Lost but Found: The Allegory Theory of LOST

Analysis of the Season Five Finale: Installment Two

Here's the next installment of the Season Five analysis (you can find the first installment here).  It's a bit  shorter than the first one, mainly because I've been wrestling with how to properly express a few of this week's concepts.  I'll have the next installment ready for you in a few days.  

5.16 and 5.17: "The Incident" 

Installment Two

FLASHBACK: Young James Ford sits at his parents' funeral, struggling to write a letter with a pen that is running out of ink; In a seemingly well-intentioned gesture, Jacob gives James a new pen On the surface, acts of liberal interventionism can seem well-intentioned	Because of Jacob's intervention into James's family affairs, James acts against his uncle's wishes and finishes the letter Sometimes, by interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations, liberal interventionists undermine the wishes of those nations' leaders	Having used Jacob's pen to preserve on paper his desire for revenge, James endures years of emotional conflict, kills an innocent man, and ends up on the ill-fated flight that crashes on the island (events which, if part of his larger plan, Jacob probably regards as unfortunate but necessary steps toward "progress") Liberal interventionism's interference in other nations' domestic affairs can end up prolonging internal conflicts, causing innocent people to die, and creating even bigger crises (all of which, if part of their larger plan, liberal interventionists might regard as unfortunate but necessary acts of "creative destruction")	1977: Juliet, believing there have already been too many unnecessary deaths, chooses to go back and oppose Jack's plan of detonating the US Army bomb Some conservatives, believing the war in Iraq had already caused too many unnecessary deaths, chose to oppose President Bush's plan of sending a surge of additional US Army troops
Sawyer follows Juliet's lead The Republican Party followed conservatives' lead	In the cavern, Richard says that Locke "never seemed particularly special" to him Vice President Richard Cheney was never a fan of Secretary of State Colin Powell	Jack tells Richard he knows Locke, and says,"If I were you, I wouldn't give up on him" After the Iraq Invasion spiralled out of control, President Bush realized that he (as well as Vice President Cheney) shouldn't have been so quick to reject Secretary of State Powell's concerns	2007: Ben reveals that he is still troubled by the visit from his dead daughter, Alex; he says that she threatened to destroy him if he didn't follow Locke (who, unbeknownst to Ben, is now the embodiment of Jacob's rival) Neoconservatives had believed themselves to have the support of America-friendly Middle Easterners; however, after the death and destruction of the Iraq Invasion, these America-friendly Middle Easterners pushed back against the neoconservatives' agenda, threatening to turn against America if it didn't pursue a less interventionist foreign policy
				Photo
Locke (now the embodiment of Jacob's rival) says, "I'm not going to kill Jacob, Ben -- you are" Foreign policy realists (who, by nature, oppose interventionism) hoped that, by overreaching in Iraq, Neoconservatives were on the way to bringing about the demise of liberal interventionism (see links here and here)	FLASHBACK: Sayid and Nadia seem to be a normal happily-married couple, then Jacob distracts Sayid, causing Nadia to be hit by a car; as a result of his marriage's tragic end, Sayid returns to a life of violence, eventually ending up on the flight back to the Island (which appears to have been Jacob's plan all along) Liberal interventionists sometimes deliberately cause stable societies to become destabilized, in the hopes that the resultant violence will further their larger liberal interventionist agenda

***

So there you go.  I reckon most of that works pretty well. 

Having said that, I'd be willing to accept criticism that, in these two installments, I've been quite negative in my appraisals of Jacob and his real-world counterpart, liberal interventionism.  You see, in order to get inside the mind of Jacob's rival,  I've been saturating myself in the writings of Andrew Bacevich, who is a persuasive critic of liberal interventionism and American overreach. (For a great example of how a foreign policy realist like Bacevich might view Jacob's interference in the castaways' early lives, take a gander at his aptly-titled essay "Illusions of Managing History.")  As a result of my reading, I've ended up absorbing some of Bacevich's anti-interventionist/anti-Jacob mindset, and have wound up on the side of Jacob's rival.  Whether I stay on that side remains to be seen  -- much of it depends on what Lost does with Anti-Jacob next season -- but I do recognize that, for now at least, I'm being pretty one-sided when it comes to Jacob and the philosophy of liberal interventionism.  (Funnily enough, from what I've seen on the web, it seems the rest of the viewing audience is also being pretty one-sided when it comes to Jacob -- but unlike me, most of them have decided he's some kind of messiah, and his rival is the baddie!) 

Okay, that's it for today, I reckon.  I'll be back in a few days with the third installment, which should be a bit longer.  In the meantime, feel free to offer questions or suggestions in the comments section below.

Take care, folks!

Analysis of the Season Five Finale: Installment One

Okay, I'm finally ready to analyze the season five finale in detail. 

For the sake of speed and (hopefully) clarity, I'll be doing things in a slightly different style today.  As you'll see below, instead of droning on at length in a big block of text, I've used storyboards with brief captions describing the episode's more important moments and the real-world events they might represent.  The language is a bit cumbersome and unrefined in parts, but you should get the gist of it. 

Eventually, I'll be doing a much more in-depth version of this for the entire series, with links to deeper analyses, supporting references, character breakdowns, and the like.  Plus, I'll be making it all look a bit more stylish.  

So, without further ado, here's the first installment of my analysis of the finale.  I'll be posting new segments over the next few days until the episode's complete.  Then, when I;m done with the finale, I'll be going all the way back to the beginning, to get us caught up on everything in the first five seasons in time for the start of season six.

[By the way, I've altered my idea about what the island represents.  It most likely represents "The current superpower."  Because, just as the super-powered island moves around the globe, super-power status has been located in different parts fo the globe at different points in history.  So, at the time the Egyptian statues were being built, the island would have represented "The Egyptian Empire."  At the time the islanders first started speaking Latin, it would have represented "The Roman Empire."  After the Black Rock arrived, the island would have represented "The British Empire."  And at present, the island is home to a DHARMA-cracy (i.e. a democracy), and represents the present superpower, "America."  Don't worry -- I'll be explaining it all in more detail someday soon.]

5.16 and 5.17: "The Incident" 

Installment One

FLASHBACK: Jacob creates a grand, elaborately designed tapestry, at the top of which is written "may the gods grant thee all that thy heart desires" Liberal interventionists have grand, elaborate designs for improving the world, and they believe their hearts' desires will be granted	Jacob retrieves a fish-pot he has woven; just as Jacob hoped, a fish has swum in it and become trapped Liberal interventionists actively influence world events, with the intention of coercing other nations into conforming with interventionists' wishes	Jacob has an on-island rival The philosophy of liberal interventionism is rivaled by the philosophy of foreign policy realism	The Black Rock -- a British ship -- appears; it is just one in a long line of vessels to bring visitors to the super-powered island The British were just one in a long line of civilizations that once held the position of global superpower
Jacob's rival argues that people who come to the island end up fighting, destroying, and corrupting; he insists that it always ends the same Foreign policy realism argues that, because human nature is unchanging, every great civilization will inevitably self-destruct, as have all great civilizations throughout history	Jacob asserts that, despite these cycles of societal creation and destruction, visitors to the island have made progress Liberal interventionism asserts that, even though all previous great civilizations have self-destructed, humanity as a whole is making progress	Jacob's rival says that he wishes he could kill Jacob Foreign policy realism wants an end to liberal interventionism	There is a giant statue of Sobek on the beach, indicating that Ancient Egyptians once lived on the super-powered island Ancient Egypt was one of the civilizations that once held the position of global superpower
FLASHBACK: Jacob's intervention prevents young Kate from being punished for stealing; As a result, she doesn't learn her that there are consequences to criminal behaviour, and even though Jacob warns her,"Don't steal anymore," she grows up to be hardened criminal Even though liberal interventionism appears to be benevolent, it sometimes causes more harm than good	1977: On the sub, Kate -- who is no longer romantically involved with Sawyer -- describes Jack's plan to release a surge of energy from the US Army bomb; Kate tries to persuade Sawyer and Juliet to oppose Jack's plan Congress -- no longer dominated by Republicans -- debated President Bush's plan to use a surge of US army forces in Iraq; The Congressional leadership tried to persuade Republicans and Conservatives to oppose the Bush plan	Sawyer is angry and confused after losing the comfortable life he'd made for himself on the island The Republican Party was angry and confused after losing the comfortable position of being the dominant party in American politics	In the underground caverns, Richard assists Jack with his plan to use the US Army bomb Working in the background, Vice President Cheney supported President Bush's proposal for a surge of US troops
Sayid assists Jack with his plan to use the US Army bomb The CIA supported President Bush's plan for a surge of US troops	Jack is told that it is not necessary to use the entire bomb -- the bomb's core would be sufficient to counteract the destructive forces about to be released from underground President Bush was told that a massive increase in hardware and firepower would not be required for Iraq to be stabilized -- a simple increase in the number of troops from the US Army corps (and a change in strategy) would be sufficient to counteract the destructive underground sectarian forces about to be released	At the DHARMA building site, Chang becomes concerned over the consequences of drilling into the energy pocket; He tells Radzinsky, "We're in the midst of a possible insurrection -- do you really think this is the ideal time for your experiments?" Some proponents of America's democracy-building project in Iraq became concerned over the growing insurgency and wondered if the experiment in nation-building should be abandoned	Radzinsky refuses to stop drilling, and tells Chang, "I came to this island to change the world ... That's exactly what I intend to do" Some proponents of nation-building refused to abandon America's experiment in Iraq, insisting that they were changing the world for the better
2007: On the way to see Jacob, Ben states, "Everyone answers to someone, and the leader answers to Jacob" Neoconservatives believed that America's leaders should always follow the philosophy of liberal interventionism	Richard says he is surprised that Locke has come back to life Vice President Cheney was surprised that former-Secretary of State Colin Powell and his foreign policy views were making a comeback	Locke (his image now being used by Jacob's rival) implies that he will kill the rest of the Ajira passengers Colin Powell (now the face of foreign policy realism) wanted to disempower those who advocate for an aggressively interventionist America	Elsewhere on the island, Ilana and company wonder if Frank might be a "candidate" Desperate for their agenda to continue after President Bush, proponents of aggressive interventionism sought an interventionism-friendly candidate for the upcoming 2008 American Presidential election
Frank pretends to be unconscious as he is carried along by Ilana's team Some Americans were apathetic and simply let themselves be carried along by America's newly aggressive interventionist foreign policy agenda	Frank rises and asks Ilana, "So you smack all your friends in the face with a rifle, shove them in a boat, and kidnap them?" Ilana replies, "Only the ones we like" Occasionally, apathy gave way to concerns about detainee-related practices such as torture and extraordinary rendition; however, those responsible for the practices were dismissive of these concerns

***

Okay, that's it for today.  I'll see you all in a few days with the second installment.  Until then, feel free to offer questions or suggestions in the comments section below.

Take care!

The symbolism of Ajira Airways

I'm back in business now, so without delay, let’s get back to analyzing season five.

I’ll start recapping the finale at the end of this week.  Today, I’ll be tying up a loose end I’ve been meaning to get to for some time: The symbolism of Ajira Airways.  But first, in order to properly understand the symbolism of the airline that returned the castaways to the island, we’ll first have to revisit the symbolism of the airline that brought them to the island in the first place. 

The symbolism of Oceanic Airways

As we’ve said before, the Oceanic flight that crashed on September 22 probably represents “America’s image prior to 9/11.”  That image was of an America that – like Oceanic 815 – was safe, comfortable, high-flying, and surrounded by nothing but blue skies.  It was an image of America as limitless, unbounded, and eternal, inspiring what Freud would describe as an “oceanic feeling.”  It was an image of America as, in the words of Oceanic Airways’ tag-line, “Your ultimate destination.”

Just as America’s image of safety came crashing down on September 11, Oceanic 815 was brought down to earth on September 22.  September 11 brought us a new image of America, one of crashed planes, burning jet-fuel, collapsing towers, and dazed survivors with white-powdered faces.  Likewise, on September 22 on Lost, Oceanic stopped being an image of safety and became an image of unexpected chaos and vulnerability, as it crashed onto the island, the jet-fuel in its engines caught on fire, the towering wing collapsed, and dazed survivors like Hurley wandered about with sand-covered faces. 

American imagery is even captured in the Oceanic logo, made up of blue swirls and red spots on a white background.  After the September 22 crash, the red, white, and blue of Oceanic’s spots and swirls stops being emblematic of air safety, just as, after the September 11 attacks, the red, white, and blue of the stars and stripes was no longer emblematic of American invulnerability.

The symbolism of Ajira Airways

Now, using the idea that Oceanic Airways represents “America’s image before 9/11,” let’s compare Oceanic with the next airline used by the castaways: Ajira. 

When they board Oceanic 815, the passengers are unprepared for the violence to come.  But when they board Ajira 316, they’re ready for danger.  They don’t know exactly what's in store, but they strongly suspect the plane might crash, and they might be thrust back into the island’s environment of fierce rivalries and violent conflict.  In fact, not only do they suspect it might happen, they’re actively seeking for it to happen.  Unlike the last time they flew together, the castaways are now taking charge of events and not just letting themselves be buffeted about by fate.  On Oceanic the castaways had been helpless victims, but on Ajira they are purposeful doers, taking active steps to shape not only their own destinies, but also that of the world around them.

The castaways’ internal shift finds itself externally reflected in the imagery associated with their new choice of airline.  Whereas Oceanic Airways is represented by images of unbounded serenity, Ajira Airways is represented by images of unbounded power, such as its fiery logo of an attacking tiger, and its tag-line of “Destiny calls”.  Similarly, whereas the check-in for Oceanic is routine and uneventful, the check-in for Ajira is accompanied by much talk of “increased security.”  Clearly, the two airlines have very different attitudes and images associated with them.  While Oceanic is about blue skies, serenity, safety, and comfort.  Ajira is about fiery reds, destiny, ferocity, and the enforcement of security.

The promotional materials for Ajira (which you can read about here, at Lostpedia), also reflect an attitudinal shift from Oceanic.  They are full of assertive, adventure-minded phrases, such as:

“The skies have no limit with new destinies.”

"Take an adventure anywhere around the globe and re-imagine your world as big as ours.”

“No borders, now boarding.”

“Into the wild possibilities of this infinite planet.”

“The skies have no limit.”

“Let time and space have no consequence.”

“Step-aboard the grandest grab-bag around.”

“Free your body, soul, and mind.”

“Conquer this breathtaking icecap-covered wonderland.”

“The only way to embrace paradise is hands-on.”

Rather than an oceanic feeling of bliss, Ajira offers the promise of adventure, freedom, conquest, and the ability to seize whatever you desire without concern for limits or borders.  Unlike Oceanic, this airline is a staunch advocate of the aggressive pursuit of ones' desires.  Even the airline's promotional videos (here) have an aggressive undertone, depicting passenger planes in a formation that calls to mind a fleet of military bombers. 

Ajira, unlike Oceanic, appears to be associated with concepts such as pursuing ones' destiny, maintaining security, conquest, freedom, taking "hands-on" action, ignoring limits, and re-imagining the world.  So, if the castaways’ first choice of airline – Oceanic – represents “America’s image prior to 9/11”, what image of America might the castaways’ second choice of airline – Ajira – represent? 

Most likely, given the above, Ajira Airways is meant to represent “America’s image after the Invasion of Iraq.”  It represents an America that supporters would see as freedom-spreading, destiny-manifesting, and justified in taking on an actively transformative role in the world.  But it also represents an America that critics would see as militarily aggressive, disrespectful of international borders and laws, and empire-seeking.  In typical Lost fashion, Ajira seems to represent an image of America that can be perceived as either good or bad, depending on the point of view of the observer.  (Funnily enough, this dichotomy is even present in the various translations of the word "ajira," which in Hindi means "island" -- a patriotic image, in the context of Lost -- but in Sanskrit means "battlefield".)

Possible Extra Clues

For possible extra clues that Ajira Airways might represent America’s image after the Invasion of Iraq, take another look at the Lostpedia page on Ajira, in the section entitled “Easter Eggs.”  There you’ll see a set of quotes that were hidden in the Ajira materials, two of which seem to refer to America’s post-Iraq image.

The first is from page 316 of the Penguin edition of James Joyce’s Ulysses:

"So off they started about Irish sport and shoneen games the like of lawn tennis and about hurley and putting the stone and racy of the soil and building up a nation once again and all of that."

While it appears that the word “hurley” is the key to the quote’s relevance, I think that might be just a red herring.  The quote’s real relevance probably lies in its mention of “building up a nation,” a likely reference to America’s nation-building project in Iraq.

The next quote is the quote from the motto of Guam:

“Where America’s day begins.”

This quote calls to mind not just thoughts of an American empire-in-the-making, but also the name of a think tank that was influential in the push for Saddam’s removal: the Project for a New American Century.

The Ajira Water Bottles

In the past, I’ve argued that the labels on water bottles are significant on Lost, as they represent the attitudes and beliefs that sustain the drinkers.  For example, after the crash, the bottles bear the Oceanic logo, because at that time the castaways’ are sustained by the hope of a return to an “oceanic feeling” of safety.  Once they realize that such a return is not possible, the castaways turn away from Oceanic bottles and start drinking from DHARMA bottles, symbolizing America's thoughts turning away from the hope of safety and towards issues related to patriotism and America’s founding values.  (Remember, the DHARMA experiment represents America’s longstanding experiment in democracy – or, if you like, “DHARMA-cracy” – and DHARMA's numerical values represent the Founding Fathers' values.  Additionally, note that “DHARMA” is an acronym, as is the name “USA”). 

This season, in the episode “The Little Prince,” we see a new label appear on the water bottles, one showing the fiery tiger of Ajira Airways.  This new label probably indicates that the passengers drinking from those bottles – most notably Ilana and her forces – are sustained by and gain clarity from the image of America as a place of power, freedom, and aggressive interventionism.

***

Okay, so that’s today’s theory: Just as Oceanic represents “America’s image before 9/11”, Ajira represents “America’s image after the Invasion of Iraq.”  Furthermore, Lost appears to have made that image purposefully ambiguous, so whether you see it as something positive or negative is up to you. 

See you at the end of the week, folks, when we start recapping the Season Five finale in detail. 

Take care!

Delayed for a few days

Sorry for the delay in posting.  I had to leave the country unexpectedly, and won't be back for a few days.  Until I return, here's a question for you all.

How would you rank Lost's five season finales, in terms of quality?  For me, the rankings would be as follows:

Season Three

Season Two & Season Four (tied)

Season One

Season Five

What would your list be?  And why?

Even MORE on the Jacob/Anti-Jacob debate

There’s a feisty Jacob/Anti-Jacob debate going on right now in the comments section, mainly over my suggestions that Jacob isn't as good as he seems, that Anti-Jacob might not be as bad as he seems, that Jacob represents issues related to interventionism, and that Anti-Jacob represents issues related to non-interventionism.  I seem to be kind of on my own on this one, but today I'm going to have another go at defending my position.  Please excuse me if I get a little feisty myself.

(If you're new to the debate, you can catch up by taking a peek at the last two posts -- here and here -- and at the comments sections that follow them -- here and here.)

A few possibly faulty assumptions

To start, let me address a few assumptions about Jacob and Anti-Jacob that I think we need to watch out for. 

First off, just because anti-Jacob wears black and seems able to assume other forms (or at least one form, that of Locke), I don't think we should automatically assume that he and the black, amorphous smoke monster are one and the same.  They might be, but then again they might not.

Also, I don't think we should automatically assume that anti-Jacob’s opening comments (“They come, they fight, they destroy, they corrupt – it always ends the same”) show anti-Jacob to be a people-hating baddie, or that Jacob’s opening comments (“It can only end once – everything before that is progress”) show Jacob to be a people-protecting goodie.  There’s a case to be made that Anti-Jacob’s seemingly pessimistic view is in fact quite realistic -- it's an unidealized, unsentimental description of the cycles of rise and fall found throughout the history of human civilization.  There’s also a case to be made that Jacob’s apparent pursuit of progress (which, for the sake of argument, I’ll assume is the purpose of his interventions into the lives of the castaways) has caused more harm than anything we’ve seen from Anti-Jacob do.  Yes, Anti-Jacob may have played a part in the death of Locke and the stabbing of Jacob, but compare that with what Jacob’s done. 

• By distracting Sayid, Jacob caused Nadia to be killed by a passing car
• By paying for the shoplifted lunchbox, Jacob taught the young Kate that she didn’t have to pay for her crimes, resulting in the older Kate thinking she could kill her father and get away with it
• By giving Sawyer the pen with which he wrote the letter to the Real Sawyer, Jacob encouraged Sawyer to seek revenge, resulting in Sawyer later shooting an innocent shrimp vendor he was tricked into believing was responsible for his parents’ deaths

Nadia.  Kate's father.  The Australian shrimp vendor.  That’s three Jacob-related deaths right there.  But so far, we’ve only seen Anti-Jacob play a part in two deaths, those of Locke and Jacob – and the latter of these might not have even been a real death at all.  So who's racked up the higher body count, from what we've seen so far?  That's right: Sweet, belevolent, white-shirted Jacob.  The one who supposedly helps people.   

Now, granted, when I say that Jacob’s not a good as he appears, and Anti-Jacob not as bad as he appears, I'm partly doing it to be contrarian.  But contrarianism isn’t such a bad thing when someone’s trying to fool you -- and as we all know, Lost is constantly trying to fool us.  I'm pretty suspicious that Lost is trying to fool us right now, by letting us assume that Jacob is “good” and Anti-Jacob “bad.” 

For example, just look at what Lost has done with Jacob and Anti-Jacob's attire.  Lost has given Jacob a white shirt and his rival a black one, thereby triggering our pre-conceived notions that, in cinematic epics, good guys wear white and bad guys wear black.  Similarly, Lost has given Jacob a gentle demeanor, framing his actions towards the castaways as benevolent – even though, as I argued before, Jacob’s supposedly benevolent actions actually cause the castaways to maintain negative behavioural patterns they might have otherwise abandoned. 

Furthermore, by having Anti-Jacob say he wants Jacob killed, and having him later play a part in the death of Locke and the stabbing of Ben, Lost sets us up to assume that Anti-Jacob is a malicious murderer.  But who’s to say that Anti-Jacob isn’t sacrificing those two lives in order to save many, many more?  Perhaps Anti-Jacob is trying to stop Jacob from bringing more people to the island to prevent more innocent lives from being sacrificed in what he believes to be Jacob’s wrong-headed pursuit of “progress."  After all, if Jacob brought the ship to the island, then maybe he brought Oceanic 815 to the island, too – and if that’s the case, then Jacob bears at least some responsibility for the many deaths that occurred as a result of the plane crash.  It's at least possible that Anti-Jacob has decided that the loss of two lives is a small price to pay, if it will end Jacob's habit of sacrificing outsiders in the name of "progress." 

So, there you go: Just as it’s possible to assume that Jacob is well-intentioned and Anti-Jacob not, I’d argue that there are lots of reasons to assume the opposite might be true, too.  (I’d also argue that its likely that neither man is definitively good or evil, and that their goodness or badness might be entirely in the eye of the beholder...)

Overseas interventionism

Now, onto the prickly issue of interventionism.  I’ve been arguing that Jacob might represent some form of interventionist foreign policy outlook, and Anti-Jacob might represent some form of non-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy outlook.  A few readers disagree with me (Michel and Alistair in particular, who’ve really been working me over lately!).  They might be right on this one, but I won’t be able to rest until I’ve mounted a proper defense, so let me add a bit more to what I said yesterday. 

Let’s look at the arenas in which Jacob and Anti-Jacob seem to operate, based on what little we’ve seen of these two so far. 

Jacob performs a lot of off-island interventions, visiting the mainland to verbally and physically interact with the castaways.  The physical interactions seem particularly important, as Jacob makes a deliberate effort to touch each of the castaways as he talks with them.  So, Jacob travels off-island, and physically intervenes in the lives of the castaways.  That’s Jacob's modus operandi, according to what we've learned so far.

Anti-Jacob, on the other hand, appears to never leave the island.  He clearly has off-island influence, because he managed to maneuver Locke into losing his life, but – and this is key – he exercised this influence solely through his on-island actions.  Unlike Jacob, Anti-Jacob did not travel off-island to affect the lives of the castaways.  What little off-island work we’ve seen him perform, Anti-Jacob did it without ever leaving the island. 

So, to sum up, Jacob frequently leaves the island to actively intervene in off-island events, while Anti-Jacob doesn’t travel off the island, and intervenes in off-island events rarely, and never directly.

Let's say that again, a little bit differently: Jacob leaves home to intervene in overseas events, while Anti-Jacob remains at home, rarely intervening in overseas events.

To me, that contrast sounds a lot like the difference between interventionist and foreign policy non-interventionist foreign policies.  Which leads me to believe that Jacob -- the one who directly intervenes in off-island events -- represents something connected with interventionist foreign policy positions, and Anti-Jacob -- the one who remains on-island, and only indirectly intervenes in off-island events, if he intervenes at all -- represents something connected with non-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy positions.

Domestic interventionism

That said, I also believe that – in addition to representing foreign policy interventionism – Jacob the Intervener might represent interventionism in general, both foreign and domestic.  In that sense, Jacob would represent the view that a nation’s government should actively intervene in the affairs of other nations, as well as in the lives of its own citizens.  Anti-Jacob the Non-Intervener would represent the opposite view, the belief that a nation’s government should not actively interfere in the affairs of other nations, and should have as small a role as possible in the lives of its own citizens.  In that sense, Jacob would represent not just overseas interventionism but also domestic interventionism (so-called “big government”), while Anti-Jacob would represent not just overseas non-interventionism but also domestic non-interventionism (so-called “small government”).

***

So, that’s where I stand on that one.  For now, that is.  Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from running this site, it’s that I get an awful lot wrong before I get it right.  So keep up the debate, and let’s see where it all takes us.  You lot have changed my mind before, and I'm sure you'll change it again.  (But not on this topic.  Okay, maybe you might on this topic.  No, now that I think about it, you won't change my mind on this one.  But then again...)

I’ll be back with more on the finale in the next day or two. 

Take care, all.

A few more thoughts on the Jacob/anti-Jacob debate

I’ve got a bit delayed on posting my full analysis of the Season Five Finale, in large part because I’m still researching potential candidates for whom or what Jacob and his rival (whom I call “anti-Jacob”) might represent.  There’s been some good discussion in the comments section on this topic, so I’d encourage you drop in and add your two-cents-worth to the debate.

For my part, I think I’m heading in the same direction as readers Alistair and Michel.  If I understand them correctly, they seem to have come to an agreement that Jacob is more interventionist than anti-Jacob, and that Jacob and anti-Jacob represent contrasting views about how much the US government should intervene in the lives of the American citizens.  (Feel free to correct me, Alistair and Michel, if I've got the wrong end of the stick on that.)

I’m inclined to agree with them, but I’d add a slight variation (or extension) to the idea.  Since Lost is largely about how domestic politics affected American foreign policy, then perhaps Jacob and anti-Jacob represent not just contrasting views regarding how much the US government should intervene in the lives of US citizens, but also contrasting views regarding how much the US government should intervene in the goings-on of other nations.

I might not have my terminology quite right yet, but my basic thinking is this: Jacob (who keeps intervening into other people’s lives) might represent a philosophy like “interventionism,” while anti-Jacob (who just wants outsiders to leave the island alone) might represent the opposing philosophies of “non-interventionism” and “isolationism.”

That might explain why Jacob is revered by Ben and Richard, who appear to represent Neoconservatives and Dick Cheney, respectively.  Just as Ben and Richard follow the interventionism-minded Jacob, Neoconservatives and Dick Cheney ended up following an aggressively interventionism-minded foreign policy. 

It might also explain why anti-Jacob chose to appropriate the memories and image of Locke, who appears to represent Colin Powell (and also the Powell Doctrine, and the political views of philosopher John Locke).  Just as Locke, after his life ends, becomes the embodiment of anti-Jacob, similarly Colin Powell, after his political life ended (and despite his initial support for the Iraq Invasion), found his Powell Doctrine revived and held up as the embodiment of what a non-interventionist US foreign policy should be. 

It might also explain why Ben is the one who attacks Jacob.  Ben complains that he’s received no respect despite his devotion to Jacob, then takes drastic and violent action, resulting in him inflicting terrible harm on the very person whose respect he has been seeking.  This might be a portrayal of Neoconservatives, who -- feeling they had received little in the way of respect or results in spite of their devotion to interventionist principles -- began calling for the Bush Administration to take on increasingly drastic forms of military action (such as attacks on Iran and other "rogue" nations), resulting in Neoconservatives inflicting harm on their own cause. 

So that’s my present (but very preliminary and un-researched) take on the topic: Jacob might represent the philosophy of interventionism, while anti-Jacob might represent the opposing philosophy of non-interventionism.  Their longtime rivalry on the Island might represent the longtime tug-of-war between interventionism and non-interventionism in American foreign policy.

I’ll be back in a day or two with more on the finale, and more replies to reader comments.  Until then, feel free to add your thoughts to the debate.

Take care, all!

Jacob: White-shirted good guy or weaver of snares?

I’ll address the finale properly on Monday, but today let me float an idea past you.  It’s a bit hurriedly-written and incomplete, but I think you’ll get the gist of it.

The start of the episode sets-up the idea that, of the two islanders debating on the beach, white-clad Jacob is the good guy and black-clad anti-Jacob was the bad guy.  I have a feeling that Lost is duping us on this one, and that Jacob isn’t as saintly as we’ve assumed.

First off, consider Frank’s comment to Ilana that, in his experience, the people who call themselves “the good guys” usually aren’t.  That line struck me as a clue, a suggestion that we, the audience, should avoid assuming a character is as well-intentioned as his or her self-descriptions might suggest. 

In other words, Lost might be warning us not to assume that the guy who’s dressed himself in white is the good guy, and that the guy who’s dressed himself in black is the baddie.

Now, keeping that in mind, recall something that got me all riled up yesterday: the final title card.  I complained (somewhat petulantly) that merely reversing the colours of the final title card – from black letters on a white background to white letters on a black background – did not make up for the finale’s lack of a dramatic closing image.  Well, today I’m wondering if I was being too hasty when I dismissed that colour reversal.  In the season three finale, a sign above the funeral home was a clue to the episode's big twist (the sign read “Hoffs/Drawlar”, which is an anagram for “flash-forward”).  Could the reversed title card be a clue to a twist in this season’s finale?  And could the clue be that sometimes black is white and white is black?  In other words, was it a hint that, in this episode, a white shirt might mean a character is “bad”, and a black shirt might mean a character is “good”?

Okay, so now we’ve covered the possibility that Lost might be using the white/black shirts to deceive us into thinking that Jacob is a “good guy”, let’s take a look at Jacob’s behaviour.  Jacob talks a lot about people making their own choices, and seems to want the best for the castaways that he visits in the flashbacks.  But does he really believe in freedom of choice, and is he really doing what’s best for the castaways?  I’d argue that the answer is no, on both counts.

Let’s look at the issue of freedom of choice.  In his discussion with Hurley, Jacob emphasizes the fact that Hurley has the power to decide things for himself.  But Jacob’s words in that scene stand in stark contrast to Jacob’s actions in his opening scenes.  When we first meet Jacob, he is weaving a complex tapestry, he’s the master of an enormous and intricate design.  He’s not throwing paint onto a canvas like Jackson Pollock, letting his art emerge organically.  No, Jacob isn’t interested in improvisation and spontaneity – he’s interested in planning everything down to the finest detail, then strictly adhering to that plan.  His art isn’t about freedom – it’s about control. 

A few minutes later, we see this idea of control visited again, when Jacob wades into the ocean.  What does he retrieve from the water?  A fish-pot, in which a fish has been caught.  Like the tapestry he was makes earlier, the fish-pot shows Jacob to be a man skilled in design and planning.  But that fish-pot image tells us something else, too.  Because what is a fish-pot?  It’s a TRAP.  It’s a device -- a woven device, no less -- whose malicious purpose is only revealed once the unsuspecting prey has wnadered in and become trapped.  The fish-pot, it seems, is a clue that Jacob’s planning is not for the purposes of providing freedom, it’s for the purposes of entrapment.

And entrapment seems to be what Jacob is up to in the flashbacks with the castaways, when you take a close look.  Like unsuspecting fish in a fish-pot, the castaways can’t see the traps Jacob has designed for them.  They swim right in, focussed on Jacob's superficial kindnesses, but all the while Jacob is luring castaways to become trapped in negative patterns of behavior. 

Take Jacob’s interaction with young Kate, who has just been caught shoplifting.  The shopkeeper is about to report Kate to her mother and to the Police, but Jacob intervenes by offering to pay for the item she stole.  Now, that could be seen as an act of kindness, a way of saving Kate from suffering.  But Kate should suffer in this situation, becomes she needs to learn her lesson.  Because of Jacob's actions, Kate gets let off the hook and is allowed to believe that maybe crime actually DOES pay, that sometimes you CAN get away with bad behaviour.  And that’s Jacob’s intention, to get her to think that way, because that’s his way of trapping Kate in a cycle of negative behaviour.  Jacob’s words – the superficial part of his interaction with Kate – suggest that she should give up criminal behaviour.  But his actions – the consequential part of his interaction with her – ensure that she will remain criminally-minded.

It’s the same kind of trap with young James “Sawyer” Ford.  Sawyer is about to write his letter of revenge when his pen runs out.  And what does Jacob do?  He gives him a new pen, a seeming act of kindness that in fact enables young Sawyer to write the letter and maintain his feelings of vengeance.  As he did with the young Kate, Jacob is intervening to ensure that Sawyer remains trapped in a negative cycle.  He doesn’t want Sawyer to accept that “what’s done is done” – he wants Sawyer to remain ensnared in a pattern of anger and revenge.

Now consider Jack.  Jacob helps Jack by giving him the candy bar he lost in the snack machine.  What’s Jacob doing here?  He’s teaching Jack to stay stuck in his obsessive thinking, in his refusal to accept things the way they are.  He’s teaching Jack that he can always get what he wants, that he should never just walk away and cut his losses.  He’s teaching Jack to stay trapped in his cycle of wanting to see that every wrong gets righted, and every problem gets fixed.

Jin and Sun also get trapped.  Jacob encourages them to never let go of each other – in other words, to hold onto their pattern of possessiveness, the same possessiveness that later causes Jin to mistreat Sun, and is now causing Sun to have murderous thoughts over her separation from Jin.

It seems that Jacob ensnares Sayid too.  From the timing of when he interrupts Sayid and Nadia in the street, its pretty clear that Jacob plays a role in Nadia’s death.  And what does her death do to Sayid?  It returns him to his cycle of nihilism and violence, as Ben’s personal assassin.  In other words, it puts Sayid back into the trap of his previous negative behaviour.

Funnily enough, this theme of entrapment is also relevant to the behaviour of Jacob’s biblical namesake.  In the Bible, Jacob tricks his blind father into bestowing on him the birthright meant for his fraternal twin, Esau.  The biblical Jacob proves to be less of a laissez-faire freedom-respecter than a controlling and planful intervener.  This may be another sign that our same-named newcomer on Lost – who speaks of freedom while seemingly acting to entrap -- should not be trusted.

This idea of Jacob as an planful intervener, and not a believer in freedom, is also consistent with his allegiances on the island.  Look at who Jacob's followers are: Richard, Ben, and the rest of their camps.  And Richard and Ben have certainly proven themselves to be clever schemers, with extensive files on the castaways, and extensive plans to manipulate them.  Richard and Ben – like their real-world counterparts Richard Cheney and Neoconservatives – are schemers and interveners extraordinaire.  It would therefore make sense that their hero, Jacob, would represent the epitome of that same kind of planful, manipulative, reality-shaping behaviour.

So, that’s what I’m thinking.  It’s entirely possible that, given the abovementioned clues and observations, the white-shirted Jacob is not a “good guy” at all.  He might actually be a clever trickster, one who speaks of freedom whilst surreptitiously imposing his will on others, through an elaborately-woven design of traps and snares

Okay, that’s me done for today.  See you on Monday, with some more thoughts on the finale and on some recent comments from readers.  Until then, take care, and don’t get snared by any white-shirted tricksters!

First thoughts on the Season Five finale, "The Incident"

[Warning: This post finds me in a grumpy mood.  I do cheer up a bit at the end, though, so bear with me if you can.]

If I had to attach a theme to last night’s finale, it would be “competing opposites.”  That’s what we got at the start of the show, when the white-shirted Jacob sparred with his black-clad rival.  And that’s what we got at the end of the show, not only when Jacob and his rival met beneath the statue, but also when the electromagnetic discharge from the Swan site was met by the competing energy of the hydrogen bomb.  The show’s bookends were, in essence, battles between opposites.  X versus anti-X, if you will.

Unfortunately, there was one more battle-of-opposites raging last night, one that I could have done without.  Within the show itself, there was a fierce tug-of-war between the forces of climax and the forces of anti-climax.  Would Season Five be able to sustain its increasing level of brilliance to the very end?  Would the finale be a thrilling crescendo, or an unfulfilling decrescendo?  Would it end with a bang, or with a whimper? 

For the first hour at least, it seemed that we were well on our way to a Season-Three-style bang of a finale.  But then, for no apparent reason, the second hour just faded away until all that was left was a Season-One-finale whimper.  I don't know what happened, but things seemed to go off the rails a bit.  Characters began to behave in an unconvincing manner.  Richard and Eloise suddenly left the picture, just when they were starting to get interesting.  The long-awaited “Incident” ended up being, well, merely incidental.  Locke was revealed to be an imposter, and in an instant our love for the new-and-improved Locke was rendered irrelevant.  Juliet made a major but seemingly unwarranted decision to help with the bomb, and ended up meeting a clichéd and unworthy demise.  The final showdown -- the stabbing of Jacob (a character we don’t know much about) by someone being manipulated by anti-Jacob (a character we know even less about) – contained so many unknowns and newcomers that I found it all quite unaffecting.  And, worst of all, the show’s big ending was a typographical twist, with the title card showing black letters on a white background, instead of the usual white on black.  Huh?  Where was the iconic image we’ve come to expect from past finales?  Where was our Ben-at-the-dock moment?  Our it-was-actually-a-flash-forward moment?  Our island-disappearing-into-thin-air moment?  This year's big image wasn’t even an oh-the-hatch-has-a-ladder-in-it moment.  Unless you count the Locke-in-box moment (which wasn't anywhere near as shocking as it should have been, since we saw a similar image of Locke at the end of the last season), this finale didn't really have any iconic images at all.

So, for me at least, in last night's rivalry between climax and anti-climax, it seemed thatanti-climax won, unfortunately.  And after the increasing brilliance of Season Five, that was a bit of a shame.

That said, a disappointing episode of Lost is still better than an episode of just about anything else, so there was still much to like about last night’s show.  The flashbacks, for instance, were brilliant, and made me realize how much I’ve missed them (the one with Jack was especially good, adding a revealing twist to the counting-to-five story).  Ben was, as usual, a joy to behold.  And the behaviour of Ilana’s crew really piqued my interest.  I also got a kick out of the implication that the island has seen a lots of castaway stories much like the one we’re seeing now, making the story of Oceanic 815 just one in a series of similar such incidents.  But best of all, Rose and Bernard came back, looking like shaggy lovebirds, leading me to believe that they deserve their own spin-off (maybe a half-hour comedy called Rose and Bernie and a Ramshackle Loveshack!).  So, in spite of my (perhaps excessive) disappointment in last night's show, there was still plenty of satisfaction to be had.

And besides, in the big scheme of things, the climaxes on Lost are usually fairly unimportant anyway.  After all, Lost has never been about setting off climactic end-of-year explosions, but about keeping alight a slow-burning, six-year-long fuse.  That’s why, once Lost is all said and done in 2010, I’ll probably feel better about this year’s finale than I do today.  Once the entire series is complete, last night’s show won't be under pressure to be The-Thrilling-Finale-of-Another-Year-of-Lost, and can take its more appropriate place as just another Episode-Before-the-Next-Episode.

There -- now I feel much better.

Okay, now I’ve got all that out of my system, I’m going to mull over last night’s show for its underlying political meaning.  I’ll be back either tomorrow or next week to tell you what I’ve come up with.  In the meantime, check out the last post for what I hope is a helpful synopsis of the Iraq War storyline that drove much of this season.  And, of course, feel free to use the comments section to offer your thoughts and opinions on the finale – whether you agree with my opinion or not.

See you in a day or two, everyone!

Season Five Summary: From Shock and Awe to the Surge

Okay, guys.  Here's a quick summary of what I think has been going on this season.  For the sake of clarity, I'll only be discussing the Iraq Invasion/Troop Surge storyline, and will leave out the stories of Eloise, Widmore, Desmond, Sun, and present-day Locke and Ben.  I'll also leave out some of the parallel (but nonetheless valid) interpretations of the DHARMA story, such as the scenarios in which the DHARMA scientists play the roles of  America's Founding Fathers.  Additionally, I'll be glossing over the fact that Lost keeps playing switcheroo with who represents the Americans and who represents the Iraqis, and occasionally plays switcheroo with the order of events (like Bush's decision not to attack Iran, which on Lost happens during the implementation of the surge, when in real-life it took place a year after the surge began).

In short, what I'm trying to say is that the following synopsis -- although hopefully useful -- is extremely superficial, incomplete, and lacking in nuance.  Lost's show-runners, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof, are up to much, much more than what I'll be describing below, so don't assume that I've addressed everything that they're trying to say.  (In fact, I haven't even scratched the surface of what they've been doing this season.)

So, if you can bring yourself to excuse my superficiality and omissions, let's get started with summarizing how the fictional events of Season Five might relate to the real-life Invasion of Iraq.  We'll start our synopsis with Ben pushing the lever and changing the island's position. . .

Season Five: The Iraq storyline

After he is shown a secret concealed behind plants (i.e. the door of the Orchid), Locke steps aside and allows Ben to gain access to a powerful lever.
After his is shown secret photos of what appeared to be concealed Iraqi chemical weapon plants, Secretary of State Colin Powell steps aside and allows Neoconservatives to gain access to the "levers of power".

Ben uses the powerful lever to change the island's position in the world.
Neoconservatives use their access to the levers of power to change America's foreign policy position.

Ben is transported from the cold chamber to the hot desert of an Arab country, where he engages in physical combat with the locals.
Neoconservatives succeed in starting a "hot war" in the desert of an Arab country (Iraq).

Ben sets in motion plans to eliminate outsiders he considers to be threats to the island. 
Neoconservatives set in motion plans to remove foreign regimes they considered to be threats to America.

Because Ben underestimated the amount of force required (to fully move the lever), the wheel becomes unstable and chaos ensues.
Because the Neoconservatives' plans underestimated the amount of military forces required (for the post-invasion period), Iraq became unstable and chaos ensued. 

The chaos begins with the shocking sight of flaming arrows raining down from the sky.
The invasion began with a campaign of "shock and awe", in which bombs and missiles rained down from the skies over Iraq.

Later, the castaways trigger a hidden bomb, planted by members of the island's local population.
Later, the US troops are attacked with hidden improvised explosive devices (IEDs), planted by members of the local Iraqi population.

The chaos includes unpredictable and disorienting episodes of time-travel, accompanied by flashes of light, loud noises, painful headaches, bloody noses, and even death.
The chaos in Iraq included unpredictable and disorienting events, as well as explosions, pain, bloodshed, and death.

The castaways find themselves caught between warring island factions.
US troops found themselves caught between warring Iraqi factions.

Locke (assisted by what appears to be the late Christian Shephard), applies sufficient force to the lever and ends the time-travel chaos.
Before the invasion, Colin Powell (as well as former members of Bush Sr's administration), had expressed concern that insufficient forces were being used in the invasion; Had the Powell Doctrinebeen followed and sufficient forces used, the post-invasion chaos might have been avoided.

The "hostiles" say that the island's truce has been broken, but Sawyer manages to re-establish a fragile peace.  However, the DHARMA Initiative only truly feel safe when they are within the perimeter of the sonic fence.
Eventually, US forces manage to establish a degree of calm in Iraq.  However, the only truly safe place is within the heavily-walled "Green Zone."

The newly-arrived castaways help the locals with community-building projects and the creation of DHARMA stations.
The US occupying forces help Iraq with nation-building projects and the creation of American-style democratic institutions.

Sawyer is put in charge of the community's security, and Miles and Jin join his team.  Juliet works in the motor pool and helps to keep the community's engines running.
The US occupying forces take charge of Iraq's security, while also trying to keep the country's basic services (like the electricity generation) up-and-running.

Rose and Bernard are nowhere to be seen.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her diplomatic corps are left out of the picture.

Even though the castaways try to have a positive impact on their new home, their presence in the community is nonetheless based on deceptions.
The US occupying forces tried to be a positive presence in Iraq, but the invasion's rationale was nonetheless based on deceptions.

Jack comes to accept that things have not gone well in the three years since the island's position changed.
In 2006, President Bush came to accept that the first three years of the Invasion of Iraq had not gone well.

Jack follows Ben's suggestion of sending all the castaways back to the conflict-ridden island to correct the mistakes made three years earlier (when the island first changed position).
In 2006, President Bush agreed with Neoconservatives' suggestion of sending large numbers of troops back to the conflict-zone (in Iraq) to correct mistakes made three years earlier (during the planning of the initial invasion). 

Kate reluctantly agrees to revisit the island, but does not support Ben's agenda.
Congress agreed to revisit the strategy for Iraq, but did not support the Neoconservatives' surge strategy.

Jack becomes a janitor on the island, cleaning up messes.
President Bush works at cleaning-up the mess in Iraq.

Sayid shoots down the young Ben, because Sayid wants to stop him from repeating future acts of catastrophic violence.
In 2007, the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate shoots down Neoconservatives' plans to attack Iran, because the CIA wanted to avoid repeating the kind of mistakes that led to the catastrophic outcomes of the Invasion of Iraq.

Jack decides he's done enough for Ben, and doesn't try to save his life.
President Bush broke with the Neoconservative agenda, and didn''t bring life to any more of their plans (specifically, their plan to attack Iran). 

It is up to Richard Alpert to save Ben's life.
It was up to Vice-President Richard Cheney to keep the Neoconservative agenda alive.

Sawyer tries to destroy videotapes of his wrongful kidnapping of Ben, then beats up, abducts, and secretly imprisons one of the locals (Phil).
The US destroyed videotapes of controversial abductions, imprisonment, and mistreatment of enemy combatants.

Some of the locals decide that the new arrivals are more trouble than they're worth.  They tell the castaways that they are no longer welcome, and inflict violence upon Sawyer and Juliet.
A growing number of Iraqis decided that the US troop presence was causing more harm than good, felt that the US presence was no longer welcome, and inflicted increasing levels of violence upon the US troops.

There are growing concerns that destructive electromagnetic forces, previously kept beneath the island's surface, are getting ready to erupt, with potentially disastrous consequences for the island's inhabitants.
There were growing concerns that destructive sectarian forces, previously kept below the surface of Iraqi society, were getting ready to erupt, with potentially disastrous consequences for the Iraqi people.

Fearing an eruption of the long-suppressed electromagnetic energy, many islanders choose to leave on the sub.
Fearing an eruption of long-suppressed sectarian violence, many Iraqis leave the country and become refugees.

Jack decides that the danger from the subterranean forces can be negated by the power of the US Army's hydrogen bomb.
President Bush decided that the danger from violent sectarian forces could be negated by increasing the manpower of the US Army's troop presence.

Richard Alpert supports Jack's plan to use the power of the US Army bomb.
Vice-President Cheney supported President Bush's plan to increase the manpower of the US Army forces in Iraq.

Sayid supports Jack's plan to use the power of the US Army bomb.
The CIA (under the new, pro-surge leadership of Admiral John McConnell) supported President Bush's plan to increase the manpower of US Army forces in Iraq.

Fearing large-scale death, Kate expresses her opposition to Jack's decision to use the powerful US Army bomb,.  She decides that the better option is to leave the island on the sub, before the electromagnetic energy is released.
Fearing that the surge strategy will cause unnecessary deaths, Congress passed a resolution opposing President Bush's decision to increase the manpower of the US Army forces in Iraq.  Congress believed that the better option was for the US to withdraw from Iraq before an explosion of sectarian violence was released.

***

Got it so far?  Essentially, it seems that Lost has divided its portrayal of the surge into two parts.  The first part, at the start of the season, involves the escaped castaways coming back to the island, in the style of troops returning to Iraq during the 2007 military surge.  The second part, at the end of the season, shows the surge from a different angle, with Jack planning to use a powerful US Army bomb to negate destructive forces brewing beneath the ground, much as President Bush tried to use the surge's increase in US Army troops to counteract destructive forces of sectarian violence that had been brewing beneath the surface in Iraq.   

So, what does that mean for the finale?  Well, I guess that depends how Cuse and Lindelof feel about the success of the surge.  If they think it was an unqualified success, then Jack will defy everyone's negative expectations and succeed in his plan to restore stability.  If they think the surge was a partial success, then Jack's succeed in some ways, but fall short in others.  And if they think that the surge failed, then Jack will believe he has been successful, when in fact he has not.  We'll have to see on Wednesday. 

Until then, take care, all.  I hope you find that helpful, and I'll speak to you tomorrow!

More thoughts on Episode 5.15: "Follow the Leader"

Even though Season Five's pre-finale episode, "Follow the Leader," was a great, plot-packed show, I'm reluctant to get into too much analysis of it right now.  That's largely because, like most pre-finale episodes of Lost, "Follow the Leader" was a set-up episode, designed to set the stage for the big, pivotal events of the season-ender.  As such, it's possible that anything I say today could be totally blown out of the water next week, if Lost stays true to form and fills its finale with massive, unexpected, game-changing plot twists.

So here's what I'm going to do.  Today, I'll offer a few final, somewhat random thoughts on "Follow the Leader."  Early next week, I'll give you to a summary of everything we've come up with this season, to prepare us for the finale.  Deal?

Kate versus Jack

This week showed Kate being uncharacteristically decisive, severing her ties with Jack after he declares it his destiny to see that Jughead is detonated.  The conversation between Kate and Jack was full of memorable lines, such as Kate saying, "Since when did shooting kids and blowing up hydrogen bombs become okay?"  But the best exchange was this one, which really showed how Kate and Jack are not only not on the same page anymore, they're not even in the same book.

KATE: You know, before we were caught, you said that we needed to put things back the way they were supposed to be. What did you mean by that?

JACK: If we can do what Faraday said, our plane never crashes.  Flight 815 lands in Los Angeles. And everyone we lost since we got here, they'd all be alive.

KATE: And what about us? We just go on living our lives because we've never met?

JACK: All the misery that we've been through -- we'd just wipe it clean. Never happened.

KATE: It wasn't all misery.

JACK: Enough of it was.

A lovely bit of writing that really shows how much things have changed between these two.  Kate used to be the one running from the past, but now that role's been handed over to Jack, it seems. 

Of course, the cynical view would be that Kate doesn't want to alter events because, if the plane doesn't crash, then Kate's back to being escorted to her murder trial by the US Marshall.  But I don't think self-preservation is what's motivating Kate here.  Just look at her willingness to save young Ben, even after all the older Ben did to her and her loved ones.  And look at her horror at the thought of blowing-up the DHARMA village.  She was willing to be shot by Eloise's men rather than participate in something so catastrophic.  No, Kate's not driven by self-preservation anymore.  Sure, part of her is probably still trying to avoid prison, but for the most part she seems genuinely worried that things have gone too far.  When she says, "I can't go any further with you, Jack. Not this time," I think she really means it.  She's no longer willing to play along.  She's standing up for herself, for what she thinks is right, even if it costs her life.  At long last, Kate getting back some of the independence we saw in her at the start of season one.

And right on time, too, according to our allegorical reading of the show.  Because if the castaways' "surge" back to the island (coordinated by Ben, and meant to correct three-year-old mistakes) represents the Bush Administration's Troop Surge (coordinated by Neoconservatives, and meant to correct three-year-old mistakes made at the start of the Iraq campaign), then Lost's presently depicting events that took place in the real-world in 2006 and 2007.  And that's about the time that Congress, who is represented on Lost by Kate, started coming into conflict with President Bush, who is represented by Jack. 

If you need proof of this Congress/Bush conflict (and you should want proof -- don't take my word for anything), then peruse this set of links from a google search of the words "Congress versus Bush."  There you'll find a series of articles showing how Congress moved away from supporting President Bush, all of which were written in 2006 or later.  I think you'll end up agreeing that, if Lost is currently depicting real-world events from 2006 and 2007, then Katie-Congress and President Jack are having their bust-up right on schedule.

If we use real-life events as a guide, that means that the Kate/Jack romance is finally at the end of the road, because, after 2006, Congress and Kate only get further and further apart.

Kate and Sawyer, Kate and Walt

Losing faith in Jack is only the start for Kate.  Because 2006 wasn't just the year that Congress lost faith in President Bush, it was also the year that Congress lost its Republican majority.  And if Congress stopped being dominated by the Republican Party, that means that Kate's heart is going to stop being dominated by Sawyer.  

It also means that, if 2006 was the year that the Democratic Party made a comeback in Congress, then we're about to see Walt (who represents the Democratic Party) make a comeback, too.  And when Walt does return, he'll replace Sawyer as the person most able to influence Kate.  (Of course, if he remains a teenager on the show, then Walt won't influence Kate romantically -- as Sawyer did -- but he'll influence her nonetheless.)

Is Hurley as smart as a fifth grader?

Hurley's responses to Chang's pop quiz were priceless.

DR. CHANG: Your friend Faraday said that you were from the future. I need to know if he was telling the truth.

HURLEY: Dude, that's ridiculous.

DR. CHANG: What year were you born? What year?

HURLEY: Uh... 1931?

DR. CHANG: You're 46?

HURLEY: Yeah. Yes, I am.

DR. CHANG: So you fought in the Korean War?

HURLEY: There's no such thing.

DR. CHANG: Who's the President of the United States?

HURLEY: All right, dude, we're from the future. Sorry.

But as funny as Hurley's responses were, they weren't all that funny when viewed in the context of Lost's political subtext.  That's because, as we said in this post, Hurley represents the bureaucracy of the US Government's Executive Branch.  That means that, in addition to Homeland Security, Hurley also represents things like the US Department of Education -- something that was hinted at in "Some like it Hoth," when we saw the logo on Hurley's notebook (shown on right).  And if Hurley's the US Department of Education, then that's a pretty scathing critique of the American education system, because Hurley can't spell (in season one, he thinks that "bodies" is spelled "b-o-d-y-s"), can't count ("uh ... 1931"), and doesn't much about history ("there's no such thing" as the Korean War).  It seems to me that, by makimng Hurley so ill-infomreLost is being pretty rough on the Bush Administration's Department of Education, suggesting that Bush's "No Child Left Behind" programme ended up leaving many American students way, way behind.

Jack wants to rewrite history

Jack's believes that, by detonating the island's hydrogen bomb, he can rewrite history to make it into something more positive.  Like the janitor he's become, Jack is working hard to clean-up messes -- but he's doing it in really big, potentially dangerous way.  If you ask me, Jack's burning desire to rewrite the "misery" of his time on the island reflects President Bush's need to be viewed in a favourable light by history.  And Jack's willingness to go to such great lengths to change events shows the intensity of Bush's need to have his presidency seen as a successful one.  That's part of what I think the show's up to with Jack right now -- it's showing Bush, late in his second-term, desperately trying to make his presidency a success.  We'll have to see how all that plays out to know for sure the direction Lost is taking with that one.

Jack and the "Perils of the Golden Theory"

Jack's plan involves using military power (the US Army's hydrogen bomb) to avert painful events destined to occur in the distant future.  That's a pretty ambitious goal, and one based on an untested theory, at that.  Not to mention a goal that, even if successful, will require the large-scale death of unsuspecting civilians (at the DHARMA village).

As we said earlier, what we're presently seeing on Lost reflects (for the most part) real-life events that took place in American politics in 2006 and 2007.  That means that Jack's current thinking is meant to portray -- in an abstract way -- President Bush's thinking in the final two years of his presidency.  And that thinking was that, if you just use enough power, you can change the world to be the way you want it to be.

As we said earlier, Kate's clearly not buying into Jack's thinking.  She just doesn't agree with trying to use the island's power in such a far-reaching, idealistic, and potentially catastrophic way.  Kate's counterpart, Congress, felt the same way in 2006.  Many members of Congress who had supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 came to believe that Bush was over-reaching in his desire to transform the world, that he was pursuing idealistic goals far beyond the capabilities of even a nation as powerful as America. 

Republican Congressman Henry Hyde said as much in a speech he made on February 26, 2006 --entitled "Perils of the Golden Theory" -- which was meant as a rebuke of President Bush's view that American power was limitless in its power to transform the world.  It's a flowery, grandiose speech (linked to here) -- but whether or not you like or agree with it, it's something you should definitely read, because the language it uses directly parallels recent events on Lost. 

For example, check out the opening paragraph:

Lying at the heart of America's relationship with the world is a paradox. We have a global reach, voluntarily assuming responsibility for preserving peace and order in much of the world and for the bless-ed charge of bettering the lives of its inhabitants. And yet we are simultaneously very distant from that world, stubbornly uninstructed by its ancient cynicism and preaching a confidence in the future that defies the constraints of the present. This paradox - to massively engage the world while living on an autonomous island in the global sea - is made possible by our unprecedented power.

Isn't that like Lost?  "Paradox."  That's like the time paradoxes we've been seeing on the show this season.  "Voluntarily assuming responsibility for preserving peace and order in much of the world and for the bless-ed charge of bettering the lives of its inhabitants."  That's reminiscent of the Utopian, "press the button, save the world" mission of the DHARMA Initiative.  "This paradox - to massively engage the world while living on an autonomous island in the global sea - is made possible by our unprecedented power."  Well, if that doesn't make you think about Lost, I don't know what will!

And check out the following:

But if we unleash revolutionary forces in the expectation that the result can only be beneficent, I believe we are making a profound and perhaps uncorrectable mistake.   History teaches that revolutions are very dangerous things, more often destructive than benign, and uncontrollable by their very nature.  Upending established order based on theory is far more  likely to produce chaos than shining uplands. . . . There is no evidence that we or anyone can guide from afar revolutions we have set in motion.  We can more easily destabilize friends and others and give life to chaos and to avowed  enemies than ensure outcomes in service of our interests and security.    

Doesn't that sound like what Jack is up to right now?  Using the power of the bomb, together with the island's electromagnetic energy, Jack wants to "unleash revolutionary forces in the expectation that the result can only be beneficent."  Kate, however, believes that Jack is playing with "dangerous things, more often destructive than benign, and uncontrollable by their very nature."  And there's the line "there is no evidence that we or anyone can guide from afar revolutions we have set in motion," which seems a critique of Jack's attempts to "guide from afar" events that will not occur until three decades later.

And then there's this:

To allow our enormous power to delude us into seeing the world as a passive thing waiting for us to recreate it in an image of our choosing will hasten the day when we have little freedom to choose anything at all.     

Clearly, Congressman Hyde wouldn't have approved of President Jack's current view that, using the island's enormous power, he can treat the world as a passive thing waiting for him to recreate it in an image of his choosing.

Like I said, the parallels are fascinating, and makes the speech well worth reading (even if you don't agree with all of its arguments).

Okay, even though there's loads more I could say about "Follow the Leader," that's me done for today.  See you next time!

   

First thoughts on Episode 5.15: "Follow the Leader"

Well, my despair over season five is officially over.  Not only have I really enjoyed these recent episodes, I've also realized that, in retrospect, the seeming chaos of the early episodes was necessary groundwork for getting the plot to the exciting point it's at today.  (Executive Producers Cuse and Lindelhof, please accept my humble apologies for losing the faith for the first half of season five.  I'll never doubt you again.)

Last night's episode, "Follow the Leader," was an effective set-up for what promises to be a rip-roaring season finale next week.  It stoked rivalries both old and new, raised the stakes to a life-or-large-scale-death level, and provided some well-crafted and head-bending time-travel conundrums. 

But best of all, it gave us the joy of seeing Ben suddenly out of the loop, all bug-eyed and agog at the events unfolding around him.  What a pleasure it is to see the once intimidating Ben now reduced to scurrying about behind Locke and Richard, like a pesky little brother trying to convince his older siblings to let him tag along.  Gotta love that Ben -- whether he's in charge or on the ropes, he's certainly never boring.

I'll post something proper tomorrow (if not later today), but for now, here's a new, potentially useful idea.

Station-building and nation-building

After last night's show, I've decided that the symbolism of the 1970s DHARMA story revolves around "nation-building." 

Specifically, Lost is using the under-construction DHARMA community as proxy for two real-world nation-building projects, as follows: 

1. The DHARMA community is being used to represent the nation-building that has taken place in America over the past several centuries.  This nation-building would include the creation and establishment of America's founding institutions (i.e. stations like the Swan) and political values (i.e. the values 4 8 15 16 23 42).  In other words, the founding of DHARMA is sometimes meant to depict the founding of the United States of America. 

2. In addition to the above, the DHARMA community is being used to represent the nation-building that took place in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.  This nation-building would include trying to avert civil war between the community's rival factions (i.e. trying to maintain the truce between DHARMA and the Others), trying to establish new institutions in a place with a long history and powerful energy resources (i.e. trying to build the Swan atop the ancient but powerful pocket of electromagnetic energy, and trying to build the Orchid atop the ancient but powerful chamber housing the donkey-wheel).  In other words, the founding of DHARMA is sometimes meant to depict America's current attempts to conduct nation-building in Iraq. 

These two lines of symbolism are occurring simultaneously, presumably to provide comparisons and contrasts between the nation-building in early America, and the present attempts at nation-building taking place in Iraq.

To illustrate how DHARMA is being used to portray nation-building in Iraq, let me invite you to read this quick summary of the castaways' adventure in 1970s DHARMA-ville. 

When the castaways first arrive in the 1970s, they save Amy from attack and believe they will be welcomed by the community as her liberators.  That doesn't end up being the case, as the DHARMA community view the castaways as potentially dangerous invaders who will destabilize the fragile peace between the island's two opposing factions.  Over time, however, the DHARMA community come to accept the castaways' presence, and allow them to remain in the community, even allowing them to take charge of the community's security.  But now, after the castaways have behaved in an untrustworthy manner, shot and imprisoned community-members without regard for due process, and attempted to hide the videotapes of their wrongdoing, the DHARMA community has concluded that the castaways' presence is more trouble than its worth, and that its time for these outsiders to leave.  As Sawyer boards the departing sub, he looks back at the island -- whose inhabitants have rejected him in spite of his efforts to provide them with security -- and bids the island and its inhabitants "good riddance."

Now, here's that same paragraph, rewritten to describe American adventurism in 21st century Iraq. (Note that I've just written this off the top of my head, and haven't been able to choose my words as carefully as I perhaps should).

When American troops first arrived in Iraq, many Americans believed they were saving Iraqis from tyranny and would be welcomed by Iraqis as liberators.  That didn't end up being the case, as Iraqis viewed the Americans as potentially dangerous invaders who would destabilize the fragile peace between the country's opposing sectarian factions.  Over time, however, the Iraqi people came to accept the American troop-presence, and permitted them to remain in the country, even allowing them to take charge of matters of security.  But Iraqi anger lingered over Americans shooting and imprisoning Iraqi citizens without regard for due process, and later attempting to hide the videotapes of the wrongdoing committed at places like Abu Graib, and so the Iraqi government eventually decided that the American troop-presence had become more trouble than it was worth, and asked America to plan for a troop withdrawal.  As America currently work towards withdrawal, many Americans who supported the invasion now see Iraq -- which rejected America in spite of its efforts to provide them with security -- as an ungrateful nation, deserving of being told "good riddance."

If you can excuse that second paragraph for being a crude, hastily-written, intellectually shallow first draft, you've got to admit it was pretty persuasive, huh?

So that's where my head's at right now.  I'm thinking that the 1970s DHARMA community represents two separate episodes of American nation-building: The nation-building that took place in America over the past several centuries, and the nation-building taking place at this very moment in 21st century Iraq.

Okay, now I'm going to go away and have a think about how that idea might provide context for the stuff with the hydrogen bomb and the upcoming incident.  When I return, I'll talk more about all that, plus about Jack's plan to rewrite history, Richard the eternal adviser, closed time-loops, and more. 

Until then, take care!

Long overdue ideas about the Freighter Folk, doctors, janitors, oilwells, Hurley, Locke, and the mysterious Mr. Alpert

Here are a bunch of thoughts that I've should have mentioned ages ago.  It's a real hodge-podge, but should help tidy-up a few loose ends. 

The Freighter Folk and Fate

I've had a possible breakthrough regarding the roles of the Fantastic Four Freighter Folk: Daniel Faraday, Charlotte S. Lewis, Miles Straume, and Frank Lapidus.  Until now, I've been unclear as to who or what they each represent (although for a time I wondered of Faraday represented France, and Charlotte represented Great Britain).  I'm still not 100% clear, but I think I'm a bit clearer now than I was before.

Each of the four seems to represent a particular attitude toward the idea of fate, the idea of whether or not we can change the world around us.  The following list is sketchy, but should give you a sense of my present thoughts on the four Freighter Folk.

DANIEL FARADAY
Represents: Fatalism
Attitude: "I wish I could change things, but I can't."
Evidence: Consider Daniel's view that things can't be changed, and his reluctance to chart his own path rather than follow his mother's wishes.  

MILES STRAUME
Represents: Cynicism
Attitude: "I can't change things -- life sucks."
Evidence: Consider Miles's view that things can't be changed, his lack of proactive behaviour (he can't even take enough action to kill a boar -- he has to find one that's already dead!), his morbid talent (he can listen to the dead, but not interact with them), and his sarcastic comments toward anyone trying to make a difference in the world. 

CHARLOTTE LEWIS
Represents: Nostalgia
Attitude: "I wish I could change things back to how they used to be."
Evidence: Consider Charlotte's lifelong quest to return to the island (her original home) and her regression to childhood in her final moments.

FRANK LAPIDUS
Represents: Apathy
Attitude: "Things change, things don't change -- whatever, Dude."
Evidence: Consider Frank's chilled-out, go-with-the-flow vibe in Season Four, and his apathetic response when asked if he's on board with the plan to lie about the rescue ("Whatever you guys decide, I'll just roll with").  Also, compare Frank to his apathetic lookalike, Jeff Bridges's Dude from The Big Lebowski (you can almost hear Sam Elliott's voice saying of the bearded, Hawaiian-shirted Frank, "The Dude abides" . . .)   

For contrast, compare the four Freighter Folk with their unofficial fifth member, Desmond Hume.

DESMOND HUME
Represents: Skepticism and Self-Determination
Attitude: "Maybe it's true that I can't change things, but I'll try anyway and find out for myself."
Evidence: Desmond's refusal to follow the rules of the military and the monastery, his determination to keep saving Charlie, and his "uniquely and miraculously special" ability to change the course of destiny (at least according to Faraday).

Like I said, all that stuff's just a sketch right now.  I think I may be onto something, though, and I'll be exploring this idea more over the next few weeks. 

Locke and Colin Powell

Recently, a few readers have challenged the idea that Locke represents Secretary of State Powell.  Specifically, some suggested that the Locke/Powell connection is flawed because Locke's clout increased after his life ended, but Powell's clout decreased after his life ended (Powell's political life, that is, which ended when he resigned from the Bush Administration in 2005).

Well, I'm not convinced that Powell's clout did decrease after he resigned.  In fact, I'd argue that his ideas actually gained popularity after his resignation, as people came to realize that Powell's message of moderation had been correct all along. 

Don't agree?  Then check out this interview from TheDailyBeast.com, in which Richard Haass -- the former director of policy planning for Secretary of State Colin Powell under George W. Bush -- answers the question of why Powell didn't resign sooner.

QUESTION: Why do you think Colin Powell didn’t resign, and if he had, would it have made a difference ?

HAASS: Powell is an optimist. He thought that over time things would swing his way. Ironically, they did, but it was after he had left. I think as a military man he had a real sense of responsibility, of loyalty. He also had a powerfully developed sense of public service and a belief in what he could do. Not in the arrogant sense but in the optimistic sense. Had he resigned, I'm not sure it would have turned things around. My hunch is that if Powell had resigned, he would have resigned quietly. That's his style, it’s in the man's DNA.

"An optimist."  "He thought that over time things would swing his way."  "He had a real sense of responsibility, of loyalty."  Sounds a lot like Locke, don't you think?  And did you catch that bit about when things finally did swing Powell's way?  It happened "after he had left."  Just as things started swinging Locke's way after he left (his life).

So, based on quotes like the above, I'm going to stubbornly stick with the notion that Locke represents Colin Powell (in addition to representing the political theories espoused by philosopher John Locke).  But that doesn't mean you should stop challenging my character ideas -- your comments help to show the strength of the strong theories, and the weaknesses of the weak ones.  (And for all I know, the Locke/Powell theory is indeed one of the weak ones.)

Hurley, Homeland Security, and the US Government

I've been a bit confused by Hurley this season.  Hurley definitely seems to represent Homeland Security, what with his vast size, huge funding, desire to keep his loved ones safe, willingness to distribute emergency supplies, wastefulness with those supplies, Patriot-Act-like use of the passenger manifest, Homeland-Security-like name (the letters H-U-R-L-E-Y are all found in the words "Homeland Security), and, of course, those threat-level-coloured T-shirts.  But if Hurley is Homeland Security, then why is he so unwilling to lie about the crash?  Why, if he represents a department as politicized as Homeland Security, is he so unwilling to play along with these political games?  Is there a flaw in my theory that Hurley represents Homeland Security? 

Well, after careful thought, I've finally realized where I went wrong.  Hurley actually represents two things, one more politicized than the other.  On the one hand, he represents the highly-politicized Department of Homeland Security.  On the other hand, he represents the apolitical entity that Homeland Security is part of -- the bureaucracy of the US Government's Executive Branch.  

So, when he's not representing Homeland Security, Hurley is representing the sometimes helpful, sometimes ineffective bureaucracy of the US Government (of which Homeland Security, the third largest Executive Branch Department, is a large part).  This bureaucracy takes orders from the president, just as Hurley takes orders from Jack.  However, being apolitical, it only follows orders related to matters of governance, not those related to politics, which is why Hurley won't play along with Jack's politician-style lies.  The civil service is ultimately not a political entity but a rule-following bureaucracy, and as such doesn't (or at least shouldn't) involve itself in partisan political games, just as Hurley isn't a game-player but a rule follower, and is reluctant to get caught up in Jack's games of deception.

So, the theory has now been modified: Hurley symbolizes both the Department of Homeland Security and the bureaucracy of the US Government's Executive Branch (of which Homeland Security is a part). 

I don't know about you, but that new theory about big-ole-Hurley made me feel a whole lot better.  (Oops -- did I just inadvertently endorse "Big Government"?) 

Security, Mechanics, and Janitors

Here's something I've been meaning to mention for a while: After the castaways "surge" back to the island, they take up jobs that reflect their real-world counterparts' jobs after the 2006 Troop Surge.  So, Sawyer becomes head of security because, during the Surge, the Republican Party (and especially its soon-to-be-leader, John McCain) wanted to be seen as the party of national security.  Kate becomes a mechanic because, during the Surge, Congress was largely in charge of nuts-and-bolts legislative issues.  Juliet also gets into mechanics, but her close connection with Sawyer gives her contact with security issues, too -- which makes her like her real-world counterpart, Conservatives, who were involved in nuts-and-bolts issues but were also closely connected to the Republican Party's national security platform.  Hurley joins the cooking staff, taking care of the mundane but essential chores of providing daily sustenance, all in the manner of his real-life counterpart, the bureaucracy of the US Government.  And the once proud Jack becomes a humble janitor, tasked with cleaning-up messes -- just like President Bush, who, from the Surge to the end of his second term, spent most of his time trying to clean-up the many messes he'd made (in places like the Middle East).

Surgeons, Research Scientists, and Dentists

Speaking of jobs, here's something else I've been wanting to mention: On Lost, different types of doctors represent different types of political figures.  

Research scientists (like fertility-specialist Juliet and physicist Faraday) represent political theorists and political orientations.  And like political theorists, Lost's research-based doctors have lots of influence but don't become the community's topmost decision-makers. 

Surgeons (like Jack and his father) represent politicians who are willing to get into the actual flesh-and-blood aspects of leadership.  They are the people willing to take action, to make life-or-death decisions, to authorize dangerous "operations", to get their hands dirty in an effort to make a difference.  So far, Lost has used surgeons to represent US Presidents, such as George W. Bush (Jack) and his father George H.W. Bush (Christian). 

Dentists (like Bernard) seem to represent political figures who use their mouths to make a difference.  In this sense, these "oral surgeons" probably symbolize diplomats.  Just as dentist Bernard is a whiz at improvising ways of communicating with the outside world (like when he made the SOS sign, and when he suggested using the sat-phone to send morse code to the freighter), diplomats use their wits to devise clever ways of negotiating with other nations.

Keep an eye out and you'll see these distinctions being made over and over again on the show.  Typically, the research scientists (like Juliet and Faraday) are sought out for advice, but the "real doctors" are sought out when big decisions must be made and urgent action taken. 

For example, listen to Juliet in Episode 5.11, "Whatever Happened, Happened," as she tries to treat young Ben Linus's gunshot wound:

JULIET: Someone needs to get in there who can find the damage that bullet did and fix it. He needs a real surgeon.

And listen to Desmond in Episode 5.03, "Jughead," as he brings someone to deliver Penny's baby:

DESMOND: It's okay, Pen. We've got a doctor.

And check out Miles mocking the doctoral abilities of research-scientist Faraday, in this exchange from Episode 5.02, "The Lie":

SAWYER: [To Faraday] Welcome back, Doctor Wizard.

MILES: I think it's Mister Wizard.

You can really see the research-scientist versus surgeon dynamic at work in the final moments of last week's episode, "The Variable."  Faraday has a big, consequential plan: He wants to use a hydrogen bomb to destroy the energy at the Swan site.  But, being a researcher, he never manages to put his plan into action (because he gets himself killed).  So now who's going to have to turn this researcher's theories into flesh-and-blood reality?  Why, a surgeon, of course -- Dr. Jack Shephard.

Drilling for oil

My mate Dave (who, unlike Hurley's mate Dave, doesn't seem imaginary) keeps telling me that all this stuff about "drilling into the ground and discovering a powerful but dangerous source of energy" is code for oil, and oil's role in international politics.  I'm starting to think he's onto something.  For example, take a look at the tower holding up Jughead (on the right).  Is it just me, or does that look like one of those old-timey oilwells?  We'll have to re-visit this oil/energy connection over the next few weeks, once we see how the season finale's energy-related "incident" plays out.

Alpert and Cheney

This week's episode, "Follow the Leader," reportedly centres on the enigmatic Richard Alpert.  The executive producers once called Alpert "the Dick Cheney of the island" (in the DVD extra "The World of the Others") -- so tonight will find me scrutinizing Alpert's every move for signs of Cheney-isms.  I have a feeling they'll be lots to work with, because Alpert and Cheney have quite a lot in common, including their powerful but shadowy positions in their communities; their calmness in times of crisis; their ties to the corporate world; their links with Halliburton ("Alpert" sounds a lot like "Halliburton"); their first names (they're both called "Richard"); and their seemingly permanent presences.  Speaking of Alpert and Cheney's apparent ever-presence, check out this recent interview with investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in which he discusses Cheney's continuing Washington influence.  In particular, take note of the following quote:   

HERSH: He's easy to make a caricature, but he’s much more formidable than people think. Got a rap clap memory. Understands bureaucracy much better, he’s been around forever, has had every job.

"He's been around forever."  Sound familiar?  That line's a lot like something Juliet said in Episode 5.03, "Jughead":

JULIET: Richard's always been here.

So, is Alpert really "the Dick Cheney of the island"?  Hopefully, we'll find out tonight.

Until tomorrow, take care!

Wanna Know "What Lies in the Shadow of the Statue"?

Because of my current bout of chickenpox (which pretty much sux), I was fairly woozy when I watched "The Variable" on Wednesday night.  As a result, I haven't yet come up with any earth-shattering revelations about Faraday's political significance or tragic demise.  If I come up with something, I'll post it right away.

In the meantime, here's something for you all to ponder.  

Ilana and her crew keep asking, "Do you know what lies in the shadow of the statue?"  Well, I'm here to tell Ilana and company that yes, I think I might just know what lies there -- in a political sense, at least. 

Now I've got the infection

It seems all my talk of infections has ended up giving me an infection -- I've just been diagnosed with chickenpox.  Since I'm feeling a bit rough, I'll have to wait until tomorrow to post about last night's show, "The Variable."  Until then, feel free to chat about "The Variable" in the comments section below.

Take care!

The infection, the monster, psychic powers, and more

Unfortunately, I missed huge chunks of last night’s show (one of my kids is sick with chicken pox).  As a result, I can’t say much about “Some Like it Hoth,” other than to say it seemed to have been a great showcase for Ken Leung (aka Miles) to show off his acting chops.  As for real-world references . . . umm, didn’t it seem like the teenaged Miles’s spiky-hairdo was a reference to Leung’s character in X-Men 3, who had the power to cover himself in porcupine quills?  Maybe?  (Like I said – I’ve got nothing this week.)

While I catch up on the events of last night’s episode, here’s a theory-in-progress for you all to chew on.

The Grand Unifying Theory about the Monster, the infection, The Black Rock, the black rocks, Locke’s spinal recovery, Locke's weather predictions, the strange visions, the psychic powers, the time-travel, the vaccine, the unexplained rashes, and more

The following theory is scruffy and imperfect, but I have a strong hunch it's on the right track.

First thoughts on "Dead is Dead"

Today, I’ll just offer a few preliminary thoughts on last night’s episode “Dead is Dead,” which I’ll expand upon between now and next Wednesday.

The characters' reactions to Ben being shot

Here's a little something I've been putting together for my own interest: A comparison between how the characters on Lost react to Ben being shot, and how their real-life counterparts reacted to the shooting-down of Neoconservatives' plans for attacking Iran.

It's just a sketch -- me thinking aloud, trying to make a little bit of sense of my own mind -- but I thought I'd post it for all of you, so I can get your input.

A few more thoughts on "What Happened, Happened"

 

I've been a bit confused as to how this time-travel stuff fits into our allegorical reading of Lost.  How do we interpret this sudden jump back in time, and how des it fit into out timeline of real-life poilitical events?

Well, I've had a bit of a brainstorm, and I wanted to see what you guys thought of it. So, here it is.  (I'm still sorting out the explanation in my head, so excuse me if this seems a bit unrefined or jumbled.)     

First off, to get our bearings, let's take a super-abbreviated look at our time-line of political events from seasons one to four: 

First thoughts on "Whatever Happened, Happened"

Last night's episode, "Whatever Happened, Happened", was full of wonderful surprises -- surprises made even more wonderful for having little to do with monsters or time-travel or bizarre coincidences, and everything to do with character and humanity and genuinely affecting emotion.  After a lacklustre start to the season (one that, I must confess, had me wondering if the show was suddenly as far off course as Oceanic 815, and doomed to a similarly catastrophic fate), it was a thrill to finally see the characters revived from their season-five-stupors and back to interacting with each other in complex, urgent, and emotionally-credible ways.

Sayid's "preventive attack" on young Ben

In advance of tonight's new episode ("Whatever Happened, Happened"), here are a few thoughts on last week's potentially game-changing shooting of young Benjamin Linus.

Clearly, this event is going to be central to understanding season five, because it was foreshadowed in the season's opening episode, during this exchange at the future site of the Swan Station:

Enhanced Interrogation

While I love speculating about Lost's political connections, I don't normally feel comfortable speculating about Lost's political positions.

Nevertheless, after seeing last week's episode -- "He's Our You", in which Sayid was submitted to yet another of Lost's many examples of harsh interrogation -- I feel pretty comfortable making the following speculation: The makers of Lost don't support America's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Here's how I came to that idea.

Time-travelling back a few weeks to "LaFleur". . .

[NOTE: If you're wondering why there are words on the Statue of Liberty photo above -- yes, it's because I'm too cheap to buy the photo.]

A few weeks ago, I suggested that the castaways' sighting of the giant statue was reminiscent of early-twentieth century American immigrants seeing the Statue of Liberty as they were taken for processing at Ellis Island.  In response, sharp-eyed reader Michel one-upped me and suggested that the statue was only the tip of the immigration iceberg, because the entire episode was about the experiences of American immigrants.

Well, I've re-watched the episode and have had to kick myself, because Michel's right -- "LaFleur" was riddled with references to the issue of immigration.  I missed them the first time because, unlike the preceding episodes from season five, "La Fleur" was so good that I got lost in the plot and forgot to look for allegorical stuff.  Thank goodness I've got you guys to keep me on track!

So, here's a list of some of the immigration-related connections I spotted when I revisited the episode.  See if you agree with them, and let me know if there are other examples I've missed.

"He's Our You" and other switcheroos

This morning, I’ll quickly introduce a few ideas about the last three episodes – “LaFleur”, “Namaste”, and “He’s Our You”.  I’ll be expanding on these and other ideas over the next week.

(By the way, I've had some time open up over the next two weeks, so expect a flurry of activity to make up for the recent lack of flurry.)

The last three episodes have employed a technique we haven’t talked about for a while – a little something I call the “switcheroo”.  A switcheroo happens when a character on Lost is forced to experience something that, in real-life, their counterpart did to other people. 

Giant statues and new beginnings

I've been real busy lately, so can't comment much on last night's episode -- "La Fleur" -- other than to say that, after what has been a pretty lackluster season so far, last night's episode was a welcome return to what Lost does best: heartfelt character studies. 

At long last, after weeks of acting like mere pawns on a sci-fi chessboard, the characters are finally acting like peopleagain.  Everyone was in top form last night -- and not just major characters like Sawyer and Juliet (who truly shone), but also minor characters like Faraday, Alpert and, much to my surprise, Horace Goodspeed.  The end result was an episode that thrilled not by being exciting and suspenseful, but by being, well, downright lovely.

So, that was the shot in the arm I needed to re-inspire me to put the pedal to the floor again.  I'll put something up on the weekend, ready for Monday, and we'll see what we can accomplish during the two-week hiatus before the next episode.

Actually, before I go, let me just throw one idea out there for you all. 

I love it when Lost makes the familiar seem bizarre, and the show pulled off a classic one of those last night.  Remember the shot of the statue, looming into the sky?  My first reaction was, "Whoa, that's weird."  But then my second reaction was, "Whoa, come to think of it, that's actually not so weird after all," because I suddenly remembered having seen something similar before, in real-life, when I visited the giant, shoeless, waterside statue known as the Statue of Liberty.

Is Lost trying to remind us of something, here?  Years ago, the Statue of Liberty was the first thing new immigrants would see when they arrived in the USA, and for them, that majestic figure represented the opportunity for a new life.  That's an awful lot like the situation Sawyer and company found themselves in last night's episode -- they saw a majestic statue just before their final time-jump, then they started their lives anew with the DHARMA Initiative, with new names, new hopes, and new opportunities.  Just like American immigrants.  For just a moment, castaway-island and Ellis Island became one and the same. 

Sorry to be so brief, but that's all I have time for today.  I'll be back after the weekend, so stay tuned.

P.S.  Check out this interesting quote discovered by one of our readers, Richard.  It's a good one!

Course Correction Part Two: Locke's Socks

I don't have time to say much about this week's episode, "316," but here's a quick pair of ideas that interested me, and might interest you.

Forcing a Course Correction

Much to my pleasure, the events in this episode played nicely into my current preoccupation with "course correction", because the process by which the castaways return to the Island is, in essence, a form of artificial course correction.  This time, instead of it being mysterious forces trying to get events back to the way they were supposed to be, it's the castaways who are trying to put things back the way they used to be.  In the same way that course correction tries to restore the status quo ante, the castaways are looking for a way to get back to the way things were before.  What they want is a do-over, and the only way to get that is to "do-over" (as best they can) the conditions of the original flight.  So might the castways be creating their own version of a course correction?  And if the original crash was a course correction too, then are they trying to create a simulation of a simulation of some even earlier flight (one that some of their parents or other people close to them might have been on)? 

Locke's Socks

Remember Jack changing Locke's shoes?  Well, on a whim, I googled "Locke's socks," and got a nice surprise.  Check out this link.  It turns out that the philosopher John Locke was wondering whether proxies create paradoxes.  Using the example of a sock that receives so many patches that none of the original material remains, Locke pondered whether or not something retains its original identity if its component parts have been substituted with new but identical-looking parts.  Hmm, that sounds kind of familiar -- kind of like the Ajira flight on this week's episode, in which the component parts (the passengers, the plane, and so on) resemble those of the original Oceanic flight, but don't quite add up to the original itself.  Is this Lost's way of saying that, just as you can repair a sock but can't regard it as the same sock you started with, you can repair mistakes but can't truly restore things to the way they were before?  In other words, are Locke's socks a clue that you can never truly restore the status quo ante, that no course correction is ever seamless, that you can't just patch things up and act as if everything's back to normal, as if the mistakes never happened at all?

***

Just the seeds of ideas, I know -- but maybe if we keep an eye on them they'll end up sprouting. 

I'll be back after the weekend, with that stuff I promised regarding the infection, and the monster.  See you then!