Jeff Jensen Returns from Hiatus!
That general all-around nice guy and scholar of all things LOST, Jeff "Doc" Jensen, will be coming off hiatus tomorrow with a great opportunity no LOST fan should miss! Check it out:
Tomorrow, Friday, Doc Jensen returns from hiatus at ew.com as we begin a big month of Lost content. I have some new theories which I hope people will find interesting, but the big thing is that I’m asking people to complete a one question survey and send me their most burning question for the Lost producers. I’m going to be doing an interview with the guys soon and I intend to ask as many fan questions as possible.
Cool stuff huh? Well hold on to your hats, with Jeff’s permission we bring you a special sneak peek into what is to come when Doc Jensen touches down on EW.com tomorrow! What follows is an excerpt from Doc’s most Losterific theory to date. Check it out, and don’t forget to visit EW.com tomorrow for more!
THEORY! There is a connection-perhaps merely thematic; perhaps more than thematic-between Lost and the classic Christian hymn, "Amazing Grace." I say this because of something Damon Lindelof said during the recent EW-hosted roundtable discussion with Stephen King and the Lost producers. Lindelof mentioned that the show had an inherent expiration date, as "the more the characters in Lost are ‘found,’" the closer this serialized saga gets toward its inevitable, natural end. It was a curious choice of words, as they echo the famous lyrics in "Amazing Grace," which like Lost, traffics in themes of redemption and epiphany. Also of note: the writer of "Amazing Grace," John Newton, was famous for being… the captain of a slave ship. (I wonder if he ever crossed paths with the Black Rock?) In fact, it can be argued that each stanza of the song can meaningfully (or ironically) correlate to each season of Lost, and the show’s most grace-blessed soul, John Locke. To wit:
"Amazing grace/How sweet the sound/That saved a wretch like me/I once was lost/but now am found/was blind but now I see."
APPLICATION TO LOST, SEASON ONE: Well, it’s a show about a bunch of wretches seeking redemption, salvation, or transformation. The first image of the first episode is an act of seeing: Jack’s eye, blinking open, waking up from the darkness of unconsciousness. But really, season one is all about the Born Again metamorphosis of John Locke. Physically, Locke regains the use of his legs, a blindness-to-sight miracle. Spiritually, he sees the light-ironically, in the shadowy, billowing face of Smokey The Monster. Of course, for most of season one, Smokey is not seen, but heard. True, the roar of this creature-part mechanical, part animal–is far from sweet. But consider this: if Smokey is a manifestation of this island, and if the island for Locke is God, then remember that according to almost every major world religion, God isn’t exactly all sweetness and light, either. In fact, in The Old Testament, God is a fearsome, law-enforcing judge, just like old Smokey, as proud Mr. Eko painfully discovered. And by the way, remember the form that God takes when he hangs out with the Israelites? That’s right: a big cloud. Pretty wild. Pretty far-out. Pretty… amazing. Don’t you think?
I CANNOT WAIT!! Yay for the end of his hiatus. The sneak peak has me wishing for a time machine to get me to tomorrow!!
Comment by Ella — January 4, 2007 @ 9:38 am
hey doc–I emailed you about never receiving the autographed script from winning the ‘how lost will end’ contest…but i didn’t hear back. any news on that?
Comment by bbbronks — January 4, 2007 @ 10:09 am
what a load of crap. jensen gets a bit carried away sometimes.
Comment by Neil — January 4, 2007 @ 11:02 am
It’s an interesting exercise to compare the possible parrallels between a TV show and a hymn, But it doesnt really give any insight into the show since It’s not a show called Amazing Grace. It is kinda neat that the hymn has the line about being lost and now found but other than that….
Comment by Charlie Lesoine — January 4, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Who cares?
Comment by iwannagetupinthemguts! — January 4, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
If wasn’t for something Lindelof had said, I would think it was crap. He said, so it’s interesting, but still a stretch.
Comment by JoefromUtah — January 4, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
The important thing is… it is something new and interesting to ‘consider’ while there is an absolute drought of LOST info.
Comment by docarzt — January 4, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
But what exactly are we supposed to consider? Consider that there is a correlation between the show and the hymn put there by someone on purpose? Because I’m not going consider that.
Comment by Charlie Lesoine — January 4, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Does anyone know the name of the twilight zone episode, that some people say inspired lost…. ?????
Comment by mike knight — January 4, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Sorry about sounding like an asshole in that last comment. I was wondering which characters Lindelof considers to be “found” I mean besides Locke, who seems to be at home on the island,(but hasnt found the truth he’s searching for ) have any of the survivors been “found” in any real or metaphorical sense?
Comment by Charlie Lesoine — January 4, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
You beautiful, beautiful people. Did you miss the part where I say that this Amazing Grace thing might be nothing more than a thematic idea? The basic contention I’m making is that Amazing Grace is essentially the thematic outline for the entire series, with each stanza correlating to a season of Lost. Per this logic, one might be able to extrapolate possibilities about the meaning and direction of the show. My essay argues that Stanza One is Season One: a basic statement of concept. In the column, I suggest Stanza Two is Season Two, and Stanza Three is Season Three.
But yes, Neil , you are completely correct. I DO get carried away. But then, so do you. After all, isn’t posting on a fansite the very definition of “getting carried away”?
Comment by Jeff Jensen — January 4, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
That’s an “amazingly graceful” (pardon the pun) theory. Count me in on Friday.
To the naysayers, I think a re-appraisal is due. After every episode of the show, fans come up with the both highly similar or very obscure possible connections to film, TV, music not to mention characters and themes from the literary world. Is it not agreeable that someone could “reverse engineer” this way of thinking and use a pre-existing song or poem to mount a theory? Pure genius. Plus, the song deals with broad life strokes that make up Lost, so just think of the song as a throughline he is using to present his theory. Rock on.
Comment by Dusk — January 4, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Love reading the jensen’s theories, i have for the last year. But at some point you gotta stop throwing out so many of them. Becuase when it’s all said and done, you’ll have covered every possible explanation for the show, but in a matter of 15 different theories, and still be able to say, “see, i told you i saw that coming.”
Just giving you a hard time Doc. Keep them coming.
Comment by Gary — January 4, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
A bit of a stretch even for Lost’s standards. Have we even made any relevant connections with all of the “eastereggs” from Season 1? Also how many times has a producer made a referrence in a Podcast or interview and it not come to fruition.
Comment by Silky — January 4, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
I would like to be the uber-nerd here who points out that Locke did in fact see the “monster” as a brilliant light in season one, not as smoke.
Comment by Stev — January 4, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
…..The first time he saw it that is….
Comment by Stev — January 4, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
well jeff, if it is actually you and not a random user posing as you (i’m cynical, yes), you are correct, i do also get carried away. in last months how to end lost competition, my entry was that LOST is about the selection process for a new colony of man on a new planet. pretty far-fetched. so yeah, maybe i was a bit harsh in what i said, but i just don’t see it. you seem to change theory every two weeks in a hope that something is right, i suppose you need to keep writing new content to keep readers interested but i just thought that this was your wackiest theory yet.
that is all. sorry for being blunt.
Comment by Neil — January 5, 2007 @ 5:56 am
We shouldn’t be jealous of Doc J’s boundless energy for LOST theorizing. Embrace the theories…
Comment by docarzt — January 5, 2007 @ 6:21 am
Kinda cool, but yeah, I think this is a stretch. Glad that Doc will be back though!
Comment by fishhead — January 5, 2007 @ 7:40 am
The full article is up! Go check it out at Ew.Com! Definitely some great food for thought.
Comment by docarzt — January 5, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Neil: Point taken. In terms of participating in this armchair sport of Lost theorizing, the way I play the game is utterly ridiculous. The more theories I generate, the more likely I might accidentally stumble on “the right answer.” That’s not my goal, though. I don’t even think about “getting it right.” I just like thinking about Lost. Doc J is purely a means to have fun and facilitate or spur conversation. But I tell you what: if I somehow manage win the $1 million prize at the end, I promise to donate it all to charity.
Comment by Jeff Jensen — January 5, 2007 @ 8:19 am
There are days that I wish I was Jeff Jensen, because then I could get paid for all my theories that I throw around for free..Seriously, that has got to be the best job! Right or wrong, the theories are the most fun part of dissecting LOST..Otherwise it’s just a show and that’s depressing..Jeff, keep doing your job…lucky bastard…and I’ll keep reading and cursing your good fortune…
Comment by El Prez de LFC — January 5, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
I am tired of listening to theories. I just want to see the next episode!
Comment by Philip — January 5, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
The other day a coworker of mine announced to those present that she had lost her pen. “LOST” — like the name of the show! How curious, I thought, that she would use that very word.
A few moments later, she said, “Oh, nevermind, I found it.”
She “found” it!
Naturally, I thought immediately of the hymn “Amazing Grace” and wondered what insight this coworker — who claims not even to watch the show — must secretly have to the future of our favorite serial drama. I dare say she and Damon Lindelof are in cahoots! Jeff, run a story at once!
Comment by Joe V — January 5, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Painful, Joe V. Painful… and so very true.
Comment by Jeff Jensen — January 5, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
jeff: point taken. it’s your job after all, i do enjoy reading your theories, just find that some are better than others. your theory a while back about two factions of others and their possible leaders was fantastic. my own theories change from episode to episode, just not as drastically.
Comment by Neil — January 5, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
i’ve got a question (for the interview), but i don’t know how to e-mail it to you. so if you read this, or could give me your e-mail, that would be great.
so here it is:
when sayid and charlie are looking for aaron in exodus, they walk past and upward angled rock that has a painting on it, which looks like the rough outline of a human body.
the location looks nearly identical to the place that desmond killed kelvin. so my question is: did somebody collect kelvin’s body, and then mark where they found it with the paint.
thanks.
Comment by dal — January 5, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Wow, sounds like Jeff may have gone a little too far with this theory. enough theories like this and people may stop listening to doc all together. Like i said Doc, love your theories, but maybe keep them a little more within the lines next time.
Comment by Gary — January 6, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Sheepboy: take your racism elsewhere.
Everyone else: You’re clearly not judging Jensen’s theory against those of our fanboy peers but instead trying to knock him off the perch he appears (to you) to be elevated on, since he gets paid to write crazy theories and you guys get zip.
Comment by Dusk — January 6, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
by the way, the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. unless your some kind of Gnostic or something, but at any rate He is the same. He is a constant, you actually just saw more of Him in the Old Testament than the New Testament because the OT is more history inclined and the NT is more teahing inclined. Ex. Jesus running the money changers out of the temple with the whip of cords.
Comment by hoohoo3000 — February 3, 2007 @ 12:15 pm