Overthinking Lost: Episodes 2.1-2.8

Overthinking Lost: Episodes 2.1-2.8

This week, Shana answers the question that’s been eating at us since episode 1: How is Lost like a game of Sid Meier’s Civilization?

Ilostseason2.1n the first article of this series, I set forth the hypothesis that Lost is a modern-day retelling of The Lord of the Flies.  That famous novel, you’ll remember, was an allegory with the moral of “Anarchy bad; British society good!”  (Also, “Anarchy bad; Jesus good,” but that’s another story for another day.)  I argued in that post that LotF espoused a Hobbesian view of humanity, and that Lost, through the character of Jack, did the same, sans all the Jesus-talk.

This week, I’d like to talk more about the differences between Lord of the Flies and Lost, particularly the differences between views of modernity in the 1950s, when the novel was written, and views of modernity now, in the era of Lost.  And anthropology!  Lots of anthropology.  But first, let me quickly summarize the episodes I watched this week.
Episode 2.1 (“Man of Science, Man of Faith”): In the past, Jack learned to do exactly what every episode of Scrubs warned against: give his patients false hope.  In the world of Lost, false hope is better than anything in the Universe.  Er, I mean “faith.”  “Faith” is the most important thing in the Universe.  In the present, Locke and Kate go down the hatch and find Desmond, brother.  Hooray for new characters and new settings!  My interest in Lost is back, baby!

Episode 2.2 (“Adrift”):
In the past, Walt’s mom was annoying, again.  In the present, Michael shoots a shark?  In retrospect, not very much happened in this episode.

Episode 2.3 (“Orientation”):
Ah, here’s the meat.  In the past, Locke was banging Katey Sagal!  Go Locke!  In the present, the hatch appears to be some kind of psychological experiment and/or a nuke.  Also, Team Raft gets captured by Team Ana Lucia.

Episode 2.4 (“Everybody Hates Hugo”):
In the past, Hurley won the lottery.  First it was good, then it was bad.  In the present, Hurley doesn’t want to be the one to ration the hatch food.  Ana Lucia takes Team Raft to her team’s hatch.

Episode 2.5 (“…And Found”):
In the past, Sun didn’t want to get together with the man the matchmaker picked for her.  Then she did.  Then he dumped her.  Jin got a job with fancy schmancy hotel, then quit.  In the present, Sun loses her wedding ring, and Team Raft avoid the Others.

Episode 2.6 (“Abandoned”): In the past, Shannon’s dad dies and her step-mom takes the inheritance.  In the present, Shannon sees Creepy!Walt and needs Sayid to believe her.  Sayid eventually admits he does and that he loves her, so of course Shannon gets killed.  Boo.  I liked Shannon and thought she’d make it at least until the middle of the season.

Episode 2.7 (“The Other 48 Days”):
Oh, boy.  A lot happened in this episode.  The back of the plane crashes.  Ana Lucia thinks Nathan is a spy, but it turns out to be Goodwin.  A bunch of people who were on a list of “Good People” are taken away by the Others.  Ana Lucia kills Goodwin.  They find Team Raft.  Ana Lucia kills Shannon.

Episode 2.8 (“Collision”): In the past, Ana Lucia was a cop who lost her unborn baby when a thief shot her.  She kills the thief.  In the present, Ana Lucia feels guilty about killing Shannon and decides not to kill Sayid.  Oh, also Sawyer’s dying or something.  (No, I’m kidding.  I love Sawyer like whoa.)

We Were All Fine Until We Found the Potato Chips

Note: The information about anthropology in the following article comes mostly from my misremberances of college anthro courses, Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel, and games of Civilization III.  If you know better than I do about these topics, feel free to correct anything I say.

If I’m misrembering correctly, political systems tend to align with society size and economy.  Humanity started out in small hunter-gatherer bands that shared food fairly equally.  They didn’t need a leader.  Then, as their sizes grew, and as agriculture allowed societies to stick around in one place, humans began to need leaders to resolve conflict and protect property rights.  Thus, the social contract was enacted.  But as wealth grew, those leaders would try to keep more and more for themselves.  They became kings, enslaving people and forcing them to build them palaces and monuments.  Monotheistic religions became more popular.  Social classes became more stratified.  The barter economy was replaced with some type of market economy, though sometimes it was controlled by the king.  Finally, after a long time of growth and many uprisings, the people received what they demanded: a democratic society, or at least a constitutional monarchy, and modern, industry-based capitalism.  I’m not trying to espouse some ridiculous theory of historical Progress, just pointing out how societies usually develop in the world we live in.

Let’s step back for a second and go back to comparing Lost to Lord of the Flies, this time with a focus on political theory.  What is the very first thing that happens in The Lord of the Flies?  Do the boys start building a fire to connect to the outside world?  Do they start fighting?  Do they start looking for food?

No.  The very first thing they do is hold an election.

How ridiculous is that?  How optimistic the novel’s author, William Golding, was!  If the novel is a slow descent from 1950s notions of civility and modernity to 1950s notions of savagery, then Golding must have believed that the democratic process was the most civilized aspect of the modern world.  The difference between man and beast, in the mind of Golding (as well as some of the above political philosophers) is democracy.  In other words, modern, democratic, Westernized society is the pinnacle of human development.  The rest of the novel is a descent: democracy=>Jack’s monarchy=>tribalism=>complete anarchy.  It’s the opposite of the tech tree in Civilization!  That is No Good.

What happens at the beginning of Lost?  Do the mostly American passengers of flight 815 hold a democratic election to see who will run their merry band?  Ha, no.  Jack immediately becomes the de facto leader simply because he is the doctor.  The same thing happens on the other side of the island, where Ana Lucia becomes leader due to nothing more than force of personality.

I don’t want to sound too ethnocentric, but it does seem like Lost is working in the opposite direction of Lord of the Flies in terms of political development.  LotF started with a civilized democracy that slowly degenerated into anarchy.  Lost, on the other hand, starts with complete anarchy (watch the first five minutes of the pilot to see what I mean), not democracy.  Then, once Jack becomes leader, the political system shifts to the more anthropologically sophisticated system of Big Man politics.  In a tribal, Big Man society, a leader rules not through inheritance or wealth, but through influence and charisma.  Being basically anarchocommunist pseudo-states, these tribal societies are fairly equal in terms of socioeconomic status.  The Big Man doesn’t usually amass most of the society’s wealth; there’s just not that much wealth to go around.  The Big Man’s just the one you go to when you want to make decisions.

Sounds similar to Lost, Season One, doesn’t it?  Jack’s the Big Man.  On the other side of the island, Ana Lucia is the Big Woman, with a little less success.

Ana Lucia discusses the finer points of political philosophy with her clan.

Ana Lucia discusses the finer points of political philosophy with her clan.

So Lost starts with anarchy, then changes to tribalism.  Then what?

Well, then they get guns.  The discovery of the U.S. marshal’s suitcase brings Jack’s little society to a new level of political development: the autocracy.  Suddenly, he’s not just the Big Man whom you go to if you have a minor conflict or need general leadership.  Now, he’s the man with the key to the suitcase full of guns.  Notice that Jack wears the key around his neck for all to see at all times.  It’s like his crown.  “I am the keeper of Force,” the key seems to say.  “Argue with me at your peril.”

I’m being a little hyperbolic here, sure.  Jack seems like a relatively benevolent dictator.  But he is a dictator.  Now that he has access to the guns, he has a monopoly on force.  Unlike a tribal Big Man, who is first among equals, Jack now seems to see himself as the sole authority on any decision.  Notice how impatient he has been growing when it comes to Locke’s insubordination.  He and Locke used to be on relatively equal footing.  Jack was the Big Man; Locke was the Hunter.  Now Jack, the dictator, is getting sick of sharing power.

Jack the dictator is also building a small army around himself.  Consider poor, doomed Arzt.  Though his bitching that Jack and Kate and Locke and Hurley and the rest of the main characters are part of some “cool club” or clique was played for laughs, there was a lot of truth to it.  There were the people who had access to the weapons (Jack, Kate, Locke, Sawyer) and there were those who did not.  There were the loyal subjects to Jack, who were given the currency of secrets; those just on the margins (like Charlie); and those left on the far outskirts (like Arzt and the other unnamed masses).  Once the guns came into the picture, a little caste system began to develop.

Now, with the opening of the hatch, though, everything has changed.  Team Jack now has access to a variety of luxuries, such as shampoo, rifles, a shower, and, as Hurley mentioned, potato chips.  Jack’s no Big Man now.  Now he has a palace.  Only a select few can come into this palace.  Only they have access to the weapons.  Only they can decide who gets what.  If they were greedy, they could simply hole up in the hatch with their luxuries, leaving the rest of the masses to remain on the beach at their lower standard of living.  Team Hatch might think, “They’ll be fine out there.  They were fine before.”  But that’s not the case.  Now there’s an income disparity.  An extreme one.  The beach dwellers will want those potato chips.  Which is why Jack and co. need the guns.  Welcome to the world of monarchy, island inhabitants.

What Lost's island looks like to the dudes at the Dharma Initiative.

What Lost's island looks like to the dudes at the Dharma Initiative.

God Save The King.

Jack’s not only a king now.  He’s a king by divine right.

I know, I know.  “Divine right!?” you’re saying.  “How could Jack be king by divine right when he doesn’t even believe in God.  He’s the Man of Science!”  To that, all I can say is just… bear with me.

The difference between a simple dictator and a king is divine right.  In a tribal society, the Big Man is chosen to lead because everyone likes him; he’s first among equals.  In a monarchy, however, the king isn’t chosen by the masses in a social contract.  He’s grandfathered in somehow.  The king isn’t the coolest guy on the block; he’s the one with the guns or the one with the right dad.

But without a firm social contract, how can such a king hope to rule without civil strife?  Easy!  The king can claim divine right.  God chose him for this task of ruling the nation. The king didn’t want to do it.  He has to do it.  Have faith, peasants, and you’ll understand why you have to do whatever the King—and, by extension, God—says to do.  In this divine right scheme, the King’s not the CEO of the country.  He’s the supreme Middle Manager.

In the land of Lost, people are starting to mutter about Jack.  Locke disobeys him in front of the masses.  People like Charlie and Arzt have started wondering who put him and his army in charge.  Now Ana Lucia is here, and I’m sure she’s not going to love giving up her power to this doctor.  Jack needs some way to justify his rule.  He needs some divine right, fast.

Luckily, Jack’s got some divine right standing by, waiting for him to use it.  It’s not divine right from a bearded dude in the sky.  Anyway, Jack wouldn’t believe in that.  No, it’s a God of Science: the people behind the Dharma Initiative.

Think about it.  Jack goes down into the mysterious hatch.  He meets a man who tells him what he must do for the Dharma Initiative.  The man gives him the hatch and all the food and supplies inside.

Or, in a more religious light: Jack goes down into the deus’ machina.  He meets a prophet who tells him the duties bestowed upon him by the gods.  The prophet gives him his palace and his new wealth.

Notice how the use of the word “faith” has changed from the first season of Lost to this second season.  In the first season, faith almost always referred to some spirit in the sky: Jesus, Fate, Lady Luck, whatever.  But from “Orientation” on, faith has a new meaning.  Locke is saying, “We have to have faith” not in reference to God or to Fate but to the researchers at the Dharma Initiative.  We have to have faith that they (the creators) had a plan.  Thus the orientation video is Locke’s Bible (notice that he wants to watch it repeatedly), Desmond a link to the old prophets who actually spoke to the Dharma gods.  I’m also sure it’s no accident that the initiative is named after a religious concept (dharma) and that the timer is set to 108, a number with religious significance in Hinduism, Buddism, Jainism, and Sikhism.  The members of the Dharma Initiative aren’t literal gods, but they’re setting themselves up to be the island’s figurative ones.

Of course, Jack doesn’t have to say, “Do this or God will strike you down” to his subjects.  But now, with this divine right he can say, “Do this or the island will blow up.”  (Interestingly, Jack doesn’t even necessarily believe in this God, himself.  In episode 3, “Orientation,” he almost let the hatch’s counter run out to prove that he can beat those Gods of Science, who have probably trapped him in some giant Skinner box as a practical joke.  To tell you the truth, if I were running that island, I’m 90% sure I’d let that damn timer run out, too.)


We therefore see that, unlike Lord of the Flies, Lost’s political development has been moving toward complexity rather than degenerating into anarchy.  If we were to plot Lost onto history, it might look something like this:

The first half of season 1 : Paleolithic Era (hunter-gatherer society) : Big Man politics : Anarchocommunist/barter economy : Social equality

The second half of season 1 : Neolithic Era (Sun develops agriculture, but the island still operates based mostly on gathering) : Big Man politics + weapons : Anarchocommunist/barter economy : Caste system developing

The beginning of season 2 : The beginning of empire (I assume Team Jack is going to take over Team Ana Lucia) : Monarchy : Beginnings of a command economy (Jack and Locke are forcing people into doing certain jobs), potential for the development of a premodern capitalist economy : Caste system solidifying

If Lost continues in this fashion, we should expect to eventually get a constitutional monarchy and maybe even a democracy.  We may see the barter economy develop into a true market with a currency, or we may see some version of feudalism.  Ultimately, the characters may return home to their modern democratic societies and capitalist economies.

But is this seen as a good thing in Lost?  Remember, in Lord of the Flies, democracy was the pinnacle of human existence.  Civilization was to be yearned for, a return to modern society a noble goal.

In Lost, it’s not all that clear that the modern world is so great.  We look at the character flashbacks, and what do we see?  Locke is alienated from his work, a peon in the cogs of a box manufacturing company.  Jin’s life is made increasingly more difficult because of his social status.  Hurley lives a meaningless existence as a guy in a chicken suit until he wins the lottery.  Then life gets worse.  Shannon is made to give up her dream of being a ballet dancer because she lacks the capital to make the move to New York.  Walt must give up his dream of being an artist and give up his son due to unfortunate economic circumstances.

In Lost, chicken suits represent suburban ennui.

In Lost, chicken suits represent suburban ennui and labor alienation.

In Lord of the Flies, home is heaven.  I said back in another post that Los Angeles might play that role in Lost.  I might have to retract that statement.  Home is not at all that heavenly in Lost’s flashbacks.  In Lost, modernity may not something to strive for.  It is full of con artists looking to make a quick buck, middle managers waiting in the lunch room to crush the last vestiges of your masculinity.  Lost’s political and economic systems may be growing ever more complex as the show continues.  But is that a good thing?  I’d bet it won’t be.  From the looks of it, Lost’s writers have an ill view of modern society, so the closer Jack’s tiny nation gets to modern America, the worse it may get.

Maybe everyone was better off without the potato chips.

Next time on Overthinking Lost: I figure out what the deal with the Others is?  I hope?  Maybe?

Remember, everyone: when you’re commenting, no spoilers past season 2 episode 8!

15 Comments on “Overthinking Lost: Episodes 2.1-2.8”

  1. Gab #

    You really liked Shannon? Really?

    There was a slight clash of civilizations in the moment Ana Lucia shot Shannon- the analogy of empire is splendid. She’s like the minor king that must pay tribute and make amends because she transgressed the greater king. And she’s not happy about it at all.

    I think the issue of paranoia/trust is important, too, in comparing methods of leadership. Ana Lucia assumes the absolute worst in people and takes a lot of convincing to have her mind changed; Jack is cautious, but will eventually listen and allow people into his circle or delegate responsibilities to them; and Locke assumes the best in everyone from the start and must be convinced of the opposite if there is any need NOT to trust someone. And notice each leader keeps those with their minds in the same place closest to them, and the further your personal philosophy is from the leader, the more alienated from them you are.

    Faith rewarded: ROSE AND BERNARD!!! They are just the cutest thing ever.

    Faith taken away: Sayid. Yet even when he’s “dead,” he’s still gorgeous.


  2. Beej #

    On my blog, I had a comment that made me start thinking of parallels in LOST and Stephen King’s “The Stand” which I find applicable here. In “The Stand,” the society that was dredged up tried to be a form of the government everyone already know, and the same thing was tried on the Island, as you point out.

    In “The Stand,” however, has the characters realize that the reason they exist in a post-Apocalyptic world to begin with was because of that governmental structure. I think that same realization might happen at some point on the Island, too, because like you said, there was nothing good for these people off-Island, so why should they try to emulate what didn’t work to begin with?


  3. Paulo Brabo #

    This is the freaking awesomest series of texts I’ve read in ages. I thought I revered lost, but only now I see the light (and the darkness). Civilization is room for overthinking.

    I liked Shannon too.


  4. Dock #

    I tried to think of a way to really discuss something without spoiling, and its damn near impossible. So I cant say anything more than: just wait till you see The Others.


  5. Saint #

    I think there’s a ton of Overthinking potential in the Civ games. Maybe an article on Freud and the AI personalities: “Civilization 4 and its Discontents”


  6. Marmaduke #

    Sayid?? Gorgeous?!? Really?!?111?? To each their own but as far as beefy rugged men on the island go, Sawyer definitely takes the cake. Sayid’s just a little too torture happy considering how much he “condemned” his past activities.

    Rose and Bernard are just darling! And Sun and Jin!! As for lovehate bromances, keep an eye on Jack and Sawyer. They have some very special moments throughout the show.

    These are some great takes! I can’t wait to see where the Others fall into all of this. I have my theories but I wouldn’t want to say too much and give anything away.

    @ Gab You’re absolutely right. Trust is key in their methods of leadership and it really goes both ways. It gets even more complicated when people begin to follow those they really shouldn’t trust even after it proves to be their downfall over and over again.


  7. mlawski OTI Staff #

    Ugh, please ignore all the awful typos in this piece. Sorry. So sorry.

    I did like Shannon! Well, that’s not quite right. I didn’t like her like her. I wouldn’t want to be friends with her. But she fascinated me. And when I’m watching TV, that’s about as important as being likable. Or even more important.

    Shannon was an interesting wild card. I was never quite sure what she would do. Her motivations were often so petty and childish that they could almost justify any action she took. Like when she tried to kill Locke, I bought it. If someone tried to steal Sayid from her, I’d have no trouble believing that she’d cut that someone in her sleep. I could even see her pulling a Hedda Gabler: “I’m bored on this island. To spite Boone, I’ll just kill myself in front of everyone. Then they’ll be sorry. They’ll all be sorry!” I even bought it when she had a change of heart and became the sweet lover/dog-watcher/potential Walt-finder/tragic deather.

    Characters like this always fascinate me. Plus she had some hidden depths, which was also cool. I liked that her flashback explained her personality but didn’t excuse her actions. I wonder if others feel that way, too. Sometimes it seems like Lost (and other shows) are so bent on keeping the main characters “likable” that they go and excuse every bad thing they ever did. Like: Kate robbed a bank and shot three men, but it’s okay because oh look she’s sad her boyfriend died awwww. No. I’m more interested in how Shannon conned and seduced her brother to get some money to pay off her debt. She was spoiled and then she was screwed over. Conning and seducing are the only things she knows how to do. This is how she gets by in the world. Do we like her for it? No. Does her past excuse it? No. Is it interesting? To me, yes it is.


  8. specialagentdalecooper #

    Good stuff again. I enjoy the analysis of “Lost”‘s political and social themes. I think a lot of those ideas get moved over to other groups and characters as the show moves forwa… la la la, sorry, I’m getting dangerously close to spoiling now.


  9. Gab #

    I thought I posted this elaboration, but mayhap I dreamed that up or something. Hopefully I won’t lose much in translation.
    Or maybe I did post it and it got taken away because I post too much too often… Ahem…

    Re: Shannon, and I’m adding Boone in there, since both are now dead.

    I agree, Shannon was interesting- that by no means necessitates “liking,” though. So we seem to be on the same page. My thing with her and her brother is once they were dead, I couldn’t help but feel as though their only purpose in the series was to boost other characters, the “more important” ones, and feed into those other plot-lines. Boone, I already basically said it on (I think) the last analysis piece: he was there to give us more Locke, Locke v. Jack, and Jack v. fallibility. Shannon’s main purpose was to give Sayid some of his humanity back- through his relationship with her, he became capable of opening up to (or at least making better connections with) the rest of the survivors. He may not be spilling his guts, but he’s at least really listening now, and getting more attune to the needs and happiness/safety/comforts of his cohorts- Shannon’s mission to save the dog became his because of his affection for her, for example. If you consider the “stuff” the siblings did before dying, it is always something someone else could just as easily have done- e.g. it would not be hard to believe in Sayid or Jack also knowing French and thus being able to translate Rousseau’s message, given how educated they are; and Locke could have taken anybody else with him to the airplane (or he could have just heard the radio himself on a solo mission). But then those character-boosting parts about them would have been lost, or else they would have needed to come about some other way. Sayid would have needed a different way to build a bridge connecting him with everybody else, and Jack and Locke would have needed to clash over other things, things that wouldn’t seem as big of a deal and would just make them seem pettier than they already do (because someone dying is always a big deal, but coconut distribution is much more relative/subjective). Now, I suppose since I didn’t actually *like* Shannon, I would have been okay with her not being there at all, but I did genuinely like Boone. In retrospect, he’s sort of like the dog in _Up_ (or perhaps it should be the other way around): trying really hard, good intentions, (basically) blinded by his desire to help, forgiving to a fault, running around and dappling into everything because he wants to be involved, almost over-eager, etc. He was like a puppy.

    But my point is I don’t really know how I feel about that with respect to the writers. Is that a good method, creating characters with a purpose only to boost others? Is it a cop-out, and if so, an acceptable or unacceptable one? I keep see-sawing, unfortunately, so I’m asserting my right to spam the comments and asking anybody else who wants to answer.


  10. mlawski OTI Staff #

    @Gab: Yeah, I think part of the reason I got such a bad taste in my mouth when Shannon died was because it seemed very “women stuffed in the fridge-y.” I’ve probably talked about this concept on OTI before, but being stuffed in the fridge is the a phenomenon in which strong female characters (especially in comic books) quickly get weakened or depowered and then ultimately killed in order to beef up the personality of the main (male) characters. Like you kill off Rachel Dawes to give Batman and Harvey Dent extra character development. Her death also gives Batman and Harvey Dent “pity points,” making them more likeable and justifying their more questionable actions. The focus is never on poor Rachel, who actually had to, you know, blow up. It’s always on Batman and Harvey. Aww, look, they’re sad. Aww, look, Harvey’s turning evil now.

    Clearly, fridge stuffing isn’t only suffered by female characters. although it happens to them so frequently that it gets very noticeable. But Boone is a great male example.

    I’m trying to think of an easier way of upping the drama and character development than killing off some major secondary characters. It’s difficult. Yes, Jack and Locke could have fought about something else, but would anything have been as dramatic as a fight over the death of a friend? Dunno.

    As for Shannon and Sayid, I don’t think the death was necessary there. Sayid was already humanized by his flashbacks; just being friends with Shannon rather than lovers would have worked fine, too. And she definitely didn’t need to die to hammer home the point that Sayid gets adorable puppy-dog eyes when he’s sad. We saw that in his flashbacks, as well.

    I think what happened was the writers wanted Ana Lucia to introduce herself by killing someone in Team Jack–how crazy dramatic is that?–and Shannon was disposable. Unfortunately, most of the female characters in Lost are pretty disposable right now. That’s what happens when you make more than three-quarters of your characters dudes.


  11. Marmaduke #

    @ mlawski: While the women are in minority, there are a few strong ones. Some just don’t come to the forefront until later and others haven’t been introduced thus far. While yet others are supposed to be strong (as hinted by their dirty wife beaters and willingness to traipse through the jungle) but still manage to come off as airheads.

    @ Gab: It’s definitely a cop-out but only because there are a bunch of other ways to flesh out a character. This one’s just the simplest. I think as long as it’s believable it’s legitimate. We don’t see Sayid falling in love with Shannon within the first week of the crash, moving into her hut by the second, and proposing to her by the third week only for her to catch dysentery and die. While pregnant with his baby.
    If I was a writer and I needed some character development, why not kill someone off? It’s exciting and gets the job done easily. Especially this early in the show when the audience is attached to certain characters just enough for the death to resound but not enough for it to bite.

    To expand on mlawski’s point: Another possibilty for the creation of such characters is that the writer’s intention is for them to die during a plot twist to add to the shock value of the show, so it matters just a little bit more than ‘oh snap, that extra just got shot’. I know there’s a specific episode with that purpose, well it actually seemed more like the writers were experimenting with the creation of stand alone episodes and decided against it. I’m not sure if that episode came up already. It involved a random couple messing around on the island. Basically. Tell me if I’ve said too much!


  12. Eric #

    Of course it hasn’t come up yet, it’s in the third season! And I don’t agree with people saying Boone and Shannon were supposed to support other characters. They were their own unique characters. Shannon was basically a Paris Hilton. How would Paris Hilton react on a desert island without her gold card? It’s an interesting enough concept to create a character around. And Shannon developed. And Boone was added drama with Shannon, but also his own type of character – the liberal, social idealist who has to meet with the harsh realities of nature. Just because they died earlier than other characters doesn’t mean they were just support characters all along. Boone lasted most of a season, which is more than 20% of the entire show so far.


  13. Nicole #

    You have some interesting insights; I never would have thought to compare Lost to anthropology- its a first, but explains maybe why the first seasons were structured the way they were.

    It’s a shame you stepped in after 5 season’s have aired.

    I’ve watched the show since the first season aired and this is one show in which discussion forums have been popping up from day one, because of the rich content in it like what you are finding.

    I won’t say more, since I will spoil it for you. For overthinkers this show will yield many fruits.


  14. Tom P #

    Only a select few can come into this palace.

    I have frequently thought this was the most ridiculous aspect of season two. That they suddenly find a hatch with beds and heat and showers and there is no push by the other castaways to enter it.

    You are totally correct about the Ana-Lucia vs. Jack leadership contrast. Both are dictators but Ana-Lucia, I think, was supposed to be the military dictatorship instead of the benevolent dictatorship. That’s why hers fell apart quicker. The people were only bound together through threat of force and guilt and, when they realized she wouldn’t use force, it fell apart.

    Major turning point episode next week that I’m looking forward to your thoughts on.


  15. Jayemel #

    This review is your best yet. It was dead on, especially with your analysis of Jack.

    I’m really glad you pointed out the Artz thing, as I have focused on it ever since he first died. He’s an insecure wuss, but exactly correct.

    Likewise, your point about the definition of the word “faith” is crucial, especially considering “Man of Science, Man of Faith” was the season opener and the title refers to Jack. Once again, what are the writers saying about today?


Add a Comment