|
Post by Lola m on Jan 13, 2005 21:56:10 GMT -5
Just stopping by before I go to bed (it's pointless to do anything else at this point - cough, cough, sniffle, ooh my achey self). So, interesting discussion from everyone, can't possibly comment on it all at this point, but glad that I wasn't completely out in left field with review. Thanks, Spring for the lovely comments on my review. I will respond in more detail later when I have a brain again. Well, presuming that happens. Now, everyone! Stop arguing over the same points and go read my review and then come back here and lie through your teeth about how good I am. ;D **makes puppy eyes** Lola **cough, cough, is it time for more drugs?, cough** Will try to check in tomorrow with replies and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Jan 13, 2005 22:02:30 GMT -5
Lola, good review! I liked the way you picked up on parallels between the flashbacks and the current action, and Locke's Michaelangelo story and his molding of Boone, and all.
All the reviewers are doing a great job, and I wish I had the time and focus to comment on each one individually, but thanks, all of you!
Shoes, hee!
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Jan 13, 2005 22:07:15 GMT -5
If he's not playing God, why'd he go and get himself an apostle? Whether Locke and Boone feel it's anyone else's business? You mean, you think Boone's gonna get a say? OK. These are just rhetorical questions, cause I do believe that in this point there is an impasse. Though I have enjoyed the discussion about all this stuff. As for thanking me for "clearing things up:" I never said anything that began to imply "rape victims are co-aggresors." I didn't clear anything up; I didn't have to. I repeated what I'd already said. I just don't want to leave standing an impression that I, in any way, implied rape-victims were co-aggressors. I never did. Not in any way. Is he an apostle, or a partner in a find? And does it make him an apostle to join fiver and the others or is he just moving from the old warren that is destined for ruin to the new one where life is promising. I don't see Locke protecting his own interests in the find as playing god or hunting apostles. This is just going way past me on the evidence. As to clearing things up, you did, I think, remove from my mind the implication that I was getting which seemed to say people who are used are as guilty as the user. The example I called on to clear that up is not what you said, but akin to it IMO. As you've rebuffed it, I'd say it's moot.. I felt I was misunderstanding you in any case so it was clarification for me.
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Jan 13, 2005 22:15:36 GMT -5
Other than the fact that you are trying to blame Spring and Sara for your lousy analogies, I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that bolded part. As I'm intrigued, could you restate that thesis in English? Lousy analogy? Blaming Spring and Sara? No, and I think this is where I beg out. I assigned blame to no-one but myself at this point for misunderstanding what they were saying. And qeustioned rather than accusing while noting my own opinions. And this doesn't need to devolve so I'll quit.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 13, 2005 22:25:57 GMT -5
<snip> As to clearing things up, you did, I think, remove from my mind the implication that I was getting which seemed to say people who are used are as guilty as the user. The example I called on to clear that up is not what you said, but akin to it IMO. As you've rebuffed it, I'd say it's moot.. I felt I was misunderstanding you in any case so it was clarification for me. I felt my words were wildly twisted, even though they were clear as bell. "People are responsible for their own actions and aren't puppets on a string" became "people are responsible for being used, and rape victims are co-aggressors." Here is my request: I would like you to make an effort to be more careful about that in the future - about not twisting my words, I mean. That is really the most important point I am trying to get across. On that, I don't think I was 100% clear. Hence this post. No hard feelings, honestly, and perfection not required or being requested. Night, all. May I sleep the sleep of the knocked unconscious!
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Jan 13, 2005 23:42:41 GMT -5
I felt my words were wildly twisted, even though they were clear as bell. "People are responsible for their own actions and aren't puppets on a string" became "people are responsible for being used, and rape victims are co-aggressors." Here is my request: I would like you to make an effort to be more careful about that in the future - about not twisting my words, I mean. That is really the most important point I am trying to get across. On that, I don't think I was 100% clear. Hence this post. No hard feelings, honestly, and perfection not required or being requested. Night, all. May I sleep the sleep of the knocked unconscious! Me too
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jan 14, 2005 0:20:22 GMT -5
Lola:
I promise to read your review tomorrow!
Feel better, bucky!
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 14, 2005 0:50:41 GMT -5
Lola - Your review rocked! Nice job on filling in some of the blanks for me. I totally missed the clues that we were seeing dream!Boone and Shannon.
LOL! Claire has to be getting close to having the baby. I can't wait to find out what turns up in her diary next week.
I agree about the scenes you pointed out that seemed natural to you. The group seems to be settling in nicely and cooperating for the time being. The individuals seems to be finding their niche - their contribution to the whole.
Thanks for helping Vlad out this week! Take care of your cold. {{Lola}}
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jan 14, 2005 1:32:55 GMT -5
*strokes Linda's pretty brain* Box company! Brilliant! See, the thing that bugs me is that he gave Charlie a choice and helped him out a great deal. That's totally awesome. But what he did to Boone was a completely different animal. Perhaps Charlie represents the "white chip" side and Boone the "black chip" side of Locke's personality? Awwww, thanks => happy blushy smiley Oooh, yeah, light and dark! Cool! Actually, I see light and dark in both of these instances. But the proportions are vastly different in both cases. Locke gave Charley a choice, up to a point. Two of Charley's of-his-own-free-willl-choices: giving his heroin to Locke in the first place & burning the bag when Locke finally gave back it to him. But Locke pretty much manipulated the availability of choices IMO. (And he *did* say "no" to Charley's first two asks.) But Charley is much better off without the heroin. Absolutely no argument there. (And after reading Lola's review, I think that it could be a sign that Locke is only recently moving further and further into the darkness.) And, independent of Locke's methods, I believe that Boone is better off without his fixation on Shannon. But Locke's method: bad, IMO. Boone's epiphany was that he was relieved when Shannon died. At least Charley got himself a boost of self-worth during his trial by fire, which was the underlying cause of his addiction. As Lola asked in her review: What did we (and Boone) really learn from the epiphany? Does he know why he was so fixated in the first place? Does love explain it all? And if it does, will it now twist into something dangerous? Oh, and Boone's final choice of the episode: to follow Locke. I think that the jury's still out on Charley's decision whether or not to follow Locke, despite his stated trust. Hmmm. In writing this, I realized that Locke's two "apostles" (or potential "apostle" in Charley's case), have addictive personalities. And their breaks away from their respective addictions were facilitated by Locke and the Island. Oooh! And what does it mean that Jack saved both Boone's and Charley's lives in the course of the series? (Twice in Charley's case?) Oooh! And the first time that Jack saved Charley's life, it was *from* the Big Roaring Thing. While Locke actually "sacrifices" Boone *to* it. Huh. Come to think of it, Locke had his Yoda moment with Jack, too. But Jack is not feeling all that much beholden to Locke. Is it because Jack's problem was *not* addiction? Is it because the Island hasn't given Jack closure yet? Is it because Jack is dealing with his father issues on his own and not Locke's terms? Is it because Jack is thinking of the greater good? Is it because Locke hadn't yet taken his steps into the Dark Side? (Yeah, I know, loaded question.) Must have a think. Linda, hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jan 14, 2005 1:41:32 GMT -5
Just stopping by before I go to bed (it's pointless to do anything else at this point - cough, cough, sniffle, ooh my achey self). So, interesting discussion from everyone, can't possibly comment on it all at this point, but glad that I wasn't completely out in left field with review. Thanks, Spring for the lovely comments on my review. I will respond in more detail later when I have a brain again. Well, presuming that happens. Now, everyone! Stop arguing over the same points and go read my review and then come back here and lie through your teeth about how good I am. ;D **makes puppy eyes** Lola **cough, cough, is it time for more drugs?, cough** Will try to check in tomorrow with replies and so on. Lola! Excellent review. Eetah with what Spring and Karen and Anne said. Your review was entertaining and insightful. And you brought up a *lot* of things that I didn't notice. Especially with the connections between the flashbacks and the present day stuff. Kudos! (Oh and a special bow for the "shoes-of-sublimated-sex." Hee!) And eeetah with your take on Locke. Complete with the eerie "follow me" at the end of the ep. Your review almost makes up for your absence yesterday from the discussion thread! Missed your posts. The review is all very well, but your individual posts and responses to other posts are vital to my appreciation of Lost! Please take care of yourself so that you can post more feel better! Linda, why yes, it's all about me my concern for your health!
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jan 14, 2005 2:17:17 GMT -5
I felt that the "useless" statement was more a commentary on who she was to Boone at that point rather than what she was doing in general - which was largely just sitting on the beach reading magazines - so I could see it either way. Some people make themselves useful, on the latter score, without being asked - they see something needing done and do it. Others won't act till they're asked or told and sometimes not even then. Some people have an excuse for everything.. From Boone's perspective, she'd used him and done him pretty raw, what has she done different since being there on the island. I seem to remember using Charlie over some fish. Rather indefensable. So from Boone's perspective - useless is a fairly accurate descriptive. Why do we expect that what she's doing with Sayid is any different than what she did to Charlie? How is it that she suddenly has more say in the hatch than Lock? How does Locke become the bad guy for ruling her out of a situation that largely is none of her business to begin with. Simple matter of perspective to me; but, again, my opinion.. Hi Havoc! Regarding the bolded item: The one difference in the situation that I see is that in Charley's case Shannon asked for his help and in Sayid's case, he asked for hers. One of small but consistent things that has been shown about Shannon in the series is that she comes through when something is asked of her. As Sara pointed out, she came through when she needed to light the triangulation signal rocket. And, reluctantly, she also came through for the original transceiver signal translation. In Sayid's case, he needed her help and she gave it. And, most promisingly, she even came back to tell him what the scribbled words meant even after he had pissed her off. A case could be made that this is her usual MO, but I just don't see the guy she was with in Sydney being the ask-for-help type. And it could acutally serve as her yin-virtue to Boone's yang-issue of always coming to her rescue. Linda, but of course this is all conjecture until we get her half of the backstory P.S. Oh, and until I know what Shannon's issues are (besides frustrated entitlement), I will hold onto the hope that she is eventually redeemable. P.P.S. Maybe because I haven't given up on Sawyer, whose sins and one virtue run in a similar vein to hers. The main difference, that I see so far, is that he made the moral choice to stop his confidence game when the cost became too high. But what was the damage he did before that point? His self-loathing has not yet turned to atonement that I can see. Yet. His feelings for Kate may help him to become a better person. Just as Shannon's feelings for Sayid may help her. Or they are doppelgangers and one must fail for the other to succeed. (I vote for Sawyer to succeed, but that may admittedly just be lust that I understand his issues better. )
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jan 14, 2005 2:48:04 GMT -5
I think you're right on the Woundwort point, That I had not remembered; but it sounds familiar now that you put a name to it. Leaders are not always elected - they're asked to assume roles or naturally fill roles that other people either accept or reject. Jack wasn't elected to anything either; but, some felt he was doing ok and let him go on with it. And so far, Jack and Lock have worked together on things - not as rivals. I've been manipulated and it was not my point to be so treated. Nor was I a willing party to being manipulated. I was a willing party to what I thought was going on - a developing relationship or friendship. And I had to learn the difference with no input or scant input from anyone else. I became prey because I was green and expected the best from people instead of what others would define as acceptable because I didn't see it coming and should have. So, I'd take issue with your summation. People don't generally sign up to be manipulated. They sign up for other things and get manipulated. And it's not particularly their fault if they're decent and uncolored by the lack thereof in others IMO. Hi Havoc! It's me again! And your post proves that you are nowhere near as messed up as Boone. You didn't *choose* to be manipulated. But Boone did. (I will be happy to delete this post if it just makes things worse, with sincere apologies for any offense.) I agree that Shannon's manipulations were reprehensible. Thing is, Boone, *knew* that Shannon was lying and manipulative**. And he chose to have sex with her right after she was fully exposed as such. He had a choice. Fully informed. This is *not* excusing Shannon's behavior. This is only pointing out that Boone had a choice. And Locke specifically made a point to mention that Boone didn't like the way Shannon made him feel when he lied to her. If Boone had been able to face and work out for himself the hows and the whys of what Shannon made him feel, then she probably wouldn't have been able to manipulate him so thoroughly. (The denial of his feelings did not help him at all.) And relief wouldn't have been his primary emotion in the event of her death. If I know that my feelings are leading me astray, then I can try to choose to act counter to them. I make the choice about what is more important. Sometimes it's a serious choice about what kind of person I would like to be versus how I feel when I'm with someone. Sometimes it works out perfectly fine if you go with your feelings. Sometimes, not so fine. And sometimes you need outside help to do what you feel you must. But, IMO, it only really works if you *ask* for the help. IMO, Charley asked for help with his addiction and Boone didn't. (So I'm uncertain about how free Boone really is.) Linda, and yes, I *know* all this is easier said than done ** Edited to remove character bashing phrase. I apologize to anyone I have offended. It was not my intention to denigrate this character. I was very careless in my wording.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jan 14, 2005 4:11:14 GMT -5
As someone else pointed out, how is it different from keeping the pilot secret. How is it different from Jack deciding to keep Kate's past secret from everyone when she is probably more of a danger to everyone than anyone else on the island? How many people has Jack told about a briefcase full of guns and ammo? Who's playing God? I am still a little taken aback by the notion that people who get used are responsible for being used. It's akin to saying the person raped is not the victim but a co-aggressor. Just doesn't compute IMO. So I'll have to agree to disagree on this. And thank you for the discussion as well. It's been well beyond engaging and I think quite productive. I actually halfway feel like I have some clue what's happening on this show tonight - for once LOL. Umm… Taking away all choices: very, very, very bad. Rape falls into this category. Manipulation also takes away choices. But not all of the choices. And the way to ensure the best choice: Information. The more, the better. Seriously. Including self-knowledge. The more, the better of that, especially. And the above also relates to why I'm worried about Locke more than Jack or Kate or Sayid. I *don't* know what Locke's ultimate goal is. But I don't doubt that he *has* a goal. It could be for the good of all. Or not. Dunno. The fact that he no longer relies on an outside compass and the fact that his pre-Island personality was not so balanced, makes me think that he could very easily go skipping down the Woundwort-brick road. The fact that he withholds information just makes it easier for him to carry out his purposes. Good *or* bad. No checks, no balances. Ripe for dictatorship. And thus the further withholding of choices. He overrode Boone's choice without Boone's consent. By the end of the episode, as a direct result of Locke's actions, Boone followed Locke's lead. Scary to me. For all that Jack and Sayid and company have withheld information, there *are* others who are in on their respective secrets. Hurley knows about Kate. Kate knows about the guns. Charley & Kate know about the pilot. Boone, Shannon, Sawyer, & Charley know about the 16 year transmission. So there are checks and balances of a sort. I believe they are all free to revisit the decision to keep or tell their secrets. Open to argument, of course, but still. Boone was not so free to disagree with Locke, IMO. Stupid or not, it *was* his decision. I would cut Locke a heck of a lot more slack if he had argued his point. But he didn't. The other secrets were a consensus decision by those in the know. In Hurley's case regarding Kate, I don't believe he was even asked by Jack to keep the secret. He just did. Neither, I believe did Jack ask Kate to keep quiet about the guns. (And Sun probably knows about them, too, come to think of it.) I agree with the other S'cubies that keeping secrets is *not* of the good, despite the best intentions. For any of them. I think that the various secrets could come back to haunt them all. Informed choice is the ideal to me. (Although I don't doubt that people will still make stupid decisions. But the alternative is Jasmine.) Locke is definitely moving away from this ideal. The others, well, I'll wait and see. I am willing to trust them a bit more because of the checks and balances that I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) to be in place. Linda, ideals differ, of course. P.S. Also, when they hit each other, it's face to face. (Sayid's triagulation incident is the exception, but that is unsolved for the moment.) P.P.S. Oh, and Sawyer's torture, also very, very, very bad. But also not a decision made by only one person. And Sawyer, too, made some spectacularly bad decisions which brought them to that point. Which he, IMO, tacitly acknowledged in his post-torture conversation with Sayid. And I don't believe that it will ever happen again. (From here on out, it will take a helluva lot to unbalance *that* check.)
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jan 14, 2005 4:16:57 GMT -5
I disagree with you. This episode. I think he helped Charlie a lot. And Boone - it's GOOD that he's not still unhealthily tied to his 'sister'. But I think Boone is now tied to Locke, without understanding what's going on and when we treat people as gods, that's a very bad thing. Trust me on that. Cause I know best. *grin* But! I think it's fun that there is disagreement. If we all got the same things out of every episode this would be a pretty boring and short thread. Instead of that, we're on ...page # 'a bunch' the day after! Yes! Patti knows best! *grovel* (You know, except for the whole Spike thing. ) Linda, it's written in the FAQ's, right? Or is it in the Rules?
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Jan 14, 2005 8:47:32 GMT -5
Hi Havoc! Regarding the bolded item: The one difference in the situation that I see is that in Charley's case Shannon asked for his help and in Sayid's case, he asked for hers. One of small but consistent things that has been shown about Shannon in the series is that she comes through when something is asked of her. As Sara pointed out, she came through when she needed to light the triangulation signal rocket. And, reluctantly, she also came through for the original transceiver signal translation. In Sayid's case, he needed her help and she gave it. And, most promisingly, she even came back to tell him what the scribbled words meant even after he had pissed her off. A case could be made that this is her usual MO, but I just don't see the guy she was with in Sydney being the ask-for-help type. And it could acutally serve as her yin-virtue to Boone's yang-issue of always coming to her rescue. Linda, but of course this is all conjecture until we get her half of the backstory P.S. Oh, and until I know what Shannon's issues are (besides frustrated entitlement), I will hold onto the hope that she is eventually redeemable. P.P.S. Maybe because I haven't given up on Sawyer, whose sins and one virtue run in a similar vein to hers. The main difference, that I see so far, is that he made the moral choice to stop his confidence game when the cost became too high. But what was the damage he did before that point? His self-loathing has not yet turned to atonement that I can see. Yet. His feelings for Kate may help him to become a better person. Just as Shannon's feelings for Sayid may help her. Or they are doppelgangers and one must fail for the other to succeed. (I vote for Sawyer to succeed, but that may admittedly just be lust that I understand his issues better. ) Good insights, thankyou. I wouldn't give up on Sawyer yet either. And I agree that Shannon has served some good on the island, which is why I say the character issues with her have to be seen in light of what is to come as well. I've tried playing devil's advocate with Locke because the whole picture is still really not there. And knowing his backstory tells us he can be obsessive - a demon I think he may or may not have slain on the island. And it's one major factor that I think could play heavily into the story if this all does come down to a war of the Conche shell. On the other hand, I am still really curious about what happened when he squared off with the island beast. The nature of that happenstance may weigh heavily.. but then, he's not the only one that's been there. . I think possibly that Watership down colors expectation to an extent that complicates the situations in an irreconcilable manner.. at least for now. While there are too few details overall, in this one area, I'd say there are too many clues in the room. Good stuff; but, want to string up the writers. They're definitely giving us all plenty of time to get the wrong impression on an abundance of missing information.
|
|