Can Locke break his cycle?

[sweetsunray]

Prediction: SgtDraino will disagree with many of my observations, but let me just tell him that I'm not posting to put him down, only trying to figure out how Locke could help himself break-out of a cycle pattern that I think I can see happening for Locke.

So what cycle? Locke's character cycle has to do with how much he believes to know about the island, how much he thinks some quest is his destiny, and a lot follows from there. Of course, and this is what Draino will disagree with me about, is that it is a cycle of rising sky-high and breaking up caused when Locke thinks he knows all when he doesn't... although I'll admit he generally does know a little bit more than the rest of the Losties.

First cycle - Season 1:
Phase 1 - the lift: Locke starts out on the up, because the island has healed him miraculously. He instantly knows that this is a special place and that fatewise he didn't end up there by accident (nor probably the rest of the survivors). He's confident and he can live out his dream: he has a new family, he can be looked up to as a wise man, and he can be the hunter (three of his issues: the things he wants to be and have). It's a dream come true.
Phase 2 - special: Locke stumbles upon the hatch with Boone. The island didn't just heal him, he finds something that he thinks the island wants him to open. The island thinks he's very special, and in his mind entrusts him with something it believes only he can do, along with side-kick Boone. He believes himself to be so unique that it should be kept secret from the rest of the Losties... He believes they aren't as ready as him in the eyes of the island to know about it, let alone open it. Here, I believe he overshoots himself according to the cycles that we see over and over again with him. Perhaps he was just meant to find it, bring in the family that could help him?
The peak moment (overshoot): Three weeks he spends his time on it, forgetting all about his dream come true, excluding himself from the family, keeping secrets from them, stop being the hunter. Instead he sits there and thinks, and knocks down Boone and send him on a forced drug trip because Boone was muttering he was not going to keep it secret any longer.
Phase 3 - doubt: A trap is set in motion where he will learn to sing another tune. He makes a trebuchet which fails, and he's starting to have problems with his legs. Grasping for frustrated straws, because he now believes he knows nothing, he receives a dream about the beechcraft, and it all ends with Boone dying: the side-kick climbed up the cliff because the hero couldn't do it himself.
Phase 4 - Breakdown: Locke's lost. He doesn't know how to open the hatch, Boone's dead, and he doesn't know what to do. In desperation he cries and bangs on the hatch, crying out for help, letting go of his own ego and opening himself up to whatever.
the low - Saved: Bam, Desmond turns the light on, saving Locke from going nutters, yet rejected by his family (Jack attacking him, Shannon almost shooting him).

Second cycle - Season 2
Phase 1 - the lift: It's not very willingly that Locke returns to his family... Sayid has to force his hand, confront Locke with his lies in order to get the truth out of him. And when the truth comes out, surprise, surprise, one of the last persons Locke was willing to tell to begin with is the first to jump to the occasion to try and open it. Jack gets the family together and Danielle's help to open Locke's hatch. They succeed.
Phase 2 - special: They find a button inside the hatch that needs to be pushed every 108 mins to save the world. Locke now thinks this is what he's on the island for, why the island chose him: to push the button. But he doesn't want to perform that destiny alone. Previously he thought Boone was his destiny side-kick because the two found the hatch together, this time he believes Jack ought to be the button-pushing side kick because Jack is linked to the hatch via Desmond.
overshoot: he expands his territory... meddles with Charlie's addiction, wants control over the safety lock, over the guns, over the hatch (as in shaving in the bathroom when Jack's under the shower), over Benry, over who gets to see Benry, ... Locke has a deep born problem with someone being above him in decision hierarchy and where he avoided the boss in the first cycle, he's now trying to become the master.
Phase 3 - doubt: Locke succeeded in manouevring Jack out of the hatch, because Jack stays away all day and leaves it all to Locke... who ends up trapped under the blast door, losing his mobility and having to depend on Benry to push the button for him. He gets to see a map with a question mark. Benry turns out to be an Other, right when Locke started to trust him, and Bentry even tells him he hadn't pushed the button, that nothing happened.
Phase 4 - Breakdown: Locke's lost. He doesn't know what the map means, or remember everything it said, doesn't know whether the button needs to be pushed or not. Meanwhile Benry escapes, AL is dead and Libby dying. Eko drags him to the question mark, which ends up being the exact same location as where Boone fell. Like Boone, Eko was to climb the cliff. They find the Pearl, and an instruction tape that seems to say the button was just a social Skinner-type experiment: fake. It's crucial for Locke that this revelation comes at the same spot where Boone practically fell to his death. Of course Locke's going to think that Eko was only doing what Boone should have done, before they ever opened the hatch... that his so vivid dream (and imo one-time dream) had tried to warn him that button was fake. Boone died for nothing in Locke's eyes at this point.
the low - Saved: While Locke lost all faith in the button, Eko found it. But Locke's not having it. He's going to prove it doesn't do a damn thing, and that with the aid of Desmond. And his family? He says, they're not even his friends. He couldn't care less if they were wounded after the dynamite explosion. And when Desmond changes his mind, after revealing that Boone's death did have at least on purpose (Locke's breakdown over it saved Desmond from shooting a bullet through his head) and that it was not pushing the button on time that brought the plane down, Locke smashes the computer in smithereens. Right when Locke realizes he was wrong in disbelieving the button, Desmond saves the day by turning the key.

Cycle 3 - Season 3
Phase 1 - the lift: Locke seeks council to bring the family back together and to clean up his own mess: he saves Eko from the polar bear. He's a wise man once more, a hunter (so Eko says), considerate of the family, part of the family, inviting them along on his mission to visit the Pearl to make contact with the Others in order to get Sawyer, Kate and Jack back, and find Eko once more. But Eko dies, and he goes in search of the Jezus stick which points the way.
Phase 2 - special: Locke finds his new mission: blow up and destroy everything Dharma or used by the Others, anything the stick points to. But he's already drifting away again from the family. He's starting to do stuff behind his family's back again, eventually even leaving them.
overshoot: He starts to think he's more special than Ben, because Ben is in a wheelchair, and he isn't.
Phase 3 - doubt: well but Ben has a mightier hand than Locke does. He has Cooper on the island. Ben will tell Locke everything he wants to know if he kills Cooper first. Locke can't do it. If it hadn't been for Alpert he would have broken down there and then. So, Locke seeks Sawyer (the new side-kick) and locks him up with Cooper. Sawyer murders Cooper. However, it won't keep Locke from going to phase 4.
phase 4 - Breakdown: Locke disbelieves Ben, disbelieves the existence of Jacob, thinks Ben is the man behind the curtain and he's going to prove it. But Jacob does exist, and asks Locke to help him. Locke doesn't know what to think anymore, what to believe. He thinks Ben said it. And Ben shoots him.
The Low - Saved Down at the bottom of the pit (of Dharma people), thinking he can't move anymore, is dying, the island has left him, didn't do a thing to prevent Ben from shooting him, Locke grabs a gun and aims to kill himself. Then a taller Walt appears and tells him to "get up", because he has work to do: he must protect his family. Locke's saved, once again.

Cycle 4 - season 4
Phase 1 - the liftLocke knifes Naomi (to protect the family) and rejoins his family. He's not secretive at all, wanting to tell the family everything, and leads them to the barracks for protection.
Phase 2 - specialBut he makes a detour for Jacob's cabin first and finds out it isn't where he thinks it ought to be. Even although it was Hurley's speech that convinced so many people to go along with Locke, he crowns himself leader and beatbrows Hurley into submission of his will or rejection.

Guess where the rest will be going...

Anyway, the four circles all start well, with a Locke we'd love to see all the time really: together with the family, inviting, wise, open. Alas, he all too soon loses sight of this: becomes secretive, separates him physically from the family, and lets some mission predominate over the family, believes himself to be the only reliable wise council. As he overshoots himself he sets himself up for doubt and being proven wrong, saved in a nick of time.

So, how can Locke break the cycle? By only relying on himself? By going on his own merry way and live the life of a hermit hunter? I truly don't think so: the key lies in staying with the family, having confidence in them, being open with them, allowing them to participate and help him, in realizing they might know a thing or two that he doesn't know yet. I think his true island mission isn't opening the hatch, pushing the button or blowing up everything, but being part of the family and be a hunter for them.

[Tater]

I have no idea how to answer this question...

I just want to applaud the post. Very well said. :)

[Homer Noodleman]

LOCKE: Norman Croucher.
RANDY: What? Norman what?
LOCKE: Norman Croucher. Norman Croucher, double amputee, no legs. He climbed to the top of Mt. Everest. Why? It was his destiny.
RANDY: That's what you think you've got, old man? Destiny?
LOCKE: Just don't tell me what I can't do.


I've argued that Locke's story about Norman Croucher illuminates Locke's flaw in a nutshell. The simple fact is that Norman Croucher didn't make it to the top of Everest because it was his destiny. Destiny had nothing to do with it. Rather, it was Croucher's determination, hard work and preparation that got him to the top.

Locke always externalizes his problems, which is why his mantra, "don't tell me what I can't do" rings so hollow. I'm sure plenty of people told Croucher he was nuts, but Norman likely didn't respond by fuming at a tourist stand because he missed a bus, or throwing dishes in frustration. Croucher didn't care what people told him he couldn't do -- he just did it.

That's why walking on the Island is so fatal to Locke -- it isn't something he earned, it is something given to him, and he is too big a fool to see the price tag attached to his mobility.

Rose never likes the hatch, and Rose is ready to walk away from the island, regardless of her cancer. Locke is selling himself a slice at a time for his imaginary destiny.

That's why I say Locke's salvation lies in a wheelchair. When he understands that what was inside of Croucher, and not some silly imaginary destiny, that got Croucher to the top of Everest, then maybe he'll understand the path he needs to follow.

P.S. -- yea, yea, I know Croucher didn't really make it to the top of Everest. Tell that to Locke, maybe had he studied Croucher's life he would have seen the real inspiration, and not the excuse.

[sweetsunray]

Yes, Homer, I can see your point: don't mistake coincidence for fate. You make your own fate.

Locke can be a wise man, a kind man, a generous man... when he's not busying himself with whatever destiny the island handed him and be the guru, but just following his heart, rather than his bumbling fate.

[sgtdraino]

Actually, sweetsunray, I agree with you that the writers have repeated this cycle several times with Locke. I think the point at which we part ways, is on whether this is a natural cycle for him or not.

You would probably argue that this cycle is endemic to Locke's nature, that this is the natural way he tends to operate.

I tend to attribute the cycle to weak, lazy writing and lack of original ideas. The writers have a formula they think works for the character, and are just using the same formula over and over again.

To me, it is illogical that someone who has experienced the amazing things that Locke has, would so easily become discouraged from that belief, over and over and over again. Let's see...

Instantly healed from paralysis.
Saw the monster (very bright, beautiful light).
Given insight by Island into any number of things he should have no knowledge of (Beechcraft crash, etc.).
Super-fast trebuchet shrapnel healing.
Super-fast crushed leg healing.
Was right (the first time) about pushing the button.
Vision quest to save Eko.
Jesus Stick message led to The Flame.
He heard Jacob.
Super-fast healing from bullet wound.
Tall Walt

At this point, even if he doesn't understand exactly what's going on or how it works, he should have absolute confidence that:

1. He is special.
2. The Island/Jacob/Tall Walt/Whatever really is communicating with him.
3. It's not all just a bunch of B.S.

Nothing should be able to shake him from that, period, because he's experienced it all first-hand. And yet still he seems to have these cycles. It just doesn't feel like the natural evolution of a character to me. Not when that character has been through what Locke has been through.

Furthermore, to repeat this cycle over and over again simply makes for duller viewing. The character should evolve in a believeable way. We shouldn't be rehashing the same cycle every season or two. That's just weak.

[sweetsunray]

Ah, but the prob with those special events is that it will only either make him overshoot himself... Eventually someone's bound to hit the ceiling. Also, the third cycle, his doubt phase wasn't so much losing fate in the island as in thinking he maybe doesn"t have what it takes (killing his dad), except the moment he thought was dying did he hd lost fate (but that was his low point). There is a change, and that is that he tends to go through the first phase faster, start to overshoot, and his type of doubts alter too.

For myself though, I'm glad he does have a doubt phase... The Locke I don't like is the phase 2 Locke.

[sgtdraino]

My least favorites are Phase 3 and Phase 4, naturally. At this point--heck, way before this point--Locke should not be having these doubts and breakdowns anymore. Yes, there will come points where Locke will hit a ceiling of sorts, when something unexpected happens, like Jacob's cabin not being where he expected it to be. But this should merely show him that he doesn't fully understand the nature of what is going on. It shouldn't cause him to completely lose faith, declare the whole thing is a bunch of crap, and undergo bizarre personality shifts. Because it's blatantly obvious (or it should be) that the whole thing is not a bunch of crap.

[sweetsunray]

As I've argued... Locke disbelieves with the same zeal as he believes. For me that's not so surprising. I've experienced how hard it is to explain to believers that with most atheists belief simply does not come into the equation, but rather a default stance until proven otherwise.
Locke is a character who has a surplus of faith. He's someone who does not know how "not to believe". He's as convinced of things not being so as he can be convinced that they are. Locke never lacks faith or believe in either white or black.

So, yes, absolutely it's in character imo for him to go the total opposite way after his overimagination worked overtime. He makes more out of events and things than there actually are (especially himself) and thus when the exaggerated version is shown to be not sound, he'll reverse totally and say there's nothing there. Worse, for him, it's as if their cannot be island strangeness if he's not the center of it.

Of course, there is island strangeness and he is a major player for the island, but his own past and issue of seeking specialness status makes him take it too far.

[sgtdraino]

As I've argued... Locke disbelieves with the same zeal as he believes. For me that's not so surprising. I've experienced how hard it is to explain to believers that with most atheists belief simply does not come into the equation, but rather a default stance until proven otherwise.

I think those athiests are fooling themselves, then. A default position would be "I don't know," the agnostic's position. Other than that, default positions are completely arbitrary. I say that as a person of faith, engaged to an agnostic/ex-athiest.

As a person of faith, to me it seems completely surprising that someone would go back-and-forth between completely believing in something, to completely believing the opposite. I can see a situation where you could go from completely believing one thing, to completely believing the opposite one time, and maybe back to your original believe if you learn you were mistaken... but to go back and forth several times? Not just having doubts, but actually going to a polar opposite position? No.

Of course, that could be all we just witnessed: momentary doubt or confusion, not a full-blown crash/repeated cycle. Locke's statement at the end of the episode seems re-affirming. We'll see how he acts next week.

[sweetsunray]

Draino I did not post that to engage in debate about "atheism" publically. I'll therefore respond to your argument in PM.

[sgtdraino]

Draino I did not post that to engage in debate about "atheism" publically. I'll therefore respond to your argument in PM.

I don't know that we're debating atheism, as much as we're debating your notion of a scientific "default position" of disbelief. That can be applied to just about anything.

In any event, it sounds like you are trying to explain Locke's thought processes from the point of view of an athiest. This isn't necessarily applicable, because the John Locke character is not an athiest.

[sweetsunray]

No, I'm not explaining him from the pov of an atheist, but exactly as a man of faith who has as much faith in things not being true as things being true, and this kind of faith in the two extremes is something a scientific mind would indeed lack ;)

We would be debating atheism,agnosticism and religion publically, if I reply on your claim that atheists are fools and they better claim themselves to be agnostics with a post.

[sgtdraino]

No, I'm not explaining him from the pov of an atheist, but exactly as a man of faith who has as much faith in things not being true as things being true, and this kind of faith in the two extremes is something a scientific mind would indeed lack ;)

As I've argued... Locke disbelieves with the same zeal as he believes. For me that's not so surprising. I've experienced how hard it is to explain to believers that with most atheists belief simply does not come into the equation, but rather a default stance until proven otherwise.

Aaah, I think I see what you're getting at now. To use "The Island" as an example, you would postulate that "believing The Island is not a diety," is not the same thing as "not believing The Island is a diety."

In other words, that "believing something does not exist" is not the same thing as "not believing something exists."

I think I understand now, though in my own opinion they are the same thing, it's just semantics.

We would be debating atheism,agnosticism and religion publically, if I reply on your claim that atheists are fools and they better claim themselves to be agnostics with a post.

Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that. "Fooling yourself" is not in any way the same thing as being a fool. A fool is an idiot, but even smart people can fool themselves from time to time. It happens to the best of us.

[sweetsunray]

Aaah, I think I see what you're getting at now. To use "The Island" as an example, you would postulate that "believing The Island is not a diety," is not the same thing as "not believing The Island is a diety."

..

In other words, that "believing something does not exist" is not the same thing as "not believing something exists."

Yes!!! the two have different implications regarding behaviour and actions based on belief. When Locke truly believed the button was fake, he felt he had a right to intervene with others pushing it. When Jack did not-believe the button was real, he still recognized there was a slight chance it might have been real, and so ultimately he pushed the button.

I think I understand now, though in my own opinion they are the same thing, it's just semantics.

You may not see that as a difference, yet they have different implications: the difference perfectly explains a character's actions that follow from believing something is not true or not believing something's true.

The difference is not just semantics, it has logical consequences, and implications on which is the subject that is believed or not-believed. People can both believe a positive and negative claim. But not-believing is only applicable in this sense to the positive claim... it therefore does not assert negative claims for 100%.

Also, you seem to think the expression "it's semantics" means "there's no real difference". Semanticism however is a vocabulary field that dissects the meaning of words. If there is a semantic difference, then there are different meanings, and therefore the two are not the same thing at all.

To make my point that it' isn't just semantics: I'm sure you would disagree with me if I were to reply, "atheists are fools" is equal to saying that "atheists are fooling themselves"... it's just semantics. Semantics make all the difference, Draino, because words communicate someone's mind. And so you are right, the two do mean different things.

[sgtdraino]

Yes!!! the two have different implications regarding behaviour and actions based on belief. When Locke truly believed the button was fake, he felt he had a right to intervene with others pushing it. When Jack did not-believe the button was real, he still recognized there was a slight chance it might have been real, and so ultimately he pushed the button.

Good grief. This is just semantics. You added the word "truly." Yes, people can "believe" things with varying degrees of certainty, but the certainty of someone's belief is not defined by where in the sentence you put the word "not." If Jack was absolutely certain of his conviction, there is no difference between "not believe it was real" and "believe it was not real." The meaning is exactly the same.


The difference is not just semantics, it has logical consequences, and implications on which is the subject that is believed or not-believed. People can both believe a positive and negative claim. But not-believing is only applicable in this sense to the positive claim... it therefore does not assert negative claims for 100%.

No way. If I don't believe that The Island is sentient, and I am absolutely certain of that, then I believe The Island is not sentient.

If, on the other hand, I don't believe The Island is sentient, but I'm really not totally sure about it, then I believe The Island isn't sentient, but (again) I'm not totally sure. Where you put "not" in the statement has zero bearing on the strength of your conviction. One sentence structure versus the other does not automatically lower the bar from 100% to 95%.

This could make an interesting poll... :)

Also, you seem to think the expression "it's semantics" means "there's no real difference". Semanticism however is a vocabulary field that dissects the meaning of words. If there is a semantic difference, then there are different meanings, and therefore the two are not the same thing at all.

You know what I mean. The expression is commonly used to denote cases where someone argues a difference exists, where none actually does.

To make my point that it' isn't just semantics: I'm sure you would disagree with me if I were to reply, "atheists are fools" is equal to saying that "atheists are fooling themselves"... it's just semantics.

Of course I would disagree. You are equating the noun "fool" as being equivalent to the verb "to fool." If you look up the definition of the noun, and the definition of the verb, you will see that the definitions are not the same. It's like arguing that "a fly" is the same as "to fly." Ridiculous. They are spelled the same, but they are not the same words.

Semantics make all the difference, Draino, because words communicate someone's mind. And so you are right, the two do mean different things.

And some people read meanings into other people's words.

[sweetsunray]

Well it makes quite a lot of difference to me, and I know it does for others. That it doesn't for you, implies you think differently than I or anybody else who thinks like me, but it doesn't make you right about there not being a difference for us. Not-believing equals scepticism. Believing, whether a positive or a negative, lacks sceptic sentiments. That is the difference for me, and it has its consequences in how people act.

LOL... I wasn't actually saying "that's an unimportant distinction" between "fooling themselves" and "being a fool". I was making the point that for you the "it's semantics" (as in "no distinction") argument would sound as foolish to you as it sounds foolish to me to negate the difference between "not-believing a positive claim" and "believing a negative claim". I know that when I'm sceptic, I'm not believing a negative claim at the same time. I may think the negative more likely (as you said to me: probabilities), because that's the default outcome in a black-and-white equasion if the positive claim turns out not to be true. However, in time, some evidence may turn up for the positive claim and that might alter probabilities altogether. However, I realize one can't sit on the fence and have to make a functional assumption based on likelihood, rather than any kind of belief. And I know that others make such a distinction as well.

That it makes no difference to you, can't negate it makes a big difference for me. Since there's at least one person here, me, who feels and thinks it's a difference, there are statistically bound to be more people who also think it makes a whole world of difference. And you can't make that difference of perception go away by replying "It's semantics," which is again a nonsensical expression. Language matters, the meaning of words matter, the order of words matter. If I garble up the order of words no-one will understand me. If I use other words the whole meaning differs. If I speak another language you won't be able to understand me.

[sgtdraino]

Well it makes quite a lot of difference to me, and I know it does for others. That it doesn't for you, implies you think differently than I or anybody else who thinks like me, but it doesn't make you right about there not being a difference for us. Not-believing equals scepticism. Believing, whether a positive or a negative, lacks sceptic sentiments. That is the difference for me, and it has its consequences in how people act.

I think I know what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with the way you're trying to say it. Let's take something mundane as an example.

I tell you, "I went to the store."
You say, "I don't believe you went to the store."
Or you say, "I believe that you did NOT go to the store."

Either of your responses communicate exactly the same meaning: that you think I am lying.

What I think you are trying to say, is that you don't necessarily believe one way or the other without proof. That makes sense. You are in essence saying, "maybe you did, maybe you didn't... prove it." But what the statement "I don't believe you went to the store" indicates, is that you start off from the position that I am lying. That's a position of bias, and is not scientific thinking.

I wonder, perhaps, if you are from a different country than me? That might explain the difference in our thought processes, and possibly even scientific community.

LOL... I wasn't actually saying "that's an unimportant distinction" between "fooling themselves" and "being a fool".

No, what you were saying is that I called atheists fools, which was not true. Either intentionally or unintentionally, you twisted my words.

I was making the point that for you the "it's semantics" (as in "no distinction") argument would sound as foolish to you as it sounds foolish to me to negate the difference between "not-believing a positive claim" and "believing a negative claim".

When there are only two possible answers, existence or nonexistence, disbelief of one possibility is the same as belief in the other. The strength of your belief is an entirely independent factor which as nothing to do with where you put "not."

Another example: I produce a sealed box, and tell you there is a cat inside. There is no gray area, either there is a cat inside or there isn't. If you say, "I don't believe there is a cat inside," that is the same thing as saying "I believe there is no cat inside." Neither statement indicates any greater or lesser extent to which you think no cat is inside the box.

I know that when I'm sceptic, I'm not believing a negative claim at the same time. I may think the negative more likely (as you said to me: probabilities), because that's the default outcome in a black-and-white equasion if the positive claim turns out not to be true.

Oh, I understand. I'm just saying that where you put the word "not" has no bearing on the strength of your conviction. For example, I could say, "I believe there is no cat in the box." That statement indicates I think the negative more likely, but doesn't necessarily equate to belief beyond any doubt.

What's more, as I said before, there isn't any real "default not" position, because you can establish a "not" position for either side of any argument. Observe:

There is a cat in the box.
I don't believe there is a cat in the box.
I believe there is no cat in the box.

There is no cat in the box.
I don't believe there is no cat in the box.
I believe there is no cat in the box.

That it makes no difference to you, can't negate it makes a big difference for me. Since there's at least one person here, me, who feels and thinks it's a difference, there are statistically bound to be more people who also think it makes a whole world of difference.

<shrug> I just think the logic of the "default not" position is flawed. I'm sure there are people who agree with you, and people who agree with me. That doesn't make either one of us more or less correct. Either it's flawed logic or it isn't. One can find somebody to agree with almost any position, no matter how off-the-wall. However, poll results could give evidence as to probability. Which one of us is probably correct.

And you can't make that difference of perception go away by replying "It's semantics," which is again a nonsensical expression. Language matters, the meaning of words matter, the order of words matter.

Of course they do. But there are also common expressions which, while technically wrong, nevertheless communicate a common meaning. I don't think anyone misunderstood what I meant, not even you.

It would be like me telling a trespasser to leave a location. He responds, "I ain't going nowhere!" I go, "Aha! You used a double-negative! That means you ARE going somewhere! I win this argument!"

No. That's just juvenile. He'd look at me like I was an idiot, and he'd be right to. He knows that I understood what he meant, it is pointless to argue otherwise.

If I garble up the order of words no-one will understand me. If I use other words the whole meaning differs. If I speak another language you won't be able to understand me.

Of course. But in this instance, you're arguing over a common expression that, while gramatically inaccurate, nobody misunderstood. That's silly.

Wow, are we off the thread topic or what?! :)

[sweetsunray]

No, what you were saying is that I called atheists fools, which was not true. Either intentionally or unintentionally, you twisted my words.

Draino, for the third time, I'm not trying to say I did not misrepresented your words (unintentionally), quite the opposite. I was using my own mistake as an example to argument not to wave semantic off that easily.

Now, you may go on giving examples of the culturally established setting where somebody can say "ah, just semantics" and wave the rebuttal away... But here's the problem... You are trying to wave off an intentional word choice by people who think differently than you as just semantics. I didn't forward this difference between "not-believing a positive claim" and "believing a negative claim" to win semantical points... I forwarded it because I think it does in fact present a difference of thought processes in characters, and I was trying to explain Locke's thought processes: believes a negative claim as wholeheartedly as he believes a positive claim.

To the rest: I am from a different country; I live in Belgian, my native language being Dutch, practically bilingual in English, speaking Spanish and French (with some hair on it beause of the lack of practice). Thing is in Dutch I feel the location of the not would reflect what I'm saying even more, although several Belgians would see it as you do. However, I've seen many native English minds explain the same difference over and over again.

As for your mundane example... I rarely use the word "believe" in a positive sense, unless followed with an expression that definite creates a context of playing the word down... for example "I believe it may have been ...." Just adding the "may" plays down any sense of taking the word believe as a conviction. I certainly would downplay any negative claim in that way. It is more likely I will say, "I do not believe x" rather than "I believe it's not-x"... I cannot totally discount me never having said a latter phrase, but the latter expression often just feels wrong most of the time to me... would not express my actual thought process. To be honest I often avoid the use of the word "believe", and instead say "I think" or "I assume" for example, unless I have to express my lack of belief, and then I'll definitely use "not believe x" instead of "believe not-x"

Also your mundane example isn't so mundane and refers to "believing" in a totally different semantical setting: you're using the word "believe" in the context of telling the truth or lying, not in a faith context. I would much more easily use the word in such a context. example: "I believe you may be lying" or "I don't believe you." Most likely, though, I'll phrase it as "I think you're lying" just because it sounds more honest.

Anyway, my own word use reflect my general mind on the term "to believe" and from others (allover the world) I know I'm not the only one.

As for your cat in the box example... I accept you may feel as if "I don't believe there is a cat in the box." = "I believe there is no cat in the box." However, any scientist who would make a negative claim would be easily frowned upon. It's pretty normal for scientists to be skeptic and say, "I don't believe there is a cat in the box", but any scientist who has been exposed to some debate and the logic faux-pas would hesitate to posit a negative claim, "I believe there is no cat in the box." Like me, most would see the first expression as skepticism, the latter as making negative claims (a debate faux-pas), or in the most positive light a prediction of the negative.

But back to the Locke cycle point... Locke is a character who believes a negative claim as wholeheartedly as he believes a positive claim. And that isn't just semantics. Locke is a guy who would jump from "not guilty" to "innocent"

[sgtdraino]

To the rest: I am from a different country; I live in Belgian, my native language being Dutch, practically bilingual in English, speaking Spanish and French (with some hair on it beause of the lack of practice).

Your English is excellent. There have only been a few times, sometimes from the perspective you take, sometimes from the phraseology you've used, that I've wondered if you were from a different country. I really think this explains a lot.

Thing is in Dutch I feel the location of the not would reflect what I'm saying even more, although several Belgians would see it as you do. However, I've seen many native English minds explain the same difference over and over again.

Could be. I think perhaps something might be "lost in translation" though.

I rarely use the word "believe" in a positive sense, unless followed with an expression that definite creates a context of playing the word down... for example "I believe it may have been ...." Just adding the "may" plays down any sense of taking the word believe as a conviction.

Of course. Words like "may" or "truly" help define the level of conviction at which you believe or disbelieve something. My contention is that the word "not" doesn't define level of conviction (regardless of where in the sentence you place it), it merely assigns direction to your conviction. At least as far as my understanding of the english language goes.

But back to the Locke cycle point... Locke is a character who believes a negative claim as wholeheartedly as he believes a positive claim. And that isn't just semantics. Locke is a guy who would jump from "not guilty" to "innocent"

Actually, the "Locke cycle" you've identified would indicate he's even more bipolar than that, more like jumping from "guilty" to "innocent."

My contention is that is not natural. The things Locke has experienced first-hand cannot be simplified down to a black-or-white scenario. This is not a simple matter of whether or not a cat is in a box. And the positive supporting evidence Locke has, is (or should be) too strong to be denied. A more natural reaction would be to go from, "I have a connection with the island," to "I don't fully understand my connection to the island." It's not that natural to go from strong belief straight to, "It's not real! None of this is real!" And it's really bizarre to have that kind of lapse twice, after your faith has been fully restored.

From his interview, it seems like Terry doesn't approve of these cycles either.

[sweetsunray]

Could be. I think perhaps something might be "lost in translation" though.

I've been explaining/debating this difference along with Canadians, Aussies, British and US citizens to other native English speakers on international boards for nine years now, on and off, whenever somebody comes along to assert science or something of the sort is just a belief as well. So, I'm sure it's not something I missed out on. :)

My phrasing seems to scatter here more... character debate involves more scattered thoughts with me, where I start a sentence and finish it differently,not always reiterating my mistake (I've been more sloppy lately). So far this has been the largest board (in spread threads,topics on the show and number of members) that I've been on, although the Auelboard and the JTR Casebook are legends when it comes to the topic interested crowd.

I do see your point about wondering why Locke repeats this cycle towards the negative, yet at the same time you point out that his super-confidence phase is the direction to go for... I think that it is exactly that over-confidence phase that is the source of the deep downfall. He is as often wrong in his over-confident phase than he ends up being wrong in his breakdown phase.

Let's wonder if there are any aspects to Locke's basis that makes him repeat the cycle over and over so far, without the ability to break it. I think Homer nailed it by identifying that Locke gets his confidence on what he believes to be signs from his environment. He's looking and using confirmation outside of himself. Why does he do that? Because he extremely lacks inner self-reliant confidence. He tries to hide that utter lack of inner self-confidence by fixating on the external stuff and show the outer world how much they ought to have confidence in him. Doubt (third phase) in the outer signs means Locke has to face his abyss of disbelief in himself. Instead of actually facing that unhealthy and unrealistic disbelief he again hides behind outer signals: if the outer world isn't special, then it can't reject him either (his worst fear).

- Locke felt as if the island might have fooled him about the button, so he rejects the button.
- Locke felt as if Ben rejected him (which Ben did), so he rejects Ben

His fear of being turned away/rejected, that has been building since his childhood in foster parentage, has grown so large that he even has fear of being rejected by the supernatural, fear of being rejected by the environment. The temp loss of his walking capability always triggers that deep fear since he thinks that was a welcoming gift. The moment that Locke finds inner motivation for his self-confidence, both extremes will be naturally tempered, since inner sourced self-confidence can't come without accepting your own imperfectness, seeing that every aspect of yourself can be a positive force as well as a negative force.

I think you would argue that since Locke's island environment has shown to see him as someone special, this ought to soften the cycle. But the problem is that it only emphasizes Locke's flight tactics from his inner fear towards the outside. His healed back didn't heal his pain of being rejected by his father, by Helen, by society at some point, by his mother, by his foster homes. That is not something the island can heal at all. It is something that Locke himself has to heal.

Don't forget that all of his life Locke has lived through cycles of hope and broken dreams, time and time again: every time he arrived at a new foster home he would have naturally hoped like any child that perhaps this time his environment would accept him, only through circumstances losing that environment once more. After a while, a defense mechanism would have started to kick in where as soon as he saw some cracks in the perfect happiness he hoped for he would start doubting it in order to destroy his hopes before the hopes would destroy him, thereby when things did start to go wrong he would self-destruct, blow up the situation. It probably was the only way for Locke as a child to feel as if he had some control on the matter when the end was near. This went on and on and on.

Not his breakdown is that much surprising imo, but the fact that he can still muster hope is what dazzles me. That he actually can after all those years shows me that inside there's a great man hiding somewhere, someone who is able to carry a lot of misfortune without losing the ultimate hope. That is his true gift imo. And instead of handing it to outside sources alone, he ought to give some more to himself.

[AceOfDiamonds]

I'm slightly in agreement with some elements of Sgt. Draino's original post, and I actually (almost surprisingly) agree quite a bit with Homer Noodleman as well. (It's nice from a Locke-fanboy's perspective to see Homer actually objectively critique Locke's flaw as opposed to simply degrading him.) But I think I have my own separate, J.A.C.K.A.S.S. influenced perspective as to what happens to Locke's character on "Lost."

From a writer's perspective, Jack is the hero and the "essential protagonist" of LOST. From a television-producing perspective, this means that (because television shows always aim first and foremost to snare the casual viewer) that Jack must always be a hero. Simply put, the concept is: most television viewers are too dumb to be hardcore followers of this television program, and most viewers can't follow overtly complex character themes in which every character is presented in "shades of gray." Subsequently, characters have to be reduced to cliches: so we have heroes and antagonists and characters like Sawyer, who are effectively defined in the "antihero" character of "shady methodology but a heart of gold."

Interestingly with television shows and movies the supporting characters can often be given more depth than the heroes and the villains, because supporting characters don't need to follow the cliches necessary for casual viewership. The reason why we'll never ever see Jack turn evil on LOST -- while Locke and Ben's roles as "good" or "evil" in particular are more in doubt -- is because casual viewers who don't give a damn about all the complex theories we throw about on message boards rely on Jack to play the role of "protagonist" and "likable narrator."

Note that this doesn't mean that casual viewers anticipate or prefer Jack to be presented as "perfect." In fact, as entertainment viewers we Americans seem to have an infatuation with the perfectly imperfect hero -- a hero who is immensely likable because of his flaws as opposed to despite them. That's why TPTB jazz up some episodes with revelations that Jack is "darker than we'd think," but dark in the presumably "cool" way: he drinks a lot (who doesn't love alcohol?), he flirts and sleeps with hot mysterious Asian chicks, he gets tattoos. And of course the most hysterical "character flaw" of Jack's is hysterical because it's not a character flaw at all -- we're expected to believe that Jack's overzealous compulsion to save people is a bad thing. Yeah, like we're supposed to hate Jack for caring so much about everything that he'll go over the line to try to 'help them?'

No, the intent is clear: even Jack's flaws are presented in a way to ensure infatuation among casual viewers. TPTB is following Television Rules 101: the hero must be lovable and accessible to folks who've never even seen the show before. The hero must remain relatively easy to understand and must always be admirable, and just as importantly, the hero must be dependable, so that an infrequent viewer who tunes in only once every eight or so weeks still gets the warm and fuzzy feeling whenever Jack steps in to save the day and receive kisses and adulation from Juliet and Kate. This also leads to hysterical scenes in which even Jack's principal rivals on the show -- Sawyer and Locke -- at separate points must acknowledge Jack's superiority -- Sawyer does so when he goes extraordinarily out-of-character to validate Jack as his "closest friend" (seriously, where in the hell did that scene come from?) and Locke does so early on when he builds Jack up to play the role of leader in "White Rabbit." (Everybody loves you Jack, let me save your life and build you into a leader, just so you can piss the crap out of me and try to kill me somewhere down the line.)

Of course the inconsistencies of Jack's character are never harped upon -- Sawyer and Locke and others are woefully incapable of calling Jack out, whereas they're called out for their inconsistent behavior all the time. Not once does Locke think to remind Jack of the fact that he saved Jack's life once when Jack's pointing a gun at his head and pulling the trigger. Jack and Juliet conspire privately for hours on end, only to be quickly forgiven when he calls upon Danielle for a dynamite show the following episode? This reinforces the Television 101 Theme that Jack can never be mistrusted or disliked for too long: the plotline in a sense revolves around his continued status as the leader, hero and protagonist.

In a sense, the "necessity" of Jack to "play the hero" of LOST condemns Locke, in the sense that Locke was built into Jack's foil early on in Season One. And being Jack's foil (the "Man of Faith" to Jack's "Man of Science") means one thing: since Jack more-often-than-not has to be right (lest he lose his leading-actor protagonist credentials), Locke has to be wrong.

This theme was particularly evident in Season Two, when the writers were foolish enough to actually write a scenario early on in which Locke's position regarding the hatch and the numbers was actually right and in which Jack was actually dead wrong. If Jack gets his way and the numbers are not pressed way back in S2E4, the world blows up and it's all Jack's fault. Unfortunately, the writers quickly identified this problem (namely, Jack can't be held accountable for such a critical mistake, because he's the lovable hero archetype,) so TPTB retconned the decisions in question. Jack is conveniently pulled far away from the hatch in the season finale so he can't be held accountable for his inaccurate conjecture. Locke, meanwhile, reverses course unexpectedly so that he can ultimately take the mistake for adhering to Jack's mentality. Jack escapes the blame, Locke becomes the scapegoat, and Jack is essentially forgiven in regards to his deeply flawed thinking earlier that season, as it was Locke who acted upon Jack's impulse.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the shoddy writing device that TPTB continually deploy to get Jack out of any jam -- it's the Television 101 Rule, the protagonist can never be deadly wrong about a life or death matter. This is how Ben kidnapping Jack in season two's finale ultimately becomes an altar to Jack's amazing awesomeness -- Ben kidnapped Jack because Jack could save him; Sawyer and Kate are reduced to useless collateral. In Season One, Jack escapes the guilt for torturing Sawyer as Sayid takes the entirety of the blame for the decision. Now we have Juliet transforming Jack into her heroic savior. Who better to rescue her from Ben's nefarious clutches?

It's sometimes telling that Locke's best scenes are scenes in episodes in which Locke is not presented as Jack's foil. When Locke isn't in a position of competing openly for a position of leadership, or contrasting "faith" to Jack's "science," Locke builds Claire a cradle, gets Charlie off drugs, saves Jack's life, finds Vincent for Walt, and saves Boone from his pseudo-incest problem. Even though Season 3 didn't give us quite the same Locke as Season 1 (by then the Jack-Locke storylines had taken their toll), he still showed flashes of greatness in his verbal sparring with Ben and his interactions with Sawyer in "The Brig."

So long as, however, Locke's role is reduced to playing foil and competitor of Jack's, we'll continue to see Locke in the worst possible light. This remains true even in light of the revelation of the Season Three finale -- it's important to remember in Jack's flashforward that A: Jack is presented as holding the "right opinion" (contrasting then to Kate's nonchalance towards going back to the island,) and B: most importantly, Jack's declaration of his past "wrongness" neither makes him any less heroic (modesty and honesty make Jack likable) NOR does it necessarily make Locke right (in fact so far the entirety of Season Four has attempted to validate the notion that Locke was wrong but Jack still needs to go back -- as if the mistake Jack made was simply agreeing to leave everyone else behind in Locke's dastardly clutches.)

I'd love to believe in the ultimate feasibility of a twist in which Locke could be right -- unequivocally and undoubtedly right about something significant -- and Jack could be wrong and make a horrible mistake. It'd be great for the tables to turn in such a way that Locke become the story's true protagonist and that Jack became a caricature who merely stood in Locke's way of accomplishing what needed to be done. It'd be a great twist because it'd completely invalidate Television Rules 101 -- the protagonist would no longer be the protagonist. And it'd be great for me personally because I hate Jack and love Locke. But it won't happen -- because Television Rules 101 are so essential to the 'success' of any show. As convoluted as the esoteric mythology may become, the casual viewer must still have an 'anchor' to draw them in -- an anchor independent of the complexity that may "taint" the casual viewer's experience of the rest the show. So Jack must always remain simply the force for good, the source that can be trusted.

And around Jack, Locke and Sawyer and Kate and Juliet and Sayid must all be reduced. The girls become faint love interests who lose the complexity and independent value of their unique characterizations so as to ensure they fall head over heels for the "hero." The subordinate protagonists like Hurley and Sayid must bend over backwards to ensure that they never steal Jack's thunder. And the rivals -- the Lockes and Sawyers destined to challenge Jack in different ways -- must always ultimately fall short. In Locke's case, the answer is a recipe that keeps Locke in the role of the pompous fool, increasingly both more arrogant and more incompetent compared to Jack's level-headed approaches. In Sawyer's case, the recipe often calls on his self-deprecation acting as a mean to inflate Jack's standing -- Sawyer and others repeatedly make sure to dreg up Sawyer's past as the ultimate "Catch 22" in which acquiring Kate's love and affection can only be a pipe dream, because Jack is always presented as the more desirable doctor with the clean rep.

The irony -- perhaps not intended by the writers, but definitely evident in Josh and Terry's performances as well as my own personal interpretations of LOST episodes -- is that the more TPTB try to force-feed Locke and Sawyer's inferiority to us as viewers, the more I tend to get the impression that Sawyer ("deep down inside" if you will) is a greater force for morality and kindness than Jack is, and the more I tend to get the impression that Locke, despite all his shortcomings, is often actually smarter and more level-headed (yes, I will actually use those phrases to describe him) than Jack. It's difficult to explain, but it's like when you're so blatantly force-fed something contrary to reality, you bitterly hold on to the exact opposing truth. TPTB's false sense of Jack's incredible value and worth has led me to believe ardently that Locke must be right about protecting the island and taking any sacrifice to do so, and similarly has led me to believe ardently that Sawyer is a much better catch for any rational woman than Jack is. Strange, isn't it?

[sweetsunray]

Great post AceofDiamonds... Need to mull it over for a while before replying to it ;)

But in short (:p) here's what I'm thinking... I see what you mean, and I'm not arguing against it even. That is indeed how a narrative is written... flawed even bumbling protagonists will ultimately be redeemed and antagonists will be shown to be wrong, no matter how deeply layered the narrative will go into the psyche or the background of either side, no matter how much we learn of the antagonist's backstory to make us understand the motives and even be sympathetic with it, to muddle up the opinions, the antagonist will remain the antagonist.

This is so in revisionist narratives such as the Illiad (offensive, invading Greeks slaughtering people, raping women, disgracing the dead and burning down a whole city remain heroes, the right side, and it certainly was to the Greeks) as well as non revisionist narratives. For some reason, to our psyche the one who's ideal/goal we identify with, must in the end of the story have his victory. In the Illiad they make it so by having the Greeks avenge the stealing of a king's wife (even if it actually may have been solely because of economic reasons for Troy's strategic trading position at the Bosporus) and by having the Gods choose the Greek's side eventually. It's only because our present society has such different ideals than the Greek times (women aren't a man's chattel anymore, and our views on the amount of collateral damage allowed) that we wish Troy would have won (be the protagonist) and see the Greek for the greedy wolves they were (antagonist).

And so you're right that Jack and anyone who acts (even if wrongly) in order to save the Losties themselves will be regarded as respectively the protagonist and his side-kicks, whereas those who have other motives will be regarded as the antagonist. It's not surprising to me that so many of Locke's fans keep arguing that Locke's main goal (saving the island) is because he wants to save the Losties. Anyone who watches this show has instinctively decided that the greater good is "keeping the Losties safe", may that be via having them live in caves, push a button, kill freighties, go to the barracks or arrange a helicopter to fly the Losties away from the island.

And the reason why we created that as a greater good to judge who's pro and who's anti is because we started out with the Losties crashing on the island from their collective pov. It's as if we imagine to be one of them and decide who would be a threat to us and who isn't. Now, had the S1 pilot started with the pov of the Others and the Losties killing Goodwin, etc, then the viewer's greater good would have been "keeping the Others safe". Had the S1 pilot started with the island's pov of Dharma, Others and Losties tramping about and abusing it, the viewer's greater good would have been "keeping the island safe". Had the S1 pilot started with the freighter looking for the island and its crew fearing death and hostility once they arrived the viewers' greater good would have been "keeping the freighties safe."

So, I certainly don't disagree that the narrative pushes Jack and side-kicks as pro, and that there is such a thing as a 101 rule.

However, what I do disagree with is how you try to argue that's a bad thing. It's not even something TPTB can help. We as viewers push this 101 rule, and not just the "average" viewer. You (and I) do too. Remember how I've pointed out that we as collective viewers select the greater good and judge the characters ourselves in pro and anti camps because of who's pov we start out with. If the writers really saw the island as their protagonist they went about it the wrong way by not making the pilot from its pov first. They can now only write it in as a protagonist if the island is working as an agent to ultimately keep the Losties safe and give them a better life. Remember also how I point out that even those who are fans of Sawyer and Locke will argue that they are truly working for the greater good to keep the Losties safe. And the natural response by people who favor these two is that when they act against that greater good to either argue it's out-of-character or that it's actually somebody else's fault.

So, it's you and I, any viewer, who think in protagonist and antagonist terms and push this pov on the show imo, and onto the writers. It's not just some silly writer rule for the benefit of eat-and-swallow viewers, but it's a rule invented by readers/listeners/viewers that we oblige a writer to follow. If writers go against this, they just don't have a story to sell. They can play mind games to make us guess whether a party who seems antagonist at first really is a protagonist and turn them into a protagonist. They can even end up reversing the sides: showing us that the antagonist was the protagonist all along with crafty writing. However, they can't give us a narrative without antagonists and without protagonists, no matter how much they might try. It just wouldn't work, because even if they try, the viewers will split characters in sides and would get enormously frustrated if along the line it becomes clear the sides make no sense at all, that there is none.

So, I think it's rather irrelevant to go, "bleuh, how unoriginal TPTB are by having a protagonist and sticking with him. I wish they wrote the whole story differently because I believe X or Z is the actual protagonist." To complain about protagonist rule 101 is imo a paradox, because all the complainer wants is somebody else to be the protagonist and thus rule 101 applied on somebody else. It's pretty self-defeating to complain about the rule 101.

So, given that rule 101 is in place, and that every viewer will apply it to somebody or some side in the narrative and will choose some greater good that has to win in the end, I think there is nothing else to do for the writers and the viewers to accept it is in place. Of course we can still argue till we turn blue over who is a protagonist and who isn't, who is working for the greater good and who isn't, and TPTB has latitude to shift around and pull a surprise out of their hat, or murk up the waters. But whomever they choose themselves to be pro and anti, they will have to write some psyche story for each character and will have to make that believable.

I know many argue that Locke is out of character when he's being stupid, and I'm trying to show he isn't out of character: his confidence follows cycles and his actions are the result of the cycle. Nor do I think the cycle is contrived given his Cooper-boobery of his back story and the fact that a lot of abuse victims are stuck in a rut and almost seem to have a nose for picking out people to relate and trust who are as abusive as the first one, and voluntarily choose to remain in the abusive relationship over and over. Even in real life those who know the victim can't understand why such victims do this, yet they do, despite them being intelligent human beings who love and can even have sparkles of genius when it comes to somebody else's relationship. Locke's portrayal imo follows the cycle of someone with almost no self-confidence and who time and time again sets himself up to be abused, and it's a very real life pattern too.

[sgtdraino]

However, what I do disagree with is how you try to argue that's a bad thing. It's not even something TPTB can help. We as viewers push this 101 rule, and not just the "average" viewer. You (and I) do too. Remember how I've pointed out that we as collective viewers select the greater good and judge the characters ourselves in pro and anti camps because of who's pov we start out with. If the writers really saw the island as their protagonist they went about it the wrong way by not making the pilot from its pov first.

Ah, but recall that TPTB's original plan was actually to kill Jack off after The Pilot, thus shifting our pov in a sudden, surprising way.

They can now only write it in as a protagonist if the island is working as an agent to ultimately keep the Losties safe and give them a better life.

I believe TPTB have also stated on several occasions that the real "star" of the show is actually the island. Hence their statement on one occasion that they'd like to kill off all the characters, and start with completely new ones. Because ultimately, the protagonist might truly turn out to be The Island.

So, it's you and I, any viewer, who think in protagonist and antagonist terms and push this pov on the show imo, and onto the writers. It's not just some silly writer rule for the benefit of eat-and-swallow viewers, but it's a rule invented by readers/listeners/viewers that we oblige a writer to follow. If writers go against this, they just don't have a story to sell.

But you don't have to stick with the same protagonist throughout your story. There are some great examples out there of stories or shows where the protagonist is replaced by a different unexpected protagonist mid-way through. In "Blake's 7," for example, the classic "hero" of the story, Roj Blake, becomes separated from the rest of the characters and is MIA for the entire second half of the series. Avon, a merciless sociopath, becomes the new protagonist, leader, and rather unconventional "hero." He remains the most popular character in the show, and the series is widely regarded as a landmark classic.

They can play mind games to make us guess whether a party who seems antagonist at first really is a protagonist and turn them into a protagonist. They can even end up reversing the sides: showing us that the antagonist was the protagonist all along with crafty writing. However, they can't give us a narrative without antagonists and without protagonists, no matter how much they might try. It just wouldn't work, because even if they try, the viewers will split characters in sides and would get enormously frustrated if along the line it becomes clear the sides make no sense at all, that there is none.

True, but I think Ace of Diamonds is not so much irritated by the existence of protagonists and antagonists, as he is by their choices for those positions being your typical cliched Hollywood PC choices. The "hero" is the good-looking brilliant doctor, with cool tatoos who took piloting lessons and has cute girls pining for him. The "villian" is an old bald guy who has a bunch of knives, likes to hunt, and has a quasi-religious faith in a higher power.

When I first started watching Lost, I hated the notion of Jack as the hero of the show from the very start, specifically because he was such a Hollywood cliche. When Locke's character first started being revealed, I was simultaneously thrilled (because here we have a old bald man of faith who hunts and collects knives) as well as worried they would turn him into a bad guy (because such people as that are not "politically correct" by Hollywood standards). But I held onto the hope that Lost would buck tradition, that Locke would turn out to be something unexpected.

TPTB have done a pretty decent job, even now, of keeping his character ambiguous. Mysterious. I remember for a long time the debate was "is he good or evil?" Once it was pretty well established that Locke is not evil, now the debate seems to be, "Is he sane or crazy?" Well, I for one am going to keep the faith. I have seen the future, and the future is Jack trying to throw himself off a bridge.

I know many argue that Locke is out of character when he's being stupid, and I'm trying to show he isn't out of character: his confidence follows cycles and his actions are the result of the cycle.

There should still be consistency though. We've seen Locke be highly perceptive and intuitive, and we've seen him be naive and gullible. We've seen him act smart, we've seen him (apparently) act dumb. Which is it, writers? Illustrating a cycle of behavior isn't bad, but the cycle has still got to play out in a logical way that makes sense. The way Locke changes throughout the various stages of the cycle simply don't make sense. When Locke loses faith or gets discouraged, we the viewers should be able to follow why that is happening, why Locke would feel that way. But we don't, because it doesn't make any sense. We say, "Locke should know better by now." We say, "Why would he think that?" I say, "The writers are pulling strings, to further their plot."

[sweetsunray]

Ah, but recall that TPTB's original plan was actually to kill Jack off after The Pilot, thus shifting our pov in a sudden, surprising way.

How were we surprised by that? This was only an idea in the first draft and the chucked it out soon. If nobody had even mentioned it, we wouldn't have known. I am working on a fiction work... and I've deleted, rearranged scenes and characters; dropped characters, added other ones. I knew the grand arch when I wrote my initial scene, and knew I needed to reach some point somewhere along the line, but that was about it. Everything else has been fluid. A first draft change means zilch to me. Least of all does it mean they shifted the pov in a "sudden, surprising way".


I believe TPTB have also stated on several occasions that the real "star" of the show is actually the island. Hence their statement on one occasion that they'd like to kill off all the characters, and start with completely new ones. Because ultimately, the protagonist might truly turn out to be The Island.

I know they did. For them the mystery is the island, and therefore it's the star. And any initial character they put on it like pawns could as well be replaced by another pawn to help unravel it.

For me most characters emerge by coincidence. You're writing a scene and well some character is needed to perform a low key function: just one line, maybe not even that. Yet all of sudden you come to a next scene and they fit perfectly in it. Heck, you even need to step in their mind (or rather let their mind seep into yours) and that's when you realize they have potential. What was initially just someone who needed to be there as furniture suddenly becomes integral in driving the plot.

Meanwhile things happen the other way around too. After all the rework of the first part of the story, and plotting ahead more precisely I had to decide to throw out characters that I really like. But as the story is now they have no place in it where they used to be. I do know I'll probably be able to salvage them via a back door later on in the story. The inner character will be worked in again, just via another route and allied to different people.

Eventually, even a protagonist is but a tool to tell a story. However, despite all that, you must tell the story via characters. They are the vehicles. And you can't wipe them all out at once and replace them with others, even if you want to. Unless you want to go the Next Generation route. What they said about the island being the star and starting a new season with other characters to me only implies they want to say that they want to tell a story about an island and that they recognize that the characters they created as vehicles to tell that island story is relative from a writer's pov, it's a recognition they could have told it in a totally different way. But it doesn't mean they will or actually can.

They opted to tell the island story with the Losties as the characters to identify with. And yes, it would have been sloppy writing imo, if they had killed off Jack at the end of the pilot. You don't push people to identify with a character for a whole episode and then kill them off, unless you're writing a murder detective and the first chapter is about a character being killed. People do need an anchor, certainly at the start when they haven't a clue of what's going on.

One of the main reasons I had to rewrite extensively was because I incorporated too many character pov's. It was fun at the start, but also a trap to lose yourself in the multitide of character stories that eventually bogged down the story. Hating what happened with Jordan's Wheel of Time, I decided to cut a lot of it.





But you don't have to stick with the same protagonist throughout your story.

True, you don't. I don't necessarily feel that TPTB does. I actually don't even see Locke as an antagonist. I certainly don't see Sawyer that way. Sawyer's as much a protagonist as Jack is imo. And Locke is just misguided rather than an antagonist.

The "hero" is the good-looking brilliant doctor, with cool tatoos who took piloting lessons and has cute girls pining for him. The "villian" is an old bald guy who has a bunch of knives, likes to hunt, and has a quasi-religious faith in a higher power.

They're all fleshed out clichés. It doesn't bother me much that they are. Everything has been done almost anyway in literature when it comes to characters. One of the things I appreciate about Lost is how TPTB accept their characters are clichés by internalizing witty humor about it in the narrative: via Sawyer's nicknames, via Kate's poking through it at times, via Jack not just doing things his usual pumped up self but adding even more air into it. It's as if they're holding up their arms and say, "Yeah, we know they're clichés, but here's some more of it anyway."

I don't know whether Locke would have been original even if he had been pushed forward as the ultimate hero from the start. Maybe, Locke isn't much of a cliché to you, but he would have fit the perfect trickster-hero narrative imo if he had been portrayed as the starting anchor. And for me that's a cliché and overdone hero concept that was much in favor in these parts of the world since the middle ages. To me, it's more interesting to have the trickster-guru hero be an actual fool at times instead of having him only pretend to be one.



I have seen the future, and the future is Jack trying to throw himself off a bridge.

Héhé... that was funny!



There should still be consistency though. We've seen Locke be highly perceptive and intuitive, and we've seen him be naive and gullible. We've seen him act smart, we've seen him (apparently) act dumb. Which is it, writers?

Most people I know who can be very wise when it comes to another guy's or gal's problems have a hard time applying the wisdom to themselves. What you describe are the two sides of the same coin to me, not two different coins. And I think there's nothing more boring that one guy always being right, always being wise, etc... Ugh.

[sgtdraino]

I don't know whether Locke would have been original even if he had been pushed forward as the ultimate hero from the start.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that should or could have happened. Far from it. I'm suggesting that even now, I believe Locke could (and probably will) turn out to be one of the main protagonists of the series. Whether he's actually a protagonist or not has been kept "under the radar," to maintain suspense and keep us guessing. The "cool" factor of the character's actions will rise and fall like any other character, to give us stuff to talk about between episodes. :)

I dunno about popular plot arcs from where you live, but over here, touting a guy like Locke as the hero of your show would be about as unconventional as you can get. In fact, one of the reasons Locke was only gradually revealed, and Jack was established as the "hero" early on, may be that the creators weren't sure the networks or audiences would buy into a character like Locke as the hero. Once again, they flew him in "under the radar."

[sweetsunray]

I dunno about popular plot arcs from where you live, but over here, touting a guy like Locke as the hero of your show would be about as unconventional as you can get.

Tyl Uylenspiegel, About the fox Reynaerde, and many many derived themes from those... The "clowns of the court" often received the leading role in popular stories... "The Joker" as the protagonist would be a typical choice where I'm from.

[sweetsunray]

S4 started with Locke trying to reach out for the family and bring them back together again, although he failed in it early on since it split the family. But at least he claimed he wished to protect them.

But once more he went the opposite direction: he abandoned those who chose to follow him and were good team members in his eyes for not resisting his decisions or his pow-wow attitude to stop any initiatives from them. Team Locke is no more because Locke abandoned his own team, betrayed them, didn't do a thing to save them. Nope, instead, he sat there like a coward inside his house with Ben not allowing anyone to enter.

I predict Locke's in for a surprise again, feeling betrayed once more, losing faith once more and learning that he's not so special after all.

Remember what Boone told you Locke: your mission is not to protect the island, but to bring the family back together, to live your life to help them. That is the only way he'll find redemption.

[sgtdraino]

S4 started with Locke trying to reach out for the family and bring them back together again, although he failed in it early on since it split the family. But at least he claimed he wished to protect them.

So, what do you think Locke's motives were? Do you really think that he didn't want to protect them?

But once more he went the opposite direction: he abandoned those who chose to follow him and were good team members in his eyes for not resisting his decisions or his pow-wow attitude to stop any initiatives from them.

Who did Locke abandon? As far as I can remember, the only thing Locke said "no" to, was allowing people access to the prisoners.

Team Locke is no more because Locke abandoned his own team, betrayed them,

Locke was forced to retreat from the area by the circumstances of Keamy's Kommandos. He did not "abandon" anyone, and he certainly didn't betray anyone.

didn't do a thing to save them.

He did everything he could. Admittedly, in this situation, "everything" amounted to "not very much." Locke's ability to be an effective leader was severely hampered by members of his team not sharing vital information with him. And yes, at this point I'm including Ben as a member too. Ben sent Danielle, Alex, and Karl off to The Temple without telling anyone, and those three left without telling anyone. Ben knew about the Sonic Fence early warning system, but didn't tell anyone how it worked. Ben knew how to summon Smokey to attack the Kommandos, but said nothing about that either. If Ben had fully cooperated, The Barracks could have quite easily been defended from attack with no lives lost at all. About the most Locke could have done with what he knew, is have guards posted at the perimeter. Guards which would have quickly been slaughtered by the trained and well-equipped Kommando team.

Nope, instead, he sat there like a coward inside his house with Ben

??? Is any army inside a fort considered an army of cowards? Give me a break. That house was the best area from within The Barracks to defend from attack. Barrackading the entrances makes absolute perfect tactical sense. Not doing it would be complete idiocy.

not allowing anyone to enter.

Once again, everyone that came to the house was allowed to enter.

I predict Locke's in for a surprise again, feeling betrayed once more, losing faith once more and learning that he's not so special after all.

lol. Cool, I predict the opposite. I think after this episode, Locke will now be on the upswing back towards awesome. He is now back in his element.

Remember what Boone told you Locke: your mission is not to protect the island,

Uh... Boone didn't say that.

but to bring the family back together,

He did say that.

to live your life to help them. That is the only way he'll find redemption.

But he didn't say that either.

[Jack T Kirk]

Locke is special. That's what the redemption part of the cycle is all about. Locke has been conditioned by repeated failures. He's learned to expect disappointment. But like Ozanna said - The island healed him 100%. There's no denying that this was a miracle. Now, when he breaks down, when he falls so low that all seems lost, something picks him up and tells him to keep going. Don't give up, John. You have work to do.

I think the reason why Locke fumbles so soon is that the situation he is in is larger than he can grasp. He's not an action hero, he doesn't know exactly what to do in any situation, he's an ordinary man. Meat and potatoes. He's being tested, refined...and when he's at his wit's end, deus ex machina saves the day. We constantly see Locke in his weakness, but what's really happening is that he's getting stronger. It's when he's at his weakest that he really learns.

As crazy as it seems, Locke's erratic behavior is protecting everyone. If it weren't for Locke splitting up the family and heading to the Barracks, Ben would probably be dead or sitting on the beach right now, in which case Keamy and company would have stormed the beach and killed them all.

[Locke 'n' Load]

As crazy as it seems, Locke's erratic behavior is protecting everyone. If it weren't for Locke splitting up the family and heading to the Barracks, Ben would probably be dead or sitting on the beach right now, in which case Keamy and company would have stormed the beach and killed them all.

:yeah:

Great point, JLP!

[DR76]

I have noticed that those who are most critical of Locke's actions in the last episode are now predicting that he will no longer matter in the island's future. I wonder why?

[Susan B Anthony]

I think the reason why Locke fumbles so soon is that the situation he is in is larger than he can grasp. He's not an action hero, he doesn't know exactly what to do in any situation, he's an ordinary man. Meat and potatoes. He's being tested, refined...and when he's at his wit's end, deus ex machina saves the day. We constantly see Locke in his weakness, but what's really happening is that he's getting stronger. It's when he's at his weakest that he really learns.


Well said. :clap:

[DR76]

None of them are action heroes, if one must be honest. Which is why all of them keep messing up.

[Jack T Kirk]

Well, Ben's an action hero. :D