Doc Don’t Hate…
A little clarification is due. Since I published my search for nailing the mythic archetype at play in LOST, and more so determining who the hero is in the macro story (Jon Locke), I’ve pissed a few people off with this statement:
One side of LOST theorizing I have always abhorred was the efforts to get at the ‘DNA’ of the LOST story, particularly which chromosome came from which great work of literature. Part of the reason I try to avoid that kind of deconstruction is that it is, in some ways, disrespectful to the storyteller. The last thing a musician wants to hear when they play you a new piece is the various other songs it ‘sounds like’. Other than that, dwelling too much on the influences is really just a study in pigeonholing LOST into an amalgamation of literary techniques and specific influences; a practice more suited to a grad student desperately trying to demonstrate his chops on the conundrum Du Jour. I avoid the “LOST Literary Genome Project” because it is like our friend Ouroboros, a process that just winds up swallowing its own tail.
In the end all that hard work comes to a banal conclusion, the LOST writers have influences and tend to use the same tools of their craft as any other writer on the planet. A thesis hardly worth reinforcing with thousands of words concentrated on tracing every minute literary equivalent.
Some of you have responded that this is closed minded and offensive to the boundless creativity of the LOST fan scene. Quite a few nerves got struck, particularly among grad students I suspect (grin.)
Folks, it may not have the clarity that I had hoped for, but here is what I am saying: I do not support the process of defining a rigid selection of literary works that definitely define LOST. LOST is not a composite of themes borrowed from particular works of fiction.
LOST is an attempt at an original myth. LOST has influences, and LOST’s influences have influences, and this is the point where people seem to be getting the exact opposite of what I am saying. the operative word in the misunderstood passage is "specific influences". By all means chase every white rabbit that bounds across the lawn of LOST’s intricate mythology, but don’t be so closed minded as to hold up a particular book as a key to understanding the mythology. THAT is close minded.
Influences only mark points in long streams of thought that transcend any one work. In a macrocostic sense, all bodies of art are a stream running through time; the subtle intricacy of how one work influences another is as illusive to us a single hydrogen molecule would be to a person standing at the bank of this metaphorical stream watching the waters flow. Likewise, to put a drop of water under a microscope and study the properties of all its constituents would tell you nothing about the bends in the river, or how the surface will undulate.
All stories influence other stories, it is pointless to think you can unify the LOST mythology with a set number of stories. In good science, and this is science at this point, you would need to eventually give your theory a quantum test. At that point, your group of literary references starts to dissolve until you are faced with the undeniable conclusion that all that remains are the archetypes that are common through the chain of influence. My statement was meant more to say, let’s just skip hunting down the stories that inspire it and go right for the archetype, since I was looking for a literary theory in the absolute sense.
The fact that anybody would find this a closed minded approach baffles me, really. I urge some discussion on this if you think what I am saying is restrictive. Personally, I think the enormity of the task is just an existential shock and the complaining is because I made the lit nuts job too huge. Although out of fun, I do carry over my challenge: bring me one piece of literature that is the definitive source of same facet of the LOST mythology and if I cannot find five… no WAIT, I’ll up the ante… if I cannot find TEN equally applicable examples that predate it I will give you my coveted signed LOST Pilot script. And the first person who says "Gilgamesh" gets slapped. I’ll give you the last 1500 years to pick from.
Gilgamesh.
I’m here for the slapping, screw the mythology!!
Comment by El Prez — May 4, 2007 @ 7:45 am
amen to that. i find your using the word ‘pigeonholing’ to be interesting, because its dead on. I don’t get why people would get bent out of shape about your statement.
I agree that trying to define LOST in the manner you described would be to pigeonhole it. Its like saying Star Wars is a good series of movies based on Star Trek.
LOST came into its own almost from the get-go with the monster shaking the trees. From then I knew I had something special. Its had its ups and downs, but no other show has done what it does the way it does it.
I can see how people might take your jab at grad-students du jour a bit sourly, and I can see how finding truth from certain works of literature or philosophy in LOST might add to the mystery and mythology, but I don’t see why having an opinion against doing this could warrant such nasty responses. You must’ve touched a nerve….
Comment by peter — May 4, 2007 @ 7:50 am
Honestly, I am a live and let live guy. However, I get excited and start riffing and sometimes make the mistake of letting too much personal opinion show through. Then it becomes less about the point of what I’m saying, and more about the indiscretion. It’s interesting to note that not a single person who went on the offense talked about the actual point of the article, which had nothing to do with my claim of the fool hardiness of infinite regression. Hopefully everybody is a little happier now. I hate making people mad.
Comment by DocArzt — May 4, 2007 @ 7:59 am
I don’t know if people are so much trying to ’solve’ Lost by applying literature. Alternately, us grad school types learn to read texts as part of a conversation. I know this is why I enjoy Lost so much is that almost any given week it partaking in a big conversation that has been happening in literature for centuries. Lost deals with questions of faith, reality, memory…any number of themes, and does so through synthesizing cultural expectatiosn of storytelling and original idea into a new ‘myth’.
I don’t know if anyone is looking for an ‘answer’ in literary texts, and the only thing that bothered me about your initial post was the conclusion: “In the end all that hard work comes to a banal conclusion, the LOST writers have influences and tend to use the same tools of their craft as any other writer on the planet.”
We can’t assume that Lost exists in a vaccuum because, as you point out, it’s using the same elements of craft as everything else. Where there is room for study is looking at how the show uses these sources, and how it positions itself with the various conversations carried out in the texts it is alluding to. No single text will provide an answer to the show, but having understanding of any number of texts that inform Lost can increase one’s enjoyment of the show, and even add interesting layers of meaning.
Comment by wedestroymyths — May 4, 2007 @ 8:35 am
You promised to slap whoever said Gilgamesh first. And then you said you hate making people mad. Well you promised a slapping and didn’t deliver,so now I’m getting mad!
Kidding Doc! Bottom line is that it’s hard not to inject some personal opinion when dealing with art and it’s possible influences. I think your point was made clearly.
Regardless of your opinion, you’ve opened some new lines of thought for most of us. I used to think it was the show that made me smarter but it could be this forum. I’ve been researching most of these musings in my downtime and I’ve learned more here than 4 years of college and 2 years as a hooker on the streets of Phuket…But that’s just me…
Comment by El Prez — May 4, 2007 @ 8:39 am
You’re absolutely right that no one piece of literatue is the key to lost. A few points, though:
Campbell’s theory isn’t a key to Lost, either. It’s just another text that may inspire the writes. Just as Stephen King is influential to the writers, so is Campbell. Personally, I think he is influential in a negative sense. The writers go to great lengths to turn concepts like heroism and archetypes on their heads and in effect distorting Campbell’s vision. John Locke may seem to be on a hero quest now, but I bet something will happen to knock him back down and help him realize he’s just a flawed man.
Another point: True, all texts and stories are influenced by others. Lost is different, though, in how it brings those texts to our attention. The show takes names from the Wizard of Oz and Charles Dickens and great philosophers; it includes books by Stephen Hawkings and Stephen King in the story. That’s not to say that any of them are “key,” but Lost is a show that wears its influences on its sleaves, and that’s worthy of discussion.
Comment by fearlessweaver — May 4, 2007 @ 9:00 am
I don’t disagree with any of that. What my assertion was is that the writers might be using an archetypal cycle. Now Campbell oozed that super literate authority, so people tend to gravitate to him, but in reality this isn’t his cycle; the fact that it is archetypal means he is plucking it from the void. It’s a structure that transcends knowledge. These archetypes show up in the early works of civilizations that were completely cut off from one another. So it is equally possible that they are doing it by accident, but I doubt it.
Yes, the awesome thing about LOST is that it does introduce the viewer to great pieces of literature. One thing I want to be clear on is that I never said there was no value to LOST doing this, the mistake is to think that the writers are leaving a trail of literary bread crumbs. They are not. Some of them have been quoted as saying the works presented in the show do not necessarily mean there is a connection to the mysteries of the island. Nor do I think have “A Brief History of Time” laying around is the producers way of saying “Read this book so you can understand.” as much as saying, here’s a subtle hint as to whats coming up.
Regardless we are again moving away from the point. The point is, are the producers using the cycle that I proposed? Since I made it fit up to the point, I think they may be adhering to a cycle that is tried and true.
I love literature, obviously, however, as much as it might make an other wise well steeped student feel completely helpless, tracing influence is an infinite regression. But what a fun ride.
Comment by DocArzt — May 4, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Quote “let’s just skip hunting down the stories that inspire it and go right for the archetype, since I was looking for a literary theory in the absolute sense”
You are right, Doc. I like how you were able to cut thru all the crap and get to the real issue. What I find ironic is that most of those ’single key’ books were probably written using Campbell’s Monomyths. So come on everybody lets be hipocritical bas**rds and winge about no wine whilst staring at grapevines..
Comment by GhostWriter Zen — May 4, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Missed ur last post Doc while writing. To answer your question, YES!!!!!!!!!! I do believe that you are correct in thinking the writers are following a tried and true method. I mean this is LOST, an A-List show and that means big audiences who are not very forgiving and totally ruthless (nicki and paolo anyone?..) It also means big money and where money’s involved, especially big, you dont muck around with proto-type concepts. If it aint broke dont fix it.
Comment by GhostWriter Zen — May 4, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Looks like we’ll only have 2 more years to discuss all of this…
From Spoilerfix
05/04 - ABC is set to announce that Lost will end production after two more seasons. According to sources, ABC is planning to push back Lost’s return date to January of next year in order to air new episodes back-to-back, and it is also “extremely likely” that Lost will change time slots next season. Source: Kristin on E!Online
Comment by El Prez — May 4, 2007 @ 11:57 am
By the way, I’m not trying to scoop you Doc…My boss just went on a smoke break and I had some time to kill…:)
Comment by El Prez — May 4, 2007 @ 11:58 am
I’d like to call what I’m about to say “Hit and Myth”.
I’d also like to apologise if some of what I pour out has already been covered many times. I should explain that I only started reading the boards a week or so ago, when I owned up to myself that I was becoming obsessed with LOST, not because I want the answers (not yet), or because I have a defintive theory about its inevitable denouement… but because I do believe it is an outstanding piece of contemporary fiction.
fearlessweaver is right to say that it wears its influences on its sleeve. It almost flaunts them. It may even occasionally gives us fellow writers moments of serendipitous glee - for example, Sawyer’s sore feet as he follows Locke through the jungle to kill the latter’s father, at which image my mind immediately leapt to Oedipus (the Greek meaning ’sore foot’ of course). If Sawyer is later blinded I’ll be even more smug! And yet his sandals may never, in the writers’ minds, have been anything other than an obvious choice of footwear for somebody taking a night-time leak.
So, we speculate. We twist the plot twists round and round in our heads. It’s a mystery, a thriller. We look for clues. We want to be the one who’s first to solve the whodunnit. And, in an age when we can post messages like this, when we can interpret external clues too - for example, the alleged disgruntlement of actor Naveen Andrews - we fiercely debate what the heck (I’m English - I hope y’all know that phrase (grin)) is going on.
Yes, I have my pet ideas, my favourite angles on it all, not least the philosopher characters: the empiricist Locke who thought of the mind as a ‘tabula rasa’ - and influenced Rousseau and Hume; Mikhail Bakunin, whose island character is also a former soldier and shows himself to be such an obvious anarchist!
Yes, I enjoy the teasing out of literary references, the whole mystique of mirrored lives, of pasts revisited, of apparent coincidence (passim in Dickens), of island mythology, of flawed heroes, of Homeric storytelling. And yes I can see bits from the Bible, King Kong, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings… half-hidden among the trees.
But, above all, I can see the deft work of the writer - no more evident than in the premise that Pontius Pilate (not Pilot) was right when he asked “What is truth?”
Almost without exception, the characters in LOST tell lies: to each other, to themselves, for personal gain, for short or long cons, to impress, to undermine, to further ends, to avoid, to escape… to survive. Nobody can be trusted to present a clear picture. That, arguably, makes the whole conceit pretty damned clever -and beyond rational solution.
If today’s breaking news/rumour is a truth we can trust - i.e. that LOST will conclude after season 4 or 5 - I, for one, will be delighted. After all, it is not a soap opera. It is an unfolding drama in the best traditions (I won’t quote Anouilh because I can’t be bothered to look it up and don’t want to be accused of literay snobbishness). Even when it does reach whatever endgame it reaches, some loose ends will, I suspect, remain unanswered. I’ll try not to quibble if that is the case.
For now, I am simply gripped by the tension and totally hooked by the attendant discussions. I congratulate Carlton, Damon and the whole company on what I regard as a masterpiece of fiction, which also happens to have remarkably high production values as a piece of contemporary film-making.
Did I say ‘fiction’? Ach, so I did. Maybe that’s because, when all is said and done, LOST is no more than that: something made up. Not real, but a pretence. A con, if you like. I need to remember that it’s not actually anything more than a divertissement, the brainchild of two sharp and amusing minds, a, er… tale of two witties. Yes, that’s how I view it. Unless, of course, I am deceiving myself, lying to myself.. and lying also to you, dear reader!
Comment by Marcus — May 4, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Regardless of varying opinions, I’ve always appreciated this website (regarding LOST) due to the (mostly) intelligent statements written forthwith from the site’s frequenters. Essentially I think the show probably regards the Science vs. Faith idea as its primary theme, which seems to become more evident as the show advances. Take for instance Locke’s quest to discover the Island’s mysteries, while other characters desire greatly to leave the island (see Desmond and Jack). I see this them becoming evident in the much bally-hooed and oft-rumored “Lord of the Flies” situation.
Anyway, this is the BEST Lost fansite…BAR NONE…
Comment by Todd Anthony — May 4, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Perhaps the more I think about it, LOST ulimately deals with Faith…each one of the main characters has faith in something: Locke/Ben in the Island; Desmond’s faith that Penelope will someday find him and subsequently rescue him; Jack’s faith that he will escape the island regardless of the consequences and ramifications incurred to his fellow castaways…I don’t know, just a thought I had while I’m supposed to be working
Comment by Todd Anthony — May 4, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
can everyone just calm down , its just a tv show thats it,christ i left youtube for the same reason, who cares what people think whats the big deal, were all here for theorising otherwise we would just watch the show thats what makes all this so fun in the first place guessing what is going on, i don’t agree with the theory but its still a good theory though a bit to obvious to be lockes story for me, thats all the stories so far have ever really climaxed to, and it seems pretty obvious as far as i can see that locke is on his own quest, i don’t think he is some saviour, its most likely to be someone we never saw coming who its all centred around, that or everyone and no one in particular is the centre piece,maybe all these characters will turn out to be the metaphore of the show
Comment by nickk — May 4, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
my comment wasn’t at anyone in particular just against those who can get worked up so easily
Comment by nickk — May 4, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Congrats Doc Arzt on a brilliant piece of analytical literature! I found it quite impressive and I stayed up very late last night reading it. I agree that Lost does not stick to one set piece of literature but Lords knows Darlton know how to stick in magnificent clin d’oeils, winks and nudges to us viewers.
They also know something else, that one of the tragedies of our time is the frustrated need to be heroic that slumbers fitfully in the heart of all the cubicle dwellers who traded in high adventure for financial security.
Western society fears suffering and has built an entire edifice of consumption to avoid it, only to find that in the process a powerful emotional drive has been frustrated and expresses itself in futile and twisted acts of desperation. Contrary to what the song says, we do need another hero.
You are also performing a wonderful social service to your society as I assume you are American. Many of us who are not are often disappointed by the difficulty otherwise educated Americans have in conducting an intellectual argument. By providing your website and your thought-provoking views, you are teaching people to take a position, buttress it with certains facts, infer and deduce possibilities and express them cogently, without getting emotionally invested in being right, no matter how heated the debate gets. You are also allowing people to argue one thing in one forum and the opposite in the other without consequence.
Plus, people are slowing coming around to signaling to others when they get out of bounds and slide into insult and immature comments. Perhaps one day some of these people will come to understand that arguing with friends is a pleasurable pastime and come to seek out people who absolutely do not think like them just to duke it out without insisting on being right. Keep up the good work, you are helping the world more than you know, by training the people who hold the biggest sticks that they can be friends with people who don’t think like them and that they can agree to disagree.
To Marcus: love your dry wit and wry comments. Watching you dance among the literary references is like being a spectator to a light ballet of the mind. Keep the neurons dancing, brother, the planet needs more of your kind of light show!
Comment by Odette — May 4, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Great info El Prez. I was thinking on the 108 episodes idea. What if each episode in season 5 was a part 1 and part 2? That would be both a full season 5 and 108 episodes…
Comment by cap10tripps — May 4, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
What do you think about Jay Wood’s blog? Because he does virtually nothing but make literary analysis of the series, but I’d think one would be hard-pressed to disparage the level of insight he brings to the “text” of LOST, or the wonderfully rich layers of meaning he brings out of its onion-peel plot. But I wouldn’t really say he’s using his ‘grad school’-type analysis to ’solve’ LOST or anything like that. Just curious what you thought, Doc.
Comment by CyHunter — May 4, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
I love J. Wood’s blog, actually. He is never, ever, IMO, heavy handed with his analysis. Seriously though, I’m not lashing out here, but this is a case of taking the whole thing out of context yet again. There is nothing worthless about anybody doing that kind of work, as long as you understand at face value that anything added externally to the story is just that, external observation. If you examine the works of a philosopher whom a character is named after and then relate the real life individual’s beliefs against the character’s relation to the show, you aren’t actually extracting meaning from the text of the show, you are adding to it.
Desmond, for instance, does not represent David Hume, he represents Desmond Hume. Naming him after someone that will come to, in some way, embody the philosophies of a real life literary figure is very likely an after-thought. If at some point we find out all the characters are famous philosophers who were brain napped and thrown into some alien habitrail, I’ll be pissed.
See, the show is what it is. It is a singularity. The second you get into the influences, you are talking about something else other than the show. That is hugely stimulating intellectually, and no doubt the writers are smart people who hope their work turns us on to some of their favorite streams of thought, but it has nothing to do with the what we are seeing play out.
Now it’s easy to misconstrue what I just said as being a negative statement about what J. Wood does, but it isn’t. J. Wood is about the only person I can tolerate, outside of Jeff Jensen, to do that sort of thing because he deals with material that is tangential to the show. Which is to say, there is something that the episode’s writer would like us to learn, but it isn’t necessary to know, and J. Wood has a special genius at getting to the root of what it might be.
Comment by DocArzt — May 4, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Alright, yeah, I figured that was where you were coming from. I know the delineation you’re talking about, and it’s true.
Comment by cyhunter — May 4, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Oh god, thank you cyhunter! You made my night. I never intended the remarks to come across as censure.
Comment by DocArzt — May 4, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
I concur, DocArzt, in finding J. Wood’s weekly analysis (and Jeff Jensen’s; and your own) as both educative and intriguing. Adding meaning to the text neither dimninishes the text nor glorifies it. If, for example, the writers have chosen philosophers’ names for the sheer hell of it, that’s fine by me. If they are chuckling at attempts to draw parallels or find clues that were never intended as parallels or clues, that’s also fine by me. I do not feel cheated or treated with disrespect, simply attracted to the audacity and playfulness of the design.
(Though I too would be thoroughly pissed off by any ‘deus ex machina’ or fairy-tale or what I think of as “Then I woke up” device as a way of bringing the series to its conclusion. And I don’t, incidentally, expect any of those escape mechanisms, because I trust the show’s creators and writers to produce something much more intellectually satisfying.)
Yes, we should all see the show for “what it is”. I repeat my earlier suggestion that it is a masterpiece of fiction. Or at least it has been thus far! I read Wood and Jensen and applaud their thinking. Although a very new newcomer to these pages, I am thoroughly enjoying the discursive nature of the theories and the breadth of knowledge of some of the contributors. But, as Odette rightly points out, it doesn’t mean I have to agree with them; or with anybody. “Don’t tell me what I can’t do,” is a line I’ve heard somewhere before…
(And, while I’m here, thank you, Odette, for your kind remarks, at which I can only blush. I’m not sure, however, that a logorrhoea sufferer like myself should be given too much encouragement. I might find myself getting as hooked on the posts as I am by the show. Maybe somebody will soon be telling me to shut up and get lost…)
Meanwhile, I cannot but add my five penn’orth. And talking of five, I now see that there will be that many seasons. Good enough when it comes to Acts in Hamlet and books of the Pentateuch = good enough for me. If they can somehow engineer a total of 108 episodes, so much the better.
Two quick afterthoughts. At one point I saw triangles everywhere and jumped into Sartre’s ‘Huis Clos’. Then I wandered back into Dante’s ‘Inferno’. And now? Well, I think I’m happiest just sitting on the edge of my seat.
Comment by Marcus — May 4, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Exactly! I love what these guys have done. Too much writing, particularly in the high adventure genres, is Darwinist in nature; it’s all about outlasting, and self preservation. You nailed it to the wall. These stories that draw from the archetype are really calling to us from beyond the void of the collective unconscious. We all feel the call that the hero responds to.
Comment by DocArzt — May 4, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Everybody welcome Odette and Marcus, they’ll be writing the site from here on out….
(Just kidding guys, but exquisite thoughts.)
Comment by DocArzt — May 4, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
At the end Locke carries his dad dead body like Jesus carrying the cross?!?!? Did anyone else notice?
Comment by CUinAnotherLifeBrother — May 4, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
i understand what you are saying doc, but part of the fun of Lost for me is trying to tie everything together. I agree that they take all aspects of comics, literature, movies and music and create a brilliant mosaic pattern that no one thing will encompass. As a Dark tower nut and SK fan i can tie in most things to thse books and the things i know about and that to me makes it personal and increases my delight just like i am a celtic fan and the fact that Desmond is too also increases my interest in that character (being scottish helps too)…..in short we make of it what we can but not one novel or tie in will cover it….the way people say it based on the watchman or DT or forbidden Planet etc etc etc……….it is an amalgamation of all these things and we try and take the parts from it that mean the most to us personally. Love your work doc, cheers.
Comment by deschain — May 4, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Oh definitely man, do it up. Hell, I do. I scrutinize everything for its nearest literary allusion. I just look at that practice as a field of infinite possibility. You’ll find that your adapting the allusions to your favorite works most of the time. I saw, and continue to see, many allusions to “The Prisoner” even though deep down inside I know its because I want to see them.
Comment by DocArzt — May 4, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Here’s your five
The Babysitters Club
The Goosebumps Series
The Dictionary (OED not Websters)
Mad Magazine Issue Number 108
The Maximum Carnage storyline from Spiderman
Bam Doc. BAM! TAKE THAT SHIT AND WHIPE IT BITCH!
Comment by Ryan — May 5, 2007 @ 2:02 am
bring me one piece of literature that is the definitive source of same facet of the LOST mythology
Read the directions. Or better yet, take your Ritalin and read the directions. IE. Guy forced to punch numbers into a computer or his world is doomed.
Comment by DocArzt — May 5, 2007 @ 7:04 am
Forunately or unfortunately, most of our pop culture is derivative. Movies, TV, and especially Music have been lacking in original content. If you listen to any alternative or new rock station out there, sooner or later you’re gonna hear some Nirvana. The music hasn’t changed in years and that’s probably got something to do with the music industry as a whole. There are more and more remakes and sequels than ever before. Oh don’t let me forget all the personal memoirs that have been written lately.
But the reality is that society has and always will bite from it’s influences. Most if not all fiction is created this way. In this case, Lost seems to embrace a lot of literary influences and universal themes. But to obsessively study these influences looking for connections to the literature is a bit ridiculous. And a bit high brow for most. And I think the DNA comment really makes your point clear. It’s kinda like…I don’t need to see the tree to know I’ve got good wood.
Comment by Higdon — May 5, 2007 @ 8:13 am
Ooooooo Love the high brow comment and so glad you broke the ice for me.
Yes that is particularly what I am getting after. When the act of deconstructing the literary influences is done merely to demonstrate one’s intellectual prowess, it is a meaningless act. It’s kinda like saying, look at how well I masturbate.
I’m going to frame Odette’s comment and hang it on the wall because he nails it so well. People turn these conversations into “outlast, outwit, out survive” BS pissing contests.
Look at what Stephen Hawking said about the perfect unified field theory. He said something like the perfect unified field theory would not use math, it would be written in plain language in the fewest possible words and would be understandable by everyone regardless of their educational background.
Comment by DocArzt — May 5, 2007 @ 8:42 am
I was talking to someone else about this. The problem is there are so many different clues that have accumulated throughout the series, so many bits of seemingly important information, that it becomes difficult to sift the good info (the actual clues) from the bad (misdirections and red herrings). And, instead of pointing to a clear direction, they tend to become noise and cancel each other out.
Of course, that’s if you believe there is one ultimate answer — a grand unified theory. I’m not so sure there is one. I think there are certain themes that are central to Lost, faith vs. reason being one of them, and all the clues, all the connections, all of the revelations, simply reinforce those themes, creating resonances. It becomes a sort of meta story, like Finnegans Wake, that can be read multiple ways.
Comment by 23skidoo — May 10, 2007 @ 1:09 pm