I would be wary of looking for concise, quick answers from a show like this because it’s trying so hard to be the ultimate ontological mystery. I think you’re hitting the nail on the head when you say it’s part of the postmodern tradition.

“Numbers” is a good an episode as any to use to examine this aesthetic. I haven’t read From Hell, but if I understand your reading of The Crying of Lot 49*, the opinion of Pynchon’s audience (who are supposed to hold Oedipa as somewhat ridiculous, I suspect) is held by many of the characters on Lost, particularly the rationalists (Jack, Sayid, Charlie), who observe Hurley’s quest with growing concern.

However, the perspective of Hurley informed by unique experiences that the audience is aware of and Hurley’s companions are not. Hurley is satisfied by external validation (Rousseau believes him), and walks away from the experience without answers (or, if you must, with the answer “there is no answer”) but with peace of mind.

Meanwhile, the final ominous shot of the episode lands on the Hatch, where the numbers are present yet again. Here, Locke, who is never satisfied with simply knowing he isn’t crazy (would external validation have saved Oedipa? She seems lonelier than Hurley, but not as lonely as Locke. Perhaps she just doesn’t trust the universe as much), intends to go deeper…ultimately, at great cost.

So all answers may be equally valid, and the whole thing might be entirely meaningless, but the structure of the show often seems to give the perspective of characters who are desperately seeking for answers.

This could cause anxiety (“are they ever going to answer the big questions?”) but it also drives the plot forward, and while smaller mysteries are resolved or at least explained (“what’s that note Sawyer’s always reading?” “Who recorded the French message?” “Who torched the raft?”), the actions of the characters bring us to even bigger mysteries (“what’s in the Hatch?” “Who are those people on the boat?”), which gives a lot of meat for bigger and more dramatic storylines.

This structure is generally successful, but could be ultimately frustrating. I very much like your idea of combining ontological mystery with sci-fi, as the latter seems to be the natural progression of the former.

(*my reading of Pynchon was slightly different; Oedipa was capable of finding out what she wanted to know, but never did because irrelevant signals kept distracting her – which suggests that one would need to be practically omniscient to figure out the ultimate answer to any one Big Question. Then again, I was only given two days to write a paper on the thing, so I felt a bit like Oedipa myself. I think a better model of post-modern ontological mystery is the Illuminatus! Trilogy, which is a major influence for the Lost writers. Here the “all answers are equally valid” philosophy is pretty much plainly stated, but the reader is given a lot of tools to defend against B.S. along the way).

Loving the posts and looking forward to reading the rest!

“Life may not be written by a show runner in the sky. It may never give us the answers we’re all looking for.”

No, life isn’t, but, as you say, TV is. The island is a microcosm of life. And, in regards to the questions you put forward here, as we live, all of your questions are always on the table. As you’ve already notice, all those questions are always on the table on LOST too.

Explaining the island would be like explaining The Force. There will never be a satisfactory fictional answer to “why are you here” because there most likely will never be a satisfactory real answer to “why are you here.” What’s much more important is the statement “you are here,” or, even more powerful, “I am here.” (Note how Season 1 is largely about how the characters ended up on the island. Coincidence? I think not.)

That’s my Lost theory, any way. I hate Lost, but I hate the way a heroin addict hates heroin.

There’s a lot I want to say in response to this post, but I think almost all of it would be at least a low-grade spoiler – and I don’t want to wreck the opportunity for you to get into the show’s groove (or not) as it unfolds.

I’m also curious about the one thing that was spoiled for you. The show has a lot of hefty surprises coming up – a lot is probably underselling it, really – so it can take a hit like that and still deliver shocks a-plenty. But there’s a couple things that I would really hope weren’t revealed to you in advance, because they’re so much more powerful when you don’t know they’re coming.

What were you spoiled on? There are some FANTASTIC moments (some of, I believe, the best moments ever on scripted TV where I was most glued to the set) coming up at different points, and you definitely do not want to spoiled on those. I would pretty much not visit any website with anything remotely related to LOST until you finish Season 5.

Keep em coming! This is very interesting to read before Season 6 starts.

And yeah, there are a couple of moments in them that are either referenced back in S5 or just sits as a decent revelation for the series.

ps, sorry for pointing this out because now you will never be able to stop noticing it..

The “missing pieces” webisodes were aired on abc.com between seasons 3 and 4. They are considered canonical. And one of them is kind of a huge deal.