drabauer
10-25-04, 04:49 AM
There are two parts to my post - a character explanation and a sci-fi angle, and two characters to my angle: Locke and the "monster"
I was considering the latter theory when I read ColLocke's speculation on why the creature didn't kill his/her namesake. I think both fit together. ColLocke supposed that the creature might see only movement, and Locke the character froze (this might even be a result of his "training"). I once read a great book an Indian roommate used as his life guide, much the way some executives read the Japanese Art of War. Called "The Art of Tiger Hunting" it was similar to the worst-case senario survival guides, except that every tidbit of knowledge was about hunting tigers and maintaining one's cool in the wild. I could see Locke having a library of books like this, and knowing when confronted by certain large predators, one should stand stock still.
And I don't think Locke saw anything. That is: Locke knows no more about the monster that we do. He saw, as we did, the evidence of its movement through the glade, he saw it attack/trample/eviscerate the boar. He stood frozen to the spot on instinct and it moved away, leaving the boar. That's beauty to a man who has studied survival literature all of his life. The beauty is the mystery of it all. No, he didn't see a thing - Locke was not lying to the others at all!
Now for the sci-fi aspect. There are two recent tv explanations for invisibility that might apply here, or some variation on those two. There was an X-File with a Vietnam vet who learned to evade detection by positioning himself a certain way, and there was the only moderately more believable "Invisible Man" on the Sci-Fi channel, where Vince Ventricchia's (sp?) character was able to control a certain chemical coating on his skin (I forget the pseudo-science) that reflected light and thus made him "invisible."
I believe someone else also brought up the fact that light beyond our visible spectrum might play a role. I think we are given the evidence in "Walkabout" that indeed, the creature is invisible, probably because light can't penetrate it (or something similar). But why does it act the way it does?
I don't think we have enough to go on to answer that yet. But the ideas presented earlier regarding verbal conflict are one possibility, as is that of intense motion (like the Sandworms in Dune). Or of a mother protecting children, or simply something so large that it tramples people and animals underfoot. But I think the dog whistle may have had a dual function: it may suggest that someone controls this creature (which, after all, may prove to be merely mechanical), and that that person or thing may have reasons we don't know yet for sending it out at certain times.
Now, someone could chart what time of day and circumstances we've witnessed the creature.
I wonder if anyone has even tried to map any of the locations we've seen so far, and their respective distance from one another?
Repectfully submitted,
Drb
I was considering the latter theory when I read ColLocke's speculation on why the creature didn't kill his/her namesake. I think both fit together. ColLocke supposed that the creature might see only movement, and Locke the character froze (this might even be a result of his "training"). I once read a great book an Indian roommate used as his life guide, much the way some executives read the Japanese Art of War. Called "The Art of Tiger Hunting" it was similar to the worst-case senario survival guides, except that every tidbit of knowledge was about hunting tigers and maintaining one's cool in the wild. I could see Locke having a library of books like this, and knowing when confronted by certain large predators, one should stand stock still.
And I don't think Locke saw anything. That is: Locke knows no more about the monster that we do. He saw, as we did, the evidence of its movement through the glade, he saw it attack/trample/eviscerate the boar. He stood frozen to the spot on instinct and it moved away, leaving the boar. That's beauty to a man who has studied survival literature all of his life. The beauty is the mystery of it all. No, he didn't see a thing - Locke was not lying to the others at all!
Now for the sci-fi aspect. There are two recent tv explanations for invisibility that might apply here, or some variation on those two. There was an X-File with a Vietnam vet who learned to evade detection by positioning himself a certain way, and there was the only moderately more believable "Invisible Man" on the Sci-Fi channel, where Vince Ventricchia's (sp?) character was able to control a certain chemical coating on his skin (I forget the pseudo-science) that reflected light and thus made him "invisible."
I believe someone else also brought up the fact that light beyond our visible spectrum might play a role. I think we are given the evidence in "Walkabout" that indeed, the creature is invisible, probably because light can't penetrate it (or something similar). But why does it act the way it does?
I don't think we have enough to go on to answer that yet. But the ideas presented earlier regarding verbal conflict are one possibility, as is that of intense motion (like the Sandworms in Dune). Or of a mother protecting children, or simply something so large that it tramples people and animals underfoot. But I think the dog whistle may have had a dual function: it may suggest that someone controls this creature (which, after all, may prove to be merely mechanical), and that that person or thing may have reasons we don't know yet for sending it out at certain times.
Now, someone could chart what time of day and circumstances we've witnessed the creature.
I wonder if anyone has even tried to map any of the locations we've seen so far, and their respective distance from one another?
Repectfully submitted,
Drb