protectors of the light. <br /><br />Did Jacob order the purge? I find it hard to believe that he would not give any directions about anything, then tell the others to purge the Dharma folks. That sound more like something Dogen or Richard would decide, because they thought it was in keeping with their jobs. <br /><br />Off-island, Jacob has interacted with the candidates. He hasn’t made any deals with them, or given them any directions. The closest he comes is suggesting Hurley go back to the island, and made sure to emphasize he had a choice. But there was no deal, just a request. Now, the remaining question for me is if did he influenced the Lostie’s? He may have hand picked them, watched them their entire lives, brought them to the island without actually interfering with their free will, but has he actually done anything to make them chose one way or another? That would be violating his own rules. Unless he changed them.JShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219841452322761803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-46991083770525271942010-05-17T16:41:31.401-04:002010-05-17T16:41:31.401-04:00@Teebore Those were another round of well thought ...@Teebore Those were another round of well thought out points. But to me , before I get into the specifics of the Purge, "the Lack of Clarity" is an important theme to Lost on both the narrative and meta-narrative level.<br /><br />Whether the writers consciously intended to promote this theme or not(I'm a folloewer of the Reader-Response style of analysis) is irrelevant to me, to qualify my perception of Lost. The idea that people follow ideas, beliefs, and ideologies without substantive understanding of why they follow these concepts are consistant within Lost.<br /><br />John Locke, Benjamin Linus, Richard Alpert, and even Jacob are all charcters who follow their respective paths without fully understanding what it is that they are doing or even what the endgame is (MAYBE Jacob does, to some extent). <br /><br />In the same way for six years, we have been doing the same thing, following a plotline that we have no idea where its going and what the endgame is. Even now, none of us have any real clue how its gonna end(I have a burgeoning theory that because we are mostly used to telegraphing in storytelling, people are especially antsy in the "Lost Miasma").<br /><br />We/Jacob and Smokey are following an unreliable but well meaning storyteller Darlton/Mother who mixes truth with lies in order to reach a specific endgame.<br /><br />As far as what is considered clarity on Lost, to use a cliche, your miliage may vary. For me, with the clues presented to me(after all this is a mystery show among other things)Jacob is primarily hands off except for Richard and ,more recently, the castaways. And it is stated onscreen, in Ab Aeterno, that he is containing Smokey/the Source on the Island. Smokey needs technology to get off the Island, so Jacob, like Mother has to shut down attempts at Smokey getting off and has to "purge" the attempt at escape.<br /><br /><br />There is a gamme of checkmate going down, but it seems to me that Jacob is pulling the ultimate Long Con to make this battle irrelevant(It only ends once).<br /><br />But we do have three hours left.<br /><br />As much FUN as it is to type thoughts out, I wish we all could conversate and have a richer and more fluid conversation about Lost, but to you Teebore and the rest, this is on of the things I'll miss when Lost is over...ninja raidenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678201901265468137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-32741398940094704572010-05-17T16:34:37.744-04:002010-05-17T16:34:37.744-04:00Your firend sounds like a disciple of E.D. Hirsch....<i>Your firend sounds like a disciple of E.D. Hirsch. </i><br /><br />You know, I hadn't made the connection before, but you're right; his approach to fiction is very Hirschian.<br /><br />Regarding Jacob and the Purge, I definitely drew a line from Mother killing MiB's people to the Dharma purge after this last episode. My hangup was simply in the timing of it: the Incident, in which Dharma got too close to the island's energy (aka it's golden light source) would have seemed like the ideal time for a "they've gone too far, now even the relatively benevolent Jacob has to order their deaths" moment, yet the Purge doesn't occur for at least a decade after the Incident, if not longer. <br /><br />I feel like there needs to be another catalyst. Maybe your suggestion of the FDW is the answer. Maybe, after the Incident, it took Dharma another 10+ years to complete the Orchid and start up their experiements there, at which point Jacob said "enough is enough." <br /><br />Bottom line, even if Across the Sea established a precedent that accounts for Jacob's actions, I wouldn't have minded if the show had told us explicitly what triggered Jacob's decision to wipe them out. <br /><br />As far as the Others and Smokey go, I'd just like more concrete info on the Others in general, though that's just a personal preference. There's definitely enough fodder to reach some nearly-definitive conclusions about their relationship with Jacob and Smokey. I just wouldn't mind if the show clarified some of that, again, telling us what the answer is for DARLTON, not just us.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-38323363797078993302010-05-17T16:06:52.870-04:002010-05-17T16:06:52.870-04:00@Teebore:If Darlton doesn't believe in the dec...@Teebore:<i>If Darlton doesn't believe in the decidability of plot, why, so late in the game, continue to make the audience think they do?</i><br /><br />When LOST is over, anyone writing a book on the show will have to address this question. It might never be answered as Darlton would remain silent. However, if (un)decidability of plot is an issue in this show, then it has to be addressed in some way. Otherwise any such books on LOST will only focus on meaning. <br /><br />We have less than a week to wait to find out.<br /><br />@Teebore:<i>He believes the job of a storyteller is to tell a story completely, making it clear to the audience what happened, how the characters felt about it, what it all meant to the author, etc. He doesn't care what you or I or even himself thinks the story means; he's just interested in what the author intended for the story to mean.</i><br /><br />Your firend sounds like a disciple of E.D. Hirsch. A literary work may mean different things to different people at different times, but this is its "significance". The intention of awork is absolute, and is what the author intended. The author <i>wills</i> the work to mean X. <br /><br />@ninja raidan & Teebore:<i>Is Jacob responsible for the Purge like his "Mother"?</i><br /><br />The answer is, Yes. Rewind and watch when MiB meets with his Mother in the well. MiB tells her about his quest to find the light, and how the people helped him. <br /><br />Mother: "The people with you, they saw this, too?" (her head turns away in a mournful look)<br /><br />MiB: "Yes, they have some interesting ideas about what to do with it."<br /><br />Already when MiB told Mother that the people had seen the light, her turning head indicates they are doomed. MiB's further comment only confirms for her the need to exterminate (or purge) the Romans on the island. Before Mother learnt about this, she had allowed the Romans to live on the island for 13 years, unmolested. For Mother, it was the realization that the Romans had seen the light that led her to purge them from the island.<br /><br />We know Dharma had been drilling down in the island for some time, and had for the most part gone unmolested. But the last straw was the building of the Orchid and the Swan. Especially, the Orchid allowed them direct access to the wheel and hence the light. Jacob may have delayed in his actions, but he would have known what his Mother did to the Romans, and that this was the only recourse.<br /><br />@ninja raidan & Teebore:<i>Do the Others unknowingly serve Smokey</i><br /><br />I can only guess that the Others have been manipulated from time to time between Jacob and MiB. Before Richard arrived, MiB probably manipulated the hell out of the castaways Jacob brought to the island. But once Richard was there, the chances were less so, for two reasons:<br /><br />(1) Mib when he emerged from the statue said he was very disappointed in them (the Others). This disappointment suggests they had not been following him (MiB) but Jacob.<br /><br />(2) When Ben said he was taking Locke to see Jacob, Richard was at first perturbed. But as it became clear they went to the shack, Richard was not bothered by it. In fact he went out of his way to help Locke. This suggests some oversight by Richard as to where Ben or any leader was getting their knowledge from. <br /><br />Now on the whole this doesn't serve as an airtight argument, but in the scheme of things LOST, it ain't bad.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474623954925835867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-82340343773098554922010-05-17T15:19:19.546-04:002010-05-17T15:19:19.546-04:00@Fred: Certainly resolving the question of Smokie ...@Fred: <i>Certainly resolving the question of Smokie one way or the other with regard to Jacob's brother would go a long way in this. So will we be satisifed in the end? Or will we be watching LOST in film studies while reading Robbe-Grillet? </i><br /><br />That's the big question, isn't it? And I suppose we'll get something on an answer in less than a week. <br /><br /><i>The question I raise is do Cuse and Lindelhof believe in the decidability of plots?</i><br /><br />I would argue that, up until the beginning of season six at the earliest and their latest round of post-Across the Sea interviews at the latest, Darlton gave no indication they DIDN'T believe in the decidability of plot. <br /><br />Even putting aside that decidability of plot is the default form for narrative fiction (certainly, modern American network television fiction) and that, if a show were to break from that form, some direct indication thereof would be warranted, most of Darlton's statements and interviews previous to season six would suggest they did believe in the decidability of plot. <br /><br />As I mentioned above in my response to ninja raiden, they oftened touted "having a plan", the implication therein being that plot elements we were watching unfold had a conclusion known to and important to the writers. Only now, as the show draws to a close with numerous plot-related question unanswered/unclear, do we begin to question Darlton's philosophy regarding the decidability of plot. <br /><br />Here's an example. During last summer's San Diego Comicon, Darlton was asked about the Dharma food drops from season two, and said that would be addressed before the show ended. Obviously, it has not been (and that's fine; it's really not a big deal, plot-wise. I'm just using it as an example). <br /><br />If they were asked that same question today, their answer would likely be something along the lines of "that question doesn't matter because the characters no longer care about it" or "the show speaks for itself". <br /><br />Well, if that's true, then why not give that answer last summer? If Darlton doesn't believe in the decidability of plot, why, so late in the game, continue to make the audience think they do? <br /><br />(Obviously, Fred, I don't expect you or anyone else to answer that; I'm just trying to make a point about plot).Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-46503885203251518742010-05-17T15:19:08.800-04:002010-05-17T15:19:08.800-04:00@ninja raiden: I think that's the danger of au...@ninja raiden: <i>I think that's the danger of authors speaking too much about their works, it takes away from the viewer's analysis.</i><br /><br />It's funny that you mention this because I have a friend and fellow blogmate, a very well read and intelligent person, who is also a Lost fan, and he staunchly believes that leaving a story "open to interpretation" is just lazy writing. <br /><br />He believes the job of a storyteller is to tell a story completely, making it clear to the audience what happened, how the characters felt about it, what it all meant to the author, etc. He doesn't care what you or I or even himself thinks the story means; he's just interested in what the author intended for the story to mean. <br /><br />Now, I certainly don't prescribe to his outlook (I've often joked that I would have loved to have him in some of my English classes in college, just to be in the proper forum to argue that kind of stuff with him) but we do agree when it comes to the clarity and definition of plot in stories. <br /><br />For me, of all the question you listed, two standout to me as being questions of plot and not theme/motivation/meaning: <br /><br /><i>Is Jacob responsible for the Purge like his "Mother"?<br /><br />Do the Others unknowingly serve Smokey</i><br /><br />The Purge and the Others played such a significant role in shaping the show's plot and the characters that I feel like they can't be left dangling for interpretation. <br /><br />I mean, for several seasons, the actions of the Others drove the plot of the show, and the characters along with it. Whether intentionally or not, the basic format of narrative fiction implied that the motivations of the Others for the actions they performed would be <br /><br />A. Important to the overall narrative of the show. <br />B. Made clear at some point. <br /><br />As the end draws near, it seems both A and B were untrue. And after hearing for years from Darlton that "we have a plan" and "we know where we're going" and "it'll be explained" they are now trying to tell us that explanations matter less than interpretations, and we were wrong to ever assume the plot would be made clear. <br /><br />And that kinda rubs me the wrong way.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-28880015689802933382010-05-17T14:26:55.815-04:002010-05-17T14:26:55.815-04:00@Teebore & Benny: We seem to be having the sam...@Teebore & Benny: We seem to be having the same conversation ebtween this thread and the thread for the episode "Across the Seas," namely what does <i>plot</i> mean to Cuse and Lindelhof. Is there something we can all agree on as plot, as Benny noted we should be able to agree that Macbeth killed Duncan, or three ghosts appeared to Scrooge. These things should not be undecidable--they should be as firm and solid as the clues Sherlock Holmes follows to find out the solution to the mystery. <br /><br />The question I raise is do Cuse and Lindelhof believe in the decidability of plots? If plot proves unstable, then on what can we hang any understanding of what has transpired? It would be as if we had just watched <i>The Usual Suspects</i> but walked out at different moments in the film. Walk out too early, and everything makes sense according to the "plot" narrated by Verbal Kint. Walk out a little later, and everything is up in the air--Kint's narration is indeterminant. Walk out at the end, and the indeterminancy is resolved into an alternative reading. LOST belongs to this genre of what David Bordwell calls "puzzle films." <br /><br />Now it is my belief that Cuse and Lindelhof are steeped in Barthes S/Z codes. In particular, the proairetic (code of actions) and the hermenutic (code of enigmas and answers). Peter Brooks in chapter 11 of <i>Reading for the Plot</i> gives a nice summary of how these two codes operate in Faulkner's <i>Absalom, Absalom!</i>--and I contend, operate also in LOST. <br /><br />How are we to take the placement of "Across the Sea" in the sequnece of episodes. Its position interputs the logical flow of actions from the previous episode, things do not progress in an orderly fashion. Brooks writes: "It is as if the characters in the novel [read LOST] often turned to the interogation of a proairetic sequence for its revelatory meaning before we, as reader [viewers], have been allowed to see how the sequence runs." In many ways I believe we can see that the show's writers have been toying with the very structure of plot, and it may come about that some elements of it may be undecidable. <br /><br />There is yet another possibility of how LOST uses plot, and that is found in Borges' <i>The Garden of Forking Paths</i>, which represents not a single plot, but all possible plots; Locke can both be dead and alive, the narrative of one ends, while the narrative of the other continues. How much of a metafiction is LOST and how much of a traditional fiction it is remains to be seen in the final episode. I am ready to believe in the incoherence of plotlines if examined too closely, but I am also accepting that aduiences are wishing for a satisfying resolution to the show, and that means a well plotted show. Certainly resolving the question of Smokie one way or the other with regard to Jacob's brother would go a long way in this. So will we be satisifed in the end? Or will we be watching LOST in film studies while reading Robbe-Grillet?Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474623954925835867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-64943984937222855162010-05-17T14:17:43.834-04:002010-05-17T14:17:43.834-04:00@Teebore Yeah,that's a fair point. I guess it ...@Teebore Yeah,that's a fair point. I guess it would have been better if they used the word "antagonist" instead of evil. Or maybe they were saying he was evil in relation to the castaways.<br /><br />I'm not completely defending Darlton with what I'm about to say but they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't sitch (thanks for the word, Faith).<br />They are reknowned for keeping in touch with their fans in a way not even Joss Whedon does. But like every human sometimes they don't articulate their artistic statements well enough. <br /><br />Unfortunately, they also have to "sell" the show to a fickle audience using reductive statements to give the illusion of "definitive" answers.<br /><br />Like in "whatever Happened, Happened", they said Cassidy was speaking the truth to Kate about her needing Aaron because of Sawyer. I personally thought that she was lonely in general and she wanted a child(see "I Do")<br /><br />I think that's the danger of authors speaking too much about their works, it takes away from the viewer's analysis. That's why I enjoy their personalities, as they are, and don't let their words impede my analysis of the show.<br /><br />Which is the reason why I loved "Across the Sea". The mythical/biblical parable/fairy tale-esque quality let you make your own interpretation of the themes of Lost. <br /><br />Is Mother the smoke monster? <br /><br />Is Jacob responsible for the Purge like his "Mother"? <br /><br />Do the Others unknowingly serve Smokey (who uses the concept of Jacob of a false god to be worshipped-thanks Eko-in place of his namelessness)with Jacob only influencing them through Richard? <br /><br />Is the amalgamation of influences that Jacob and Smokey impose on the castaways,others, hostiles,Dharma,military and freighties simliar to the disparate influences "Mother" had on the both of them both negative and positive?(Every body has a "black rock", "white rock" in them, even the Brothers)<br /><br />If your a "Man of Science", you can deduce "Mother's" explanation of the "Light" to be nothing more than a place of concentrated electomagnetism surrounded by water. In other words, she's just teling "Santa Claus" stories. <br /><br />If you're a "Man of Faith", then you take Mother at her word. <br /><br />If you are impartial, than you believe its a little bit of both or the truth is somewhere inbetween.<br /><br />Whetever your disposition, it's up to your interpretation, just like real life.ninja raidenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678201901265468137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-52502057270715544142010-05-17T13:29:00.012-04:002010-05-17T13:29:00.012-04:00@ninja raiden: Which is why I don't understand...@ninja raiden: <i>Which is why I don't understand why people have a problem with the placement with "Across the Sea"</i><br /><br />The only problem I have with the placement of "Across the Sea" in the grand narrative of Lost is the fact that Darlton explicitly said that one of the goals of "The Candidate" was to establish, once and for all, that FLocke is out-and-out EVIL. <br /><br />Then they follow that episode with an episode which muddies that conclusion. <br /><br />Maybe he's not so much evil as a product of his upbringing. Maybe he has a point. Maybe all the people he's killed would still be alive if Mother had just let him leave. Etc. <br /><br />Now, those are interpretive questions that we all can spend years sussing out and debating, but if the ENTIRE STATED POINT of one episode is to show one thing, don't follow that episode up with something that completely undercuts it. <br /><br />It's be like having an episode where Darlton says "what we wanted to do here was show, once and for all, that Jack has become a man of faith, Locke's successor as Island Believer" and then in the next episode, there's a bunch of business in which Jack is shown to still be a man of science who doesn't share Locke's faith. <br /><br />It just seems kinda...odd...to me. Hence, out of place.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-89563757743506699262010-05-17T13:20:15.953-04:002010-05-17T13:20:15.953-04:00I never got the "every new character have to ...I never got the "every new character have to have a purpose' perspective. Like life, not everything has a payoff or grand pronouncements of theme. You have to have main characters interact with different people to keep things fresh. Lost has the kind of narrative that becomes richer with hindsight.<br /><br />Which is why I don't understand why people have a problem with the placement with "Across the Sea". Non linear storytelling and stop-start pacing have always been Lost's modus operandi. Time is relative to a show like this. If we wanted traditional storytelling, we could watch the other 98% straightfoward narrative structure oriented television.ninja raidenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678201901265468137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-77426154541556884602010-05-17T12:45:31.625-04:002010-05-17T12:45:31.625-04:00@Fred: It seems the simplest, but then this is LOS...@Fred: <i>It seems the simplest, but then this is LOST, whose writers introduced new characters in the final season, and then bumped them off without so much as a dramatic fulfillment to their activities on the island. </i><br /><br />Fair point. <br /><br />My arguments for the simplest explanation being the best one at this point stem from a sense of "what makes the most universal narrative sense?" but it's become very clear of late that Darlton have never been very concerned with following basic narrative conventions, what with their introducing of mysteries they never intended to answer, new characters killed off without any resolution and the general sense of narrative deconstruction that has always permeated the show. <br /><br /><i>Some of these mysteries, such as this one, may not be resolved by show's end. </i><br /><br />Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that the question of whether Jacob released Smokey, who then took the form of MiB, or Jacob created Smokey by tossing his brother into the cave will most likely not be resolved, a premise that is both exciting and maddening at the same time.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-74421959680563530642010-05-17T12:41:10.525-04:002010-05-17T12:41:10.525-04:00@TM Lawerence: Jacob cradling his brother reminded...@TM Lawerence: Jacob cradling his brother reminded me of when Eko cradled Yemi. I really think we should be treating "Across the Sea" as the ultimate Lost Monomyth.<br /><br />All of the characters have had parental issues and you can see reverberations of pretty much every characters' realationship with parents, faith, science, and community within the tale of Jacob and "Adam".<br /><br />Maybe Jacob and "Adam" will redeem their parental issues through the Castaways by proxy. Macro being influenced by the micro, so to speak.ninja raidenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14678201901265468137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-19825208442155195252010-05-17T12:29:15.360-04:002010-05-17T12:29:15.360-04:00@Teebore:As compelling as the arguments for Smokey...@Teebore:<i>As compelling as the arguments for Smokey being a separate, previously-existing entity operating with MiB's form and memories are, it just seems like "MiB became Smokey" is the simplest explanation at a time when the show should be simplifying things instead of complicating them.</i><br /><br />It seems the simplest, but then this is LOST, whose writers introduced new characters in the final season, and then bumped them off without so much as a dramatic fulfillment to their activities on the island. Simplify things at this point! True to form I've never expected the writers to simplify things. Of course, there is always a first time.<br /><br />Going back to the gnostic view, there is a being called the Swallower of souls. This fits ninja raiden's observation of screams being heard when Smokie plowed through the Temple. <br /><br />So Teebore, while I've suggested arguments for either side in this MiB's soul equals or doesn't equal Smokie, I'm also of the opinion ther writers of the show are not going to resolve the mysteries into simple solutions. Some of these mysteries, such as this one, may not be resolved by show's end. (However, I do have some hope for a resolution, if only from the last scene in Eko's life where we saw a young Eko and Yemi going off from playing soccer--might we something like this for Jacob and his brother, as two young boys running around the island, freed from their obligations?) I am just waiting in anticipation for the next twist in the plot/mysteries.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01474623954925835867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-38956879063115412632010-05-17T12:28:01.053-04:002010-05-17T12:28:01.053-04:00Kevie said...
What about all the people the O...<b> Kevie said...</b><br /><i> What about all the people the Others killed in the name of Jacob?</i><br /><br /><br />This is a question of the unreliable narrator and misattribution. We know that Ben had never met Jacob but claimed His authority in commanding the Others to carry out His will. We also have seen Richard use Jacob's name to justify certain misdeeds, but there is no reason to believe they were actually attributable to Jacob's will. Our world is too replete with man's usurping of divine justification for atrocity against some particular segment of humanity to enumerate.TM Lawrencenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30892649.post-13439171996013123422010-05-17T11:48:23.617-04:002010-05-17T11:48:23.617-04:00I dunno...I'm still thinking that Smokey=MiB, ...I dunno...I'm still thinking that Smokey=MiB, and that MiB wasn't killed by Smokey but rather was transformed into Smokey, and his body is just a shell he no longer needs (like a butterfly discarding its cocoon). <br /><br />As compelling as the arguments for Smokey being a separate, previously-existing entity operating with MiB's form and memories are, it just seems like "MiB became Smokey" is the simplest explanation at a time when the show should be simplifying things instead of complicating them.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.com