|
Post by Nickim on Jan 14, 2005 10:42:42 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. What he said.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Jan 14, 2005 10:47:00 GMT -5
No one is a legitimate leader at this point if we're looking for elections. But given the role he's taken and played willingly, he is a leader in the group as much as Jack is. I think his expectation is commensurate with that; but, I don't see that he's necessarily lording himself. On the other hand, I could sympathize with his lack of incentive of late to hunt for pigs people appreciate for five seconds and forget. I found Hurley's commentary on the recent lack of pork and bemoaning of having to fish for himself to be interesting to say the least. And he's one of my favorites. Some people lead and some people get elected to something. Being elected doesn't make one a leader - nor does being a leader necessarily get one elected. Six of one - half dozen of another. For the time being in a bad situation, he's taken the initiative to try and do right by the rest - that's good enough for me. Plus, as Jack said, there's plenty of fruit to eat. Be grateful for what you have, instead of whining about what you don't have. We've never seen Hurley never offering to help learn to hunt boar or skin and butcher it.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Jan 14, 2005 10:51:20 GMT -5
I remember discussion here questioning that decision of Jack's and the others on the mountain hike - some talk of how we all learned THAT lesson from Buffy - keeping secrets from the group is A VERY BAD THING. You're right, I remember that, too, but no one accused Jack of trying to play god or mislead anyone. It would be very interesting to know what the island showed Locke. I'm sure that vision has influenced all the things he's done since. Whether those things turn out to be evil or good still remains to be seen. We wouldn't want to know too quickly or the series would be over. I just hope that the mysteries on Lost don't fall apart the way the ones on X-Files did.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Jan 14, 2005 10:53:07 GMT -5
I bet 7 people have posted this but hey... Sun didn't say she couldn't lie to him. She said 'I love him. Haven't you ever lied to someone you love?' And I understand what she means. Sometimes if you lie bad enough, telling them the truth seems such a hurtful thing to do. Jin believed Sun was going away with him and gave her that little flower in the airport as a symbol of starting over - how hard to tell him now that she knows English - and she learned it in order to leave him. She still should tell him though, and hope that she can explain in such a way that he understands both her unhappiness before and how much she loves him now. This is exactly how I see it too, Patti. I do think that it's time for some "English lessons," though.
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Jan 14, 2005 11:46:02 GMT -5
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.) On your initial statement, this is an opinion, is it not? I'm not arguing that you or others don't see it that way - nor am I either infringing upon your right to believe it or it's validity. My position approaches the question from a standpoint of evil is evil regardless of the label. Without arguing validity in opposition to any other worldview, it is simply another worldview. Thus consenting to one evil act is equal to consenting with another evil act no matter what label one places on the act. Logically at this point arises our empasse. And rather than argue that one is superior to the other, which is not my place, I merely say that it is another view and equally as valid and leave it there. It is neither an assault, an accusation, or necessarily reason for argument. It is just a logical derivative of the worldview with implications different from your own. I didn't think I'd be able to get my brain around that distinction this morning without causing a stir. But there it is.
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Jan 14, 2005 12:16:37 GMT -5
... 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.) Locke is one of my favorites on the show up to now; but, I'm with you to an extent that subject to later revelations, I could be cutting Locke more slack than he deserves. Like Vlad, I can play devil's advocate now and again. And right now, I'm doing so for Locke because he didn't argue his point. He didn't fill Boone up with his own opinions. He did assault Boone and that could be a matter of Locke defending his interests - self defense as it were. so Boone's own perceptions are what ultimately changed Boone's mind - not Locke's opinions. This is where my logic says Locke did things; but, what's the rest of the story. Is it evil in and of itself because there are no further details? He did do some things I don't necessarily agree with. Evil is evil IMO and in my worldview the label on it is not the only inconsequential part - who is doing it is also inconsequential. If Locke is ultimately wrong - he's wrong - period. At that point, we are left with figuring out what it means to everything else going on. You bring up the notion of "checks and balances" on different issues where people have kept secrets. Sawyer doesn't know what's in the case full of guns. In fact, the most dangerous situation yet is shared between Jack and Kate exclusively. No checks or balances if that is necessarily valid. I'm not sure it stands up; but, to the extent it does, it is also violated. And this is an ongoing coverup that has been revisited even as it appaers to get worse. . for right or wrong. And I'm glad we agree there that the secret in some of these instances is potentially damaging and at least wrong. No argument there. I simply would draw a distinction between what the whole has a right to know vs what they do not. The whole group has no right to Locke and Boone's secret because the find belongs to Locke and Boone IMO just as the Book Watership down was found by Sawyer and belonged henceforth to him. Nobody particularly had a right to know he even had it unless it belonged to someone present - at which point it becomes a moral issue to be resolved by him. The hatch didn't come with the plane, so it isn't arguable that it belonged to any on the flight in. So possession kicks in. And unless something arises that the rest are affected by directly - it's none of their business. Keeping it quiet at that point is protecting self interest and nothing more IMO. So the only issue I see as debateably worth knowing is that Boone and Locke had an argument and Locke did something we don't generally agree with or think right. Remember, Boone's choice was not between following Locke or Sayid, Locke or Jack, Locke or any other potential leader on the island. Boone's choice was between listening to his partner in a find or betraying his partner to his sister who had no stake in it. If Boone is a disciple to a cause - it is merely to the cause he'd already signed on for and was on the brink of betraying. Can it have larger implications? Sure, but I don't see that yet. Especially considering that if you assume Locke means to have Boone follow him to the exclusion of Sayid, Locke has already noted they need Sayid on their side later.. that doesn't preclude Sayid being a leader in much less the leader. Awful lot of ground to cover there IMO. But the possibilities are fun.
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Jan 14, 2005 12:21:34 GMT -5
Plus, as Jack said, there's plenty of fruit to eat. Be grateful for what you have, instead of whining about what you don't have. We've never seen Hurley never offering to help learn to hunt boar or skin and butcher it. Yep. To be fair to Hurley, that might not be his thing or he may not be able to hunt boar, etc. So, his whining isn't necessarily without merit to some extent. If I can't have steak, I may whine about it; but, it doesn't mean I can get it for the moment. Just found it interesting for a momentary insight. We all do it at some point LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Jan 14, 2005 12:45:21 GMT -5
On your initial statement, this is an opinion, is it not? I'm not arguing that you or others don't see it that way - nor am I either infringing upon your right to believe it or it's validity. My position approaches the question from a standpoint of evil is evil regardless of the label. Without arguing validity in opposition to any other worldview, it is simply another worldview. Thus consenting to one evil act is equal to consenting with another evil act no matter what label one places on the act. Logically at this point arises our empasse. And rather than argue that one is superior to the other, which is not my place, I merely say that it is another view and equally as valid and leave it there. It is neither an assault, an accusation, or necessarily reason for argument. It is just a logical derivative of the worldview with implications different from your own. I didn't think I'd be able to get my brain around that distinction this morning without causing a stir. But there it is. Ah, but therein lies a question: is manipulating someone in and of itself necessarily an evil act? Parents tell their kids about Santa Claus and then do stuff like eating the snack the kids left for him to help sell them on the notion that Santa Claus is real. So in essence, they've manipulated their children into believing a lie. Was that an evil thing to do? An illusionist like David Copperfield manipulates people every time he performs, playing with their perceptions and expectations. Is he evil? (Granted, the answer to that question also depends on what you think of his hair and musical selections) Or take the matter of lying. In the context of the show we've seen all sort of lies, and yet not all of them are equal--or necessarily evil. We had the kind of lies Sawyer would feed to the women he gulled--lies intended to deceive and with hurtful consequences for all concerned. But then we had Charlie lying to Claire about the peanut butter he was "eating." No malice intended there, just an attempt to make a friend smile. Both men lied, and yet their lies--as well as their intentions--were as different as white stones and black ones. Looked at another way, saying that "consenting to one evil act is equal to consenting with another evil act no matter what label one places on the act" would mean that because Claire played along with Charlie's peanut butter-jar manipulation (if we're defining manipulation as an evil act regardless of the circumstances), she therefore has consented to letting someone force her to engage in sexual intercourse. Or that Kate has done the same because she helped rob a bank, as I'm presuming theft would also count as an evil action. Or that Sawyer had no right to fight his own torture because he used and manipulated dozens of women. Sorry, but I'm afraid in my worldview that just doesn't track for me. I see the world as having degrees of evil--and of goodness, for that matter. I think intention does matter, and can make what seems like an awful thing on the surface more understandable once there's a context. For example, the way you reacted to Shannon's actions might strike the casual observer as somewhat harsh, or even extreme; once that same person learns you were involved in a similar situation, it casts an entirely different light on your commentary. Or, to be fair, the way I tend to see Boone as somewhat culpable in what happened to him is undoubtedly affected by my having been used by more than one friend in the past, all the while able to see the pattern yet not wanting to end things and be lonely once again. So I tend to feel that nothing happens in a vacuum, and thus can be categorized as purely one thing or another; to me, the more you know about a person or their actions, the more things can slide from black and white into shades of gray. Delicious ambiguity, as my sig line says.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 14, 2005 13:25:59 GMT -5
Ah, but therein lies a question: is manipulating someone in and of itself necessarily an evil act? Parents tell their kids about Santa Claus and then do stuff like eating the snack the kids left for him to help sell them on the notion that Santa Claus is real. So in essence, they've manipulated their children into believing a lie. Was that an evil thing to do? An illusionist like David Copperfield manipulates people every time he performs, playing with their perceptions and expectations. Is he evil? (Granted, the answer to that question also depends on what you think of his hair and musical selections) Or take the matter of lying. In the context of the show we've seen all sort of lies, and yet not all of them are equal--or necessarily evil. We had the kind of lies Sawyer would feed to the women he gulled--lies intended to deceive and with hurtful consequences for all concerned. But then we had Charlie lying to Claire about the peanut butter he was "eating." No malice intended there, just an attempt to make a friend smile. Both men lied, and yet their lies--as well as their intentions--were as different as white stones and black ones. Looked at another way, saying that "consenting to one evil act is equal to consenting with another evil act no matter what label one places on the act" would mean that because Claire played along with Charlie's peanut butter-jar manipulation (if we're defining manipulation as an evil act regardless of the circumstances), she therefore has consented to letting someone force her to engage in sexual intercourse. Or that Kate has done the same because she helped rob a bank, as I'm presuming theft would also count as an evil action. Or that Sawyer had no right to fight his own torture because he used and manipulated dozens of women. Sorry, but I'm afraid in my worldview that just doesn't track for me. I see the world as having degrees of evil--and of goodness, for that matter. I think intention does matter, and can make what seems like an awful thing on the surface more understandable once there's a context. For example, the way you reacted to Shannon's actions might strike the casual observer as somewhat harsh, or even extreme; once that same person learns you were involved in a similar situation, it casts an entirely different light on your commentary. Or, to be fair, the way I tend to see Boone as somewhat culpable in what happened to him is undoubtedly affected by my having been used by more than one friend in the past, all the while able to see the pattern yet not wanting to end things and be lonely once again. So I tend to feel that nothing happens in a vacuum, and thus can be categorized as purely one thing or another; to me, the more you know about a person or their actions, the more things can slide from black and white into shades of gray. Delicious ambiguity, as my sig line says. And the Planetary Voice of Reason once again expresses what I was wanting to say in a clear and concise fashion, without the vague and unnattractive spluttering and face-reddening I would have had!! Brava, Sara! and Eetah!!!
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Jan 14, 2005 14:38:33 GMT -5
Ah, but therein lies a question: is manipulating someone in and of itself necessarily an evil act? Parents tell their kids about Santa Claus and then do stuff like eating the snack the kids left for him to help sell them on the notion that Santa Claus is real. So in essence, they've manipulated their children into believing a lie. Was that an evil thing to do? An illusionist like David Copperfield manipulates people every time he performs, playing with their perceptions and expectations. Is he evil? (Granted, the answer to that question also depends on what you think of his hair and musical selections) Or take the matter of lying. In the context of the show we've seen all sort of lies, and yet not all of them are equal--or necessarily evil. We had the kind of lies Sawyer would feed to the women he gulled--lies intended to deceive and with hurtful consequences for all concerned. But then we had Charlie lying to Claire about the peanut butter he was "eating." No malice intended there, just an attempt to make a friend smile. Both men lied, and yet their lies--as well as their intentions--were as different as white stones and black ones. Looked at another way, saying that "consenting to one evil act is equal to consenting with another evil act no matter what label one places on the act" would mean that because Claire played along with Charlie's peanut butter-jar manipulation (if we're defining manipulation as an evil act regardless of the circumstances), she therefore has consented to letting someone force her to engage in sexual intercourse. Or that Kate has done the same because she helped rob a bank, as I'm presuming theft would also count as an evil action. Or that Sawyer had no right to fight his own torture because he used and manipulated dozens of women. Sorry, but I'm afraid in my worldview that just doesn't track for me. I see the world as having degrees of evil--and of goodness, for that matter. I think intention does matter, and can make what seems like an awful thing on the surface more understandable once there's a context. For example, the way you reacted to Shannon's actions might strike the casual observer as somewhat harsh, or even extreme; once that same person learns you were involved in a similar situation, it casts an entirely different light on your commentary. Or, to be fair, the way I tend to see Boone as somewhat culpable in what happened to him is undoubtedly affected by my having been used by more than one friend in the past, all the while able to see the pattern yet not wanting to end things and be lonely once again. So I tend to feel that nothing happens in a vacuum, and thus can be categorized as purely one thing or another; to me, the more you know about a person or their actions, the more things can slide from black and white into shades of gray. Delicious ambiguity, as my sig line says. But again, you're talking about difference of opinion and of world view. I'm not trying to convince you that mine's better, so no apology needed nor does it need to track. The only thing required is respect for the point of view - hopefully no more or less than I have given for yours. I understand degrees of culpability and simply disagree with it for myself. So my response to it would probably mirror your response to my view. Again, a matter of respectful disagreement that will just have to stand.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 14, 2005 16:16:20 GMT -5
I think I've got it! The writers are the evil ones! ;D
One of my co-workers happened to mention that he and his wife watch "Lost". He had missed seeing the big roaring thing (BRT?) and we were trying to describe it to him. I saw a huge hopping rabbit. Kelli said she only caught a glimpse and couldn't describe it.
He said that he and his wife had a theory that all of the people we've seen so far (except for Rose -as far as we know anyway) were on that plane because of something out of the norm happened to each of them that made them *have* to take that flight to LA. They were all flying for unexpected reasons. Like havoc said - Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans.
Locke - was supposed to be on a walk - but they wouldn't let him go, so they bought a ticket for him to go back home. Unexpected.
Michael and Walter - Walt's mom died, so he had to come to live with his dad. Unexpected.
Jack - his dad died and he had to bring the body home. Etc.
Kate - arrested.
Claire - got pregnant accidentally,which led to her eventually going to LA. Incidentally, if she had listened to the palm reader, she would've raised her baby on her own and not left home.
Charlie - going to LA because his brother left the band? Hmm. Not sure if this fits.
Hurley - don't know his story yet.
Boone/Shannon - Shannon's con game.
Sawyer - Running from his last screwed up con?
Sun and Jin. ?
The pilot died because it was no accident that he was on the plane. Same as the Sheriff. It was their jobs.
And as far as we know, there aren't any flight attendents.
I'm sure I'm missing someone. Oh, yeah. Sayid. Hmm. Not sure why he was on the flight.
Don't know what it means, but it was interesting to think about.
|
|
|
Post by madam delurker on Jan 14, 2005 18:58:15 GMT -5
???sorry too tired to read the whole thread, but 3 guesses to the origin of Hurley's nickname and the first 2 don't count?
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Jan 14, 2005 19:24:48 GMT -5
But again, you're talking about difference of opinion and of world view. I'm not trying to convince you that mine's better, so no apology needed nor does it need to track. The only thing required is respect for the point of view - hopefully no more or less than I have given for yours. I understand degrees of culpability and simply disagree with it for myself. So my response to it would probably mirror your response to my view. Again, a matter of respectful disagreement that will just have to stand. Charlie can fit. He expected his brother to come back to the band, but his brother declined, which Charlie didn't expect.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Jan 14, 2005 19:35:20 GMT -5
You're right, I remember that, too, but no one accused Jack of trying to play god or mislead anyone. It would be very interesting to know what the island showed Locke. I'm sure that vision has influenced all the things he's done since. Whether those things turn out to be evil or good still remains to be seen. We wouldn't want to know too quickly or the series would be over. I just hope that the mysteries on Lost don't fall apart the way the ones on X-Files did. I have confidence that 'Lost' will not go that way. Both Abrams and Fury know how to make good tv and have been doing it a long time. I was never a fan of X-files but I remember reading that Joss Whedon was, and that he was very disappointed in how that failed to resolve - I believe he said something about wanting to make sure BtVS didn't end like that. I thnk X-Files was a strong lesson to all TV producers and Directors - there's been more disappointment and anger over that show than anything since Bobby stepped out of the shower in 'Dallas'. I'd wager.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 14, 2005 19:42:12 GMT -5
???sorry too tired to read the whole thread, but 3 guesses to the origin of Hurley's nickname and the first 2 don't count? Hi, madame delurker. Here's my guess: He's supposed to be Elizabeth Hurley's brother?
|
|