Then why would they be traveling together? (General question, not necessarily aimed at you, Genevieve…)

I don’t have any original answers to the questions, hence why I hadn’t commented yet.

1)Kate – whomever they accused her of killing (I can’t remember for sure), I’m pretty sure it wasn’t her father.

2)Jack is able to be a pretty damn good dad with minimal effort, and more, he WANTS to be.

3)Locke is obviously reconciled with his dad; he talks about having him at the wedding or going somewhere with him, with no obvious hostility.

and, the one I’d forgotten,

4)Jin & Sun aren’t married. I’m pretty certain their marriage was in some way related to her daddy issues (be it in defiance of him, or whatever.)

So, on a show w/ such reliance on the concept of daddy issues, to have the characters seemingly without them in the timeline where they didn’t interact with Jacob seems HIGHLY relevant to me, and makes me question even more the idea of Jacob as obvious “good guy.”

Q2) What do you mean, Sayid doesn’t have daddy issues? You don’t think at ALL that his life as a torturer and murderer, which he often seems to regret or even despise, doesn’t stem from having a father who pushed him towards and praised him for cold-blooded killing? Not to mention, a father from whom he felt he had to protect his little brother (by doing the killing for him.)

Anyway, I hope Sayid doesn’t die. He’s my favorite again, now that Daniel is gone :*(

Q3)Christian Shepherd = daddy issue resolution! Not good, not evil, just looking out for his kids. Led Jack to water, so he wouldn’t die. Hangin’ with Claire, to protect her. Perhaps he even encouraged her to be in league w/ Smokey, but if he did, it’s because he felt that was her best chance at survival. He’s the essence of fatherhood, protecting his children at all costs. We see a hint of that in Jack’s flash-sideways, when it’s revealed that Claire is listed in his will.

Of course, I’m not entirely certain that Smokey is “evil” yet. I think that “good” and “evil” are too simplistic for defining what’s going on on the island. I think that Smokey may be truly neutral; he does what has to be done, for whatever goals he or the island may have, but he doesn’t play around with issues of morality. He represents, perhaps, animal instinct. Humanity’s “lizard brain.” Jacob is the essence of moralizing, with all the good AND evil that brings. He represents religion, control, the superego. Determinism, perhaps.

Q4) Claire. Yeah. I got nothin’. I’m starting to think that whatever appeared as Claire to Kate was not Claire, but someone who has a vested interest in keeping Claire crazy… because, if Aaron had returned to the island, I think that she would’ve mellowed out quite a lot, just as Rousseau seemed to regain a bit of her sanity when she was reunited with Alex.

Q5) I can’t even answer that. I don’t know what I want to know! I almost feel like I won’t know until it’s over, and I’ll be able to look back and say, “OOOooh, I wish I didn’t know that.”

http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/kecks-exclusives/a-lost-lockeben-spin-off-4182.html

-Jack has potential as a father, and it was hugely important to him to be a good dad. This gives weight to Jacob’s “you got what it takes.” What does this mean? The EXTENT of Jack’s dad issues (now known from the sideways flash) may have held him back this whole time. Now that they’ve possibly been resolved, Jack might not freak and run into the jungle (for once) upon seeing Christian. I’m guessing Smokey will try to use Christian’s appearance/body/whatever as his way to control Jack.

-Locke has the ability to accept an ordinary fate. Granted, Locke is dead in 2007, but it appears that he’s still apart of the combined Smoke/Locke entity (evidenced by him yelling “Don’t tell me what I can’t do”). Locke may not let Smokey manipulate him anymore with hokey island mysticism.

That’s about it, I don’t remember anything pertinent about Kate’s flash (surprise), other than she may be a true blue murderer in that timeline. If so, then it could prove prophetic (murders Sayid or something).

Also, if the alternate timeline is truly the result of the nuclear bomb, in a way, the flashes ARE the ending, or at least half of it. While the series finale definitely needs to address the 2007 ending, if you saw all the flash sideways’ assembled into one final episode, you’d probably say it was adequate, as there is enough substance from which to draw thematic conclusions, at least concerning fate.

I’m not saying the flashes are perfect, but more like Jack and Locke’s would be most welcome. As an extended ending alone, they’re worth it.

@ Jon Eric, how can you say that the flashes don’t inform the action? We’d never fully know what “You’ve got what it takes” meant to Jack without seeing the flash-sideways. And remember that they’re not different characters, they’re the same characters in different circumstances. Lessons learned from the sideways flashes can still act as revelations in the 2007 timeline.

That “You’ve got what it takes” bit is some factual information that literally informed the 2007 storyline action, sure. But I meant “inform” in the way that the flashbacks of seasons 1 and 2 did. They told us something about the character that, in turn, made it clearer why each person acted the way he or she did. The flashback stories explain nothing about the characters’ motivations, because they’re two alternate versions with divergent histories. Narratively, this frustrates me.

If they give us a good reason, I’ll be willing to look past it. If not, then they’re nothing more than diversions at a time when the main plotline ought to be barreling toward its denouement.