|
Post by Matthew on Mar 24, 2010 21:13:50 GMT -5
I don't think the priest who refused to grand Ricardo absolution was an accurate portrayal of 19th century Catholicism; but I'm not a Catholic...I"m not Catholic either, but the major complaint the Protestants have historically made about the Catholics is that they believe there is an element of "earning" absolution through penitence (works) rather than the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith (and nothing else). So that priest was undoubtedly not a great representative of the essence of true Catholicism, but he did still embody what is thought (by many) to be at least some elements of Catholic doctrine. Although maybe instead of straight to hell Richard would have gone to Purgatory (which is a theological construct that I know nothing about -- still I think the island would qualify.) No, standard doctrine in the Catholic church in the 1800s was to hear confession, grant absolution, and assign penance. They'd come a long way since the outrages that caused the reformation: even if there was still an emphasis on redemption through works, at that late date, people being executed were granted absolution and extreme unction. What the priest is doing is, I think, supposed to be an outrage. The fact that he's a slaver long after Spain abolished the slave trade kind of highlights that. But yes, a man of devout faith like Ricardo was would definitely feel more the pain of the priest's refusal, and his guilt would make him less likely to demand absolution as his due: he really feels he doesn't deserve it. And nice observation, about the purgatory-like nature of The Island of the Damned there.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Mar 24, 2010 21:28:49 GMT -5
Yeah, but not by simply removing the cork even (which would be back enough, as evil would be released) -- evil just destroys the entire bottle to get "free." Cracked right open and not able to be repaired. Sounds about right. Yep. A very Alexandrian solution to the problem of getting the contents out of the bottle, weren't it? Well, in execution, anyways. In intention, you're spot on. The selfish destructiveness of evil and the darkness.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Mar 24, 2010 21:32:27 GMT -5
I know! Bummer! Very very very intriguing twist, that, wasn't it? And gives me a different perspective on Dogen. It seems to cut both ways and acknowledges that the voices of both good and evil are very seductive (hopefully for different reasons. Evil offers you your heart's desire, even it if it's not a good thing and it won't really be fulfilled the way you expect it to be. Good tells you the truth and the truth is actually seductive in its own right.) So the instructions for killing either are "don't let him start to talk." (Suggestion: next time you send an assassin -- give him ear plugs.)Heh! I was wondering about that: both times, the intended victim has led with speechifying or speechifying with kicks. Some earplugs might allow the mission to work a little better... Huh. Wonder if Richard told Dogen what words Smokey/Esau used on him when he sent him to kill Jacob, and Dogen took it up from that...
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Mar 24, 2010 22:26:08 GMT -5
I"m not Catholic either, but the major complaint the Protestants have historically made about the Catholics is that they believe there is an element of "earning" absolution through penitence (works) rather than the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith (and nothing else). So that priest was undoubtedly not a great representative of the essence of true Catholicism, but he did still embody what is thought (by many) to be at least some elements of Catholic doctrine. Although maybe instead of straight to hell Richard would have gone to Purgatory (which is a theological construct that I know nothing about -- still I think the island would qualify.) I AM Roman Catholic, and I was highly irritated at that scene. While a priest is permitted to withhold absolution if he believes that the person confessing is not truly repentent for his actions (for instance, is just going to confession because he told someone he would, but he's not sorry for what he did), at NO time has a priest been permitted to withhold absolution because someone "doesn't have time to do penance." It's not the "doing" that's important, though certainly one way of expressing repentance is by doing penance. But there were many deathbed absolutions throughout the centuries, and never was a penitent sinner denied the opportunity to be absolved just because "you're going to die tomorrow."
That said, I believe that (or at least I want to believe!) that scene was intended to show that that particular priest was corrupt, and not a "true" priest (revisiting some of the Mr. Eko scenes?).
I was also highly irritated that the writers had characters in 1867 referring to the "New World." Kinda wasn't "New" at that point anymore! (Almost four centuries after Columbus!)
For the most part, while this season has been a rollercoaster, I can't help feeling majorly cheated by Cuse, Lindelof and everyone else involved with the series this year. We were promised answers. We keep getting more questions, and the answers that we do get are tautologies. Who's Smokey? Why, he's the Man in Black! Okay, but who's the Man in Black? Why, he's Smokey! NOT an answer!
(And BTW, I really resent their usurping the "Man in Black" -- to me, the phrase the "Man in Black" = the Dread Pirate Roberts/Westley.)
Okay, rant over. Happy Holidays to everyone!
Laura[/color][/quote] Or, what Laura said. Hi, Laura! long time, etc! "New world" does seem a little archaic, doesn't it? I will say that I've read of Irish immigrants using it in the 1860s up to the 1880s, though now it tends to jar. Spanish users tend to be more accepting of "Nuevo Mundo" (possibly because they found it first. Well, third, and they feel sorta proprietary about it), but it's still considered sorta archaic even amongst hispanohablantes. And despite my abiding love for The Dread Pirate Westley, I still default to Johnny Cash when "the Man in Black" is mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Mar 24, 2010 22:28:25 GMT -5
I AM Roman Catholic, and I was highly irritated at that scene. While a priest is permitted to withhold absolution if he believes that the person confessing is not truly repentent for his actions (for instance, is just going to confession because he told someone he would, but he's not sorry for what he did), at NO time has a priest been permitted to withhold absolution because someone "doesn't have time to do penance." It's not the "doing" that's important, though certainly one way of expressing repentance is by doing penance. But there were many deathbed absolutions throughout the centuries, and never was a penitent sinner denied the opportunity to be absolved just because "you're going to die tomorrow."
That said, I believe that (or at least I want to believe!) that scene was intended to show that that particular priest was corrupt, and not a "true" priest (revisiting some of the Mr. Eko scenes?).
I was also highly irritated that the writers had characters in 1867 referring to the "New World." Kinda wasn't "New" at that point anymore! (Almost four centuries after Columbus!)
For the most part, while this season has been a rollercoaster, I can't help feeling majorly cheated by Cuse, Lindelof and everyone else involved with the series this year. We were promised answers. We keep getting more questions, and the answers that we do get are tautologies. Who's Smokey? Why, he's the Man in Black! Okay, but who's the Man in Black? Why, he's Smokey! NOT an answer!
(And BTW, I really resent their usurping the "Man in Black" -- to me, the phrase the "Man in Black" = the Dread Pirate Roberts/Westley.)
Okay, rant over. Happy Holidays to everyone!
Laura [/color][/quote] Oh, that's funny. I was sure you were going to say "Man in Black" = Johnny Cash. Which is, of course, the TRUE correct answer. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 25, 2010 8:36:09 GMT -5
Oh, that's funny. I was sure you were going to say "Man in Black" = Johnny Cash. Which is, of course, the TRUE correct answer. #handslap# 31 years in Nashville taught me something! (And, thank heavens we belong to a board where a few off-topic posts won't cause folks to go ballistic.)
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 25, 2010 13:46:14 GMT -5
It seems to cut both ways and acknowledges that the voices of both good and evil are very seductive (hopefully for different reasons. Evil offers you your heart's desire, even it if it's not a good thing and it won't really be fulfilled the way you expect it to be. Good tells you the truth and the truth is actually seductive in its own right.) So the instructions for killing either are "don't let him start to talk." (Suggestion: next time you send an assassin -- give him ear plugs.)Heh! I was wondering about that: both times, the intended victim has led with speechifying or speechifying with kicks. Some earplugs might allow the mission to work a little better... Huh. Wonder if Richard told Dogen what words Smokey/Esau used on him when he sent him to kill Jacob, and Dogen took it up from that... Hmm....So there WAS significance to the slaver making sure that Richard spoke English. He was a candidate and needed to understand Jacob when he spoke to him? He was also 'saved' by Smokey - because he spoke English? He was chosen - by both, maybe? Oh - and the temple keeper - who mainly spoke Japanese (was it?) at first, but then finally admitted he spoke English....does that have significance, too? I don't know. Just grasping at invisible straws here. Is a good distraction, all this grasping.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 25, 2010 13:59:35 GMT -5
One reason I liked this episode - and I did like most of it - was that the flashback was a long, linear narrative rather than inter-cut between present-day Island scenes, which I have always found distracting.
I loved the Richard/Jacob interaction; because Richard is a character I find far more compelling than the MIB (except MIB-as-Smokey-or-Locke). But I still wonder about Jacob - is he the original jailer of Darkness, or the latest in a long line? And what gives him the moral right to play God with the lives of the people he calls to the island? Is he a divine agent himself?
I don't think the writers mean to answer even half of the questions that they're creating, much less the leftover questions...
There was an episode where the black smoke was called a name that in mythology guarded the gates of hell. Cerberus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerberus (3-headed dog - Vincent might HAVE been Smokey at one point - ohhh noo!!) Smokey is tired of keeping people in hell? Interesting essay called "Hero's Journey" about the metaphor of myths. Here: www.mythichero.com/what_is_mythology.htm
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 25, 2010 22:54:07 GMT -5
Man in Black always makes me think of Johnny Cash, too. **high fives Sue and Matthew** Are we sure that the New World in question is the Americas, though. Could it be Australia?
|
|
|
Post by leftylady on Mar 29, 2010 16:49:10 GMT -5
Ok, so what do we have here?
the 2nd character who lost a love one who is offered a deal to get back his dead loved one
Sayid sent off to kill MIB
Richard sent off to kill Jacob
MIB tells both he wants their help so that they can again be with the loved one.
Sayid, swayed by the desire to be reunited with Nadia, accepts and goes dark and is on MIB's team now, or so it would seem.
On the other hand, Richard initially fails in mis MIB-mission, is converted by Jacob and kept from returning to MIB by Hurley/dead Isabel - still Jacob;s team.
Nice parallels.
leftylady
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 28, 2010 19:00:20 GMT -5
Yay, a Richard episode!!!!!!
Teaser
Bandaged Illana in the hospital.
Ah yay, getting back to this scene! I was starting to think that we weren't get flashbacks anymore. ...Or is this actually the alternate verse?
No, this is that flashback. 6 people to protect. List of names. Remaining Candidates. Not telling us anything we didn't already know. But at least we've got confirmation.
Methinks that whatever happened to Illana is related to some other task that Jacob asked her to do.
Back on the island. The Candidates have a powwow.
Flashback. Illana's looking better so some time has passed.
She's supposed to take the Candidates to the Temple. Then ask Richard what to do next.
Back on the island.
And Richard has absolutely no idea what to do next. Which is both hilarious and tragic at the same time.
If Jack doesn't want to know your secret, then I definitely do. Tell! Tell!
Richard subscribes to the purgatory hell theory. And he's going to switch allegiances to NotLocke.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 28, 2010 19:10:02 GMT -5
Part I
Richard!!! On a horse!!!
Tenerife, Canary Islands, 1867.
Not the fugliest flashback hair we've seen, but definitely in the running. The horse makes up for a lot.
Wife Isabella. Dying of...something. Ah, consumption.
Richard rides off (on a horse!) to make a Faustian bargain.
Confronting the landlord. Or the Doctor? Or the Doctor-Landlord?
Uh oh.
Richard arrives back home too late.
And now he's in chains.
Richard and Isabella were preparing to travel to the New World.
No absolution granted. Execution tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 28, 2010 19:19:17 GMT -5
Part II
Next morning.
Sold into slavery.
Hanso. The Black Rock.
So I guess the island can be in the Atlantic as much as it can be in the Pacific. Or the Black Rock decided to take the scenic route.
The Black Rock is what destroyed the Statue? Is that even possible? I would think it would take more than a wooden ship to destroy a stone statue.
And wasn't it daytime an calm waters when Jacob and No Name were sitting on the beach observing the Black Rock setting anchor? I'm confused.
The next morning. The Black Rock's in the jungle where it's been ever since.
Slaves survive. Hanso is dead.
This is all very biblical.
Slave dealer is not inclined to show mercy. Only 5 officers left.
If I freed you, it would only be a matter of time before you tried to kill me. Hmm, sounds very familiar...
Saved by the Smoke Monster?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 28, 2010 19:30:55 GMT -5
Part III
Richard trying to get free.
Thunderstorm.
Richard as Tantalus.
Boars. Eating the dead men.
Hallucinating Isabella. She told him that they were in hell. And then she gets dead again.
Touched. By Jacob? Oh. By No Name.
"A Friend."
Also tells Richard that he is dead.
manipulation, manipulation, manipulation.
Now here's the Faustian Bargain.
It's good to see you out of those chains.
Only one way to escape from hell. Kill the devil.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 28, 2010 19:44:04 GMT -5
Part IV
Richard and No Name.
Dining on boar. The same boar that ate Richard's fellow slavemates. Interesting implications there.
The same sword that Sayid used to try to kill NotLocke. Same instructions. So is this all a matter of perspective then? We're still dancing around that same question; who to side with in this never ending struggle?
Lying with the truth. Again some more.
The "devil"/Jacob took No Name's body. His humanity. Huh?
Richard at the Foot. Gets the smackdown from Jacob.
Hmm, No Name told Richard that Jacob has Isabella much like he told Claire that The Others have Aaron.
Jacob baptizes Richard. Kind of a reversal of roles, no?
|
|