Those Pesky Unified Theories
I’ve expressed my feelings on this a couple of times, and folks always walk away thinking that your old pal Doc Arzt is anti "Unified Theory." This really isn’t the case at all. I buy into a lot of the concepts floating around on the web about the nature of LOST’s reality, there are just very few people who have organized them into a thesis which, itself, draws from every corner of the show. Well, except for one guy.
Probably a lot of you know about the work of Dr. Todd J. Hostager. If you are not familiar with Todd’s work, and are series in your pursuit of a "Unified Theory," you definitely need to read what the good Doc has to say. A good place to start is his newly published summary, which is an excellent introduction to the meatier segments of the site. Yes, there are some ideas there that have been around for a while, but Todd’s strength is obvious both in the backup he brings to his concepts and the way he connects them using the known quantities of the show. Definitely worth checking out.
I’m anti-”unified theory”. Why?
Because the producers have stated again and again and again that the answers to the mysteries of Lost are completely impossible to summarise and have a multitude of backgrounds/solutions - every mystery does NOT come back to one single answer.
For example: The smoke monster probably has a different background to the fertility thing. Jacob probably has a different background to DHARMA. The interlinking pasts of the Losties are probably not related to Geronimo Jackson.
Everything has it’s own separate solution - there is 100%, definitely, for sure no unified solution, which means by association all unified theories are wrong.
Comment by Andy Spark — June 21, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Actually, I thought they said a while back that they do pay attention to what people are theorizing, and a few have come remarkably close.
The whole thing is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. There may be some large sections still not put together, so getting a 100% accurate picture is likely still impossible, but I think the big picture is starting to take shape.
Comment by AC — June 21, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Very interesting theory summary…can’t wait to read all the referenced links. I am very open-minded toward a unified theory. This definitely isn’t going to appeal to the “who’s gonna’ get into Kate’s pants next” crowd. Thanks for sharing, Doc.
Comment by gusteaux — June 21, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
In the vein of theorizing I’m posting a theory I have here…Richard Alpert can exist outside of linear time, just like the woman Desmond met at the jewelry store and the monk. These people are the Island’s truest “protectors.”
The lying Jack was refering to, was turning a blind eye to what their “rescuers” have done to the Island. The clue was Jack’s decision was to allow (so he thought) Bernard, Jin, and Sayid to be killed for his and the others rescue. The real question is, what DO the “rescuers” (who I believe to be a conglomerate of Paik, Widmore, and Hanso)do to those who stay behind (Locke, Ben, Rouseau, Alex, Karl…)
Comment by MerlboroMan — June 21, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
MerlboroMan,
I agree with the possibility that Alpert could be just like Ms. Hawkings and the Monk. However, they both seemed rather omniscient whereas Alpert appears to be at the mercy of Ben for information regarding Jacob. He certainly is being led by Ben. He could be laying in the cut, or maybe those individuals are not able to commune with Jacob.
I’ll take it a step further and see what kind of response this gets. Jacob is exactly like Alpert, Hawkings, and the Monk. Jacob is seperated from the other three and held captive by either the Island itself, or the DHARMA Initiative projects. He has been seperated so that the four could not be together. Because together the usher in the end of the world. They are the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse.
Ben is the conduit for Alpert to try and release Jacob. Alpert recognizes Locke’s ability as a conduit and attempts to gain Lockes trust. Ben sees this as an attempt to subvert his one true power and, because he has his own agenda, shoots Locke.
Comment by Higdon — June 22, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
alpjzb wvhte hjgty iwvho jwsfbz oaifkds ruch
Comment by reylsnh qmjkbsxu — August 27, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
irpgbkad mvoafgqtp yrlaxnqw xwnybg glbvizxe tpisu ukozmbnwy http://www.mkvwhczl.jewnfclb.com
Comment by gchftsyk vaun — August 27, 2007 @ 6:32 pm