Contents |
Fans 
Edit
The more I talk to other LOST fans I meet, the more I realize how casual most of them are. There are three kinds of fans, as far as I can tell. The kind who watch the show and enjoy it but don't care about the mythology or peripheral information; the kind who find the peripheral information interesting but don't seek it out and would still enjoy the show without knowing it; and the kind who find the mythology and peripheral information key to appreciating and truly understanding the show. I am in that third category, which is why I spend so much of my time on Lostpedia just browsing. Then there are other people who dismiss the whole show, saying things like "They are just making it up as they go along," or "They don't answer any questions, just raise new ones." These people clearly, in my opinion, don't understand the structure of the show. If they realized that it's not a soap opera, that it's not going to last forever, that it really is akin to a televised novel (with a definite ending on the horizon), they might change their minds. Do they pick up a book and read through the first few chapters, then throw it away and deride the author for never answering any questions? I would hope not. And if so...well, maybe LOST really isn't for them. But my original point is that I find more and more than I am a much more hardcore fan that most people around me. I realize there is a large community of hardcore, devoted fans, and many who are even more devoted than I am, I'm sure. (I don't have any Lost tattoos, and I'm not going to change my name to Paulo Lies.) But I believe that a large, large majority of fans of the show would not consider themselves "geeks" about it, and that's sort of disappointing. Then again, I should really give Darlton props for creating a show--nay, a universe--that can thrill the casual fans as much as the hardcore geeks. Jacob's Lather 03:27, 7 August 2008 (PDT)
Title Edit
So is it LOST or just Lost? I prefer LOST because it looks more impressive, but technically it's not an acronymn like DHARMA, so I don't know.
- From the Manual of Style, "When referencing the title of Lost, use italics as well". So when you add it to an article write, ''Lost''. This is the accepted practice amongst Lostpedia editors. --Blueeagleislander 03:39, 7 August 2008 (PDT)
- Thanks! That was an impressively fast, but also helpful response. Duly noted.
- Hi, Jacob's Lather, Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by using the
button on the edit toolbar.-- Sam McPherson T C E 05:11, 7 August 2008 (PDT)
- Sure thing, Sam. I figured it was reduntant to sign posts on my own talk page, but it's probably better to err on the side of clarity than obscurity. (Plus this is the first time I've posted on a talk page, but I'm trying to get more actively involved because I love and use this site so much.) Jacob's Lather 07:31, 7 August 2008 (PDT)
Posterity Edit
As a 'Lost' superfan, I love knowing all the extra tidbits about the overall story that don't necessarily play a direct role in the plot of the show. I love knowing that Thomas Mittelwerk comissioned Paik to build the Helgus Antonius. I love knowing about Rachel Blake and her run-ins with Hanso, and the DHARMA Initiative. For me, it just adds so much depth to the sprawling, epic nature of "Lost" that I enjoy so much. It's not like reading a novel. It's like reading a bible. It's like reading the Silmarillion, except entertaining.
But I am concerned. I’m concerned that in 2010 and beyond, after the final scene of 'Lost' has been remitted to history, and we can all sit back with our 6 Season Special Edition Limited Deluxe Darlton Certified Box Set, that these more intricate details that helped me enjoy the show so much will be lost (no pun intended). I’m worried that people who won’t be introduced to the show until after it’s over, once the rest of the world realizes what a groundbreaking achievement for television specifically and storytelling in general it was, those people won’t be able to appreciate it the same way. I’m wondering, I guess, how or if TPTB intends to capture for posterity all of those details so that they can be integrated into our whole understanding and appreciation of the show in the years to follow after it’s wrapped?
Perhaps even more concerning for me is the fact that many of those details, such as the exploits of Rachel Blake, or the Christiane I, or the Orchid orientation outtake video, were disseminated to us in such a specific and revolutionary way that I don’t see how one could truly recapture that feeling of discovering new information, even if one were watching the show for the first time. I guess a clearer example is the entire Lost Experience ARG: How can someone years from now, watching the show on DVD, experience the thrill and excitement of finding out about Thomas Mittelwerk, or the Spider Protocol, or the Sri Lanka video in the same manner that we have? It just doesn’t seem possible. I guess what I’m saying is there is a whole other element to “Lost” that involves the real world, and a real-world timeline, that simply can’t be appreciated retrospectively. (A better example might be DHARMA having a booth at Comic-Con 2008. They were ostensibly re-instating the program now, in the present, which we were told during the Lost Experience, when Hugh McIntyre appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel show, was utterly defunct. As the timeline on the show finally caught up with the timeline in the present, the creators adjusted our present reality accordingly. In fact, it might be presumed that our present moment will never be shown explicitly on the show, meaning we won’t see the DHARMA Initiative get re-started. Rather, we will go from it being defunct in the on-Island timeline to being up-and-running in the post-Island timeline. If that’s the case, then somehow preserving the history of what took place at Comic-Con and how it fits into the in-show timeline seems even more pertinent.)
But, alas, it seems an impossible task. With all the branching and interweaving storylines, characters, and events, it would be a bit like trying to write a screenplay based on Wikipedia. Sadly (but perhaps profoundly) it is information that is intrinsically entwined in its medium, unable to be translated or related in any other form. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if after the impact of 'Lost' has sunk into the minds of the masses of people who haven’t been watching it already, we see at least one or two comprehensive books chronicling the history of the show, including the show’s massive storyline (including, hopefully, all of those tasty bits that I’ve been talking about). It would certainly be an arduous task. I’m up for it. Who wants to help? Jacob's Lather 09:11, 7 August 2008 (PDT)
Upon Re-Watching... Edit
8-11-08 - Just started re-watching the show starting with Season 1. (The plan is to watch through the first three seasons leading up to the DVD release of Season 4, and then watch Season 4 leading up to the premiere of Season 5.) As I've been re-watching the early episodes, as expected I have been picking up on little hints and moments of foreshadowing, that only now in hindsight make sense. Some of them may not have been intentional, but with this show it's hard to tell. Here are my findings and thoughts:
"White Rabbit" - To begin with, Jack is woken on the Island by Charlie who tells him that there is someone drowning in the ocean (it appears to be a screaming woman). Jack, ever the hero, rushes out to rescue them. He ends up rescuing Boone, but Boone tells him he was out there to rescue a woman who was drowning. Was this the Island playing a cruel joke on Jack? He wanted to do a good deed, but the woman ended up drowning, and he later took flack—particularly from Boone, and from himself—for not rescuing the woman instead of Boone. The choice, however, seemed to have been made for him.
When Jack returns to the beach with Boone, he immediately dives back into the water. Someone calls to him, and he tells them “I have to go back!” With the benefit of hindsight, this moment seems very telling. It not only indicates Jack’s unwavering need to rescue people, but it parallels his predicament in the final moments of both Season 3 and Season 4: he wants to go back to the Island. It’s almost identical to the line he shouts to Kate at the end of Season 3, “We have to go back!” And at the end of Season 4, he has already rescued the Oceanic Six (just like saving Boone), but now knows he has to return to save the others (just like diving back into the water). It didn’t turn out well in White Rabbit, as the woman drowned; does this indicate a similar fate for those left on the Island after the O6 were rescued? Will Jack be able to save them?
Another incident of note in White Rabbit happens when Jack is in the jungle chasing the specter of his father. I don’t know all of its meanings, but it’s clearly an important moment because it was put into the show with such obvious intention. That moment is when Jack trips and slides down a steep embankment and ends up dangling over a cliff. At this moment my wife turned to me and said, “Did the Island just try to kill Jack?” It made me wonder about that notion. I can’t say it didn’t, but given the apparent trick it played on him when he inadvertently rescued Boone in the ocean, it’s not outside the realm of thought that the Island might “have it in” for Jack. I will keep an eye out for other evidence to support this theory.
Subsequently in this scene, Locke appears and offers a hand to Jack, lifting him to safety. This may not be important to the plot, per se, other than it means Jack didn’t die, but it might be more of a metaphorical or symbolic moment in a couple of different ways. First, that Jack’s headstrong determination nearly got him killed, and second, that Locke was there to rescue him—redeem him from certain demise. Perhaps this indicates an overall theme of the relationship between this man of science and man of faith. Clearly their fates are linked; I think that much has been made clear. This early scene might have simply been solidifying that notion, or it might have been hinting at some moment yet to be seen. Some moment where Jack’s headstrong determination—to rescue the other survivors, perhaps?—nearly gets him killed, and Locke is there in some capacity to save his life, and maybe the lives of all the survivors. Jacob's Lather 03:08, 11 August 2008 (PDT)
- Maybe now that Locke is dead, all hope is lost? I love your insights, some of the best I've ever read. --Blueeagleislander 04:43, 11 August 2008 (PDT)
"Raised by Another" - Isaac of Uluhuru tells Claire during her second visit with him that "another" (or is that "an Other?") must not raise Aaron. Then he says that her "spirit," her "goodness" must be present in his life. I got hung up on that phrasing. The use of the word "spirit" struck me as possibly meaning more than what it seemed at the time. Knowing (or not knowing) Claire's condition at the end of Season 4, it makes me wonder if he was foreshadowing her death. If she is truly dead, perhaps her spirit will continue to play a role in Aaron's life, much as Christian has played a role in Jack's. I still have to wonder what role Aaron himself will play in the overall mythology of the show. Certainly in Seasons 1 and 2 it was hinted that he was a very, very important child, but through seasons 3 and 4 he (and Walt, another supposedly important kid) seems surprisingly absent from the storyline. Is the child himself important, or is it simply his presense and the actions taken by others on his behalf that is important? Jacob's Lather 02:32, 13 August 2008 (PDT)
Things to Do Edit
If you're ever looking to help out with something, I recommend having at look at Lostpedia:Job List or Lostpedia:Projects for ideas. --Blueeagleislander 00:53, 12 August 2008 (PDT)
Please don't forget to sign your talk page remarks Edit
with four tildes. Cheers, Robert K S tell me 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)