LOST: Theories (Part 2 of a 4 part series)

“Be careful you do not mistake fate for coincidence.” —Mr. Eko to Locke

Excellent advice when you’re trying to make sense out of LOST.

But enough about that, I’ll just waste no time and lay out my best guess right away.

Especially after last week’s episode I believe the survivors are rats in a maze. The island is the equivalent of some sort of giant petri dish. There are various societies or groups on the island, not just “the others” and our survivors. What appears supernatural now will eventually prove to be largely scientific or psuedo-scientific in nature. They’re all caught in somebody’s experiment. The different societies will eventually have to compete and fight it out.

That’s about the best I can do as far as an over-arching theory. I want to hear your theories, and why you believe them, and how you feel about a lot of the more popular theories out there.

To encourage discussion let me say a few more things.

This much I know:

1) These are not good people. The other that Ana Lucia impaled said something to the effect that the others took the good people first, they were the names on the list, but also look at the record.

Ana Lucia–murderer

Sayid–torturer

Kate–murderer/bank robber

Sawyer–murderer/con man

Charlie–drug addict/pathological liar

Mr. Eko–murderer, drug dealer

Jin–enforcer for a crimelord or something, violent and controlling

Sun–trust me, she’s naughty, lies to her husband, possibly an adultress

Hurley–hordes food (it’s the best I could do)

Boone/Shannon–sleep with their step siblings

No seriously, Claire, Michael, Jack, they’ve all got dark secrets too. Jack, I believe, is probably a murderer, or an adulterer. They’re holding out on revealing it because he’s supposed to be the most heroic. Locke is dirty too. I’m sorry Locke fans. He took dirty money last week. He had a phone sex girlfriend. He has pent up aggression. Mark my words. Just wait for it. He probably lost his legs killing someone.

2) Books are significant in LOST. Sawyer read “Watership Down” throughout the first half of the first season. I believe LOST, like that book, deals with societies that exist underground that have vastly different and competing philosophies. Yes, that was rabbits, and yes, these are people. I do realize that. What other books have we seen that are significant?

I know Sawyer was reading “Are you there God? It’s me Margaret” last week. This was a puny attempt on the writers’ part to throw me off the trail. Didn’t work.

3) Names. Okay you don’t name characters Locke and Rousseau without trying to say something about something. These are philosophers, if I’m not mistaken. Any thoughts on the characters’ names and their possible meanings. A famous Dr. Shepard once was accused of murdering his wife…hmmmm.

All right, that should be plenty but I want to open up one other area for discussion: mini-theories.

One of mine, Libby=other. Nothing against the obese, but in my experience the attractive ladies do not go for the shaggy, chubby dudes with outrageous sideburns, no matter how funny they are. How do I know this? Long painful story.

The point is poor Hurley is going to get his heart broken, if not his legs, skull, or spine. She is NOT to be trusted.

Oh, and everyone watch tonight.

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “LOST: Theories (Part 2 of a 4 part series)

  1. I’m not so sure about Libby being an other. I thought so too, but I think it’ll turn out she was a patient in the same mental ward as Hurley and she wants it kept secret.

  2. I feel remiss in not having commented in any of the Lost posts yet. Sorry ’bout that.

    Re: Michael – I thought it was stated, or maybe just implied, that Sun’s father was some kind of industrialist, I thought the head of a large Korean car manufacturer.

    What other books have we seen that are significant?

    Off the top of my head: The Turn of the Screw (on which the movie “The Others” was based), An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge, and The Third Policeman. Each of these books was in the hatch and each deals with subjective (and misleading) viewpoints. I think they’re all red herrings. Sawyer was also reading the book Lancelot by Walker Percy. And, of course, the character f/k/a Henry Gale has been reading The Brothers Karamazov.

    Re: Names –

    Henry Gale (as has been mentioned elsewhere) is Dorothey’s uncle from the Wizard of Oz.

    Ethan Rom is/was an anagram for “Other Man.”

    Desmond formerly shared the hatch with someone named “Kelvin,” which may be a reference to the British scientist and philosopher William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin.

    My Libby theory is the same as Rebecca’s–that Hurley interacted with her during his treatment for mental illness and perhaps she is a patient (not a psychologist, as she’s leading everyone to believe). I don’t believe she’s an Other. There’s a good chance that we’ll find out tonight. This episode is called “Dave” and it’s a Hurley episode, featuring flashbacks to Hurley’s time in the mental health facility.

  3. There seems to be more mysticism involved. How is it that Locke has regained his ability to walk? How do all of the characters seemingly have only one or two degrees of separation? What about the numbers? I still don’t think we know a whole lot yet. I think the writers have done more to throw us off track than anything else.

  4. You know what I’d like? To have people help me list the various plot strands that are significant but haven’t been dealt with in a while and are therefore easy to forget. I’ll start:

    1. Aaron’s status as some sort of Messiah (per the psychic).

    2. Why do the Others want children (Aaaron, Alex, Walt, the two kids from the Tailie group)?

    3. Michaal and Walt. Where are they?

    4. Walt’s status as some sort of psychic.

    5. Desmond? Where is he?

    6. The plague or sickness that infected Rosseau’s group.

    7. Who is hotter — Claire or Kate.

    8. Why is Ana Lucia so annoying, and am I a bad person to hope she is killed soon?

    9. I find it hard to believe that Locke is just some home inspector/computer controller. Homeboy had a breifcase full of knives, and knows a ton about tracking, hunting, and survival. He’s got to be military, CIA, or something more sinister.

    10. Brian, if you say that Jack is a bad person one more time I will kill you with my bare hands, slowly.

  5. Seriously, Davis,

    Jack probably got caught up in the sex trade when he was in Thailand getting that shoulder tattoo. Didn’t you notice the writers skillfully laying the first brick of that storyline during the poker game last week?

    Don’t hate me, I’m just the messenger. Don’t put your trust in men, or TV characters.

  6. I’ve been reading the speculation forums at TWOP and I am stealing the following from them:

    All the castaways have been betrayed or are complicit in betrayals (sometimes both at the same time). The flashbacks certainly back that up.

    In the Tail Section photo gallery of this week’s episode, there is a picture of a girl who sure kinda looks like Libby.

    Of course Jack is a bad guy; something turned him to drink.

    Sun is the fairest of them all.

  7. 1. I don’t remember the psychic saying that Aaron would be some kind of Messiah, just that he must not be “raised by others.” Here’s what the psychic, “Malkin,” said about Aaron:

    It is crucial that you, yourself, raise this child.

    The father of this child will play no part in its life, nor yours.

    This child parented by anyone else, anyone other than you — danger surrounds this baby. . .

    Your nature, your spirit, your goodness, must be an influence in the development of this child.

    It can’t be another. You mustn’t allow another [sic – “an Other”?] to raise your baby.

    The baby needs your protection.

    An interesting detail: when Claire almost gives up Aaron for adoption, she insists that the adoptive parents sing the song “Catch a Falling Star” to Aaron as a bedtime song. This is the same song that the mobile on the baby’s crib plays in the medical bunker (the same mobile that features Oceanic Airlines jets). Creepy.

    2. Haven’t figured this one out yet. Appears to be some sort of society-building, experimentation.

    3. This will be addressed (if not resolved) by the end of this season.

    4. Don’t know much about this, just that weird things seem to happen when Walt is around and that Walt is unusually good at backgammon.

    5. He’s gone, brotha. He’ll show up again at some point. No idea where he took off to.

    6. This storyline will undoubtedly re-emerge. I find it weird that the Others apparently believe that there’s some threat of disease as well, as both Desmond and Ethan were seen administering vaccination shots.

    7. Kate.

    8. She’s bossy and badass, but I like her. Yes, you’re a bad person. But you have lots of company.

    9. Nah, I don’t think so. I think he was a RPG/reconstructionist gamer type who seized the opportunity to try his stuff out for real when the plane crashed on Lost island.

    10. Jack may not be a bad person, but he’s extremely annoying.

  8. Further TWOP speculation:

    The Others want children and “Good” people because the Cerebus system kills people who are afraid or guilty (moreso the latter than the former). Children and the good will be able to travel the island without being attacked. Note that on “his first night”, the Others tried to grab Eko.

  9. Oh, and Ethan only administered shots to Claire, not to himself (if memory serves). I think Desmond was just as much an “experiment” as the castaways.

  10. What would be awesome is if all of this is Kaiser Sose’s way of getting back at all of these people who took from him.

  11. Well, technically, Ethan only administered the shots to Claire’s unborn baby. He may (or may not) have been administering the shots to himself.

  12. Sun–trust me, she’s naughty

    oh, i hope so.

    Nothing against the obese, but in my experience the attractive ladies do not go for the shaggy, chubby dudes with outrageous sideburns, no matter how funny they are. How do I know this? Long painful story.

    brian, what does this say about your wife?

  13. Yes, Claire is hotter than Kate. I said it. I didn’t used to think so, but she won me over.

    Jack is not annoying, or bad, or anything else. He is a giant of a man, and may well be the next Apostle. So watch your mouths.

    BTD Greg, thanks for the answers.

    Also, what of the idea that I’ve heard mentioned that this is all a sick psychological experiment? (I.e. seeing how people react to harsh circumstances? The use of the name Rosseau makes me wonder if they were trying to see if people would turn back into noble savages if given the right enviroment. The push the button everyon 108 minutes thing seems like a great one, as does the vaccine thing.)

  14. Jack is more annoying now than he was when he was running that restaurant with the four other orphans.

  15. Kate or Claire? They both get a “meh” from me. I see Kate in those “Live Links” ads all the time. (They must have been thrilled when her career took off.) That’s about her level of attractiveness.

    Hottest of all? She may be dead, but it’s still Shannon.

    I like John C.’s theory about Cereberus not attacking those who don’t fear it.

  16. mike D,

    I see where you’re going with that question.

    My wife is outrageously attractive, but our marriage was contingent on regular haircuts, daily shaving, and strict dietary restrictions.

    P.S. She’s still not very happy with me, but she is hot, so there’s that.

  17. It’s funny because one day in L.A. I went to a burrito place and the actor who plays Michael was in there.

    I wanted to run up to him and say, “Shouldn’t you be looking for Walt?”

  18. I now see Henry Gale as a symbolic representation of the entire writing staff of the show.

    He is one playful and manipulative bastard, isn’t he? And so is each and every single one of them.

  19. Kate definitely has something.

    She combines girl-next-door vulnerability with the threat of mortally wounding you.

    This is appealing to me. I think part 3 in this series just might be a love poem to her.

  20. What did we learn tonight?

    That the guy who plays Hugo has some real acting chops.

    Other than that, I don’t know. My head is still reeling because if the flashbacks are literally memories of the individual having them, which is the way they are often represented, with the character frequently having his or her memories triggered, it’s impossible for Hugo to remember Libby sitting at a nearby table without remembering her. I suppose that if the flashbacks aren’t triggered memories, and rather simply stories in the past it would make more sense, but the inconsistency troubles me.

    Am I losing my faith in LOST?

    Still Hugo should stay away from Libby. She is not to be trusted.

  21. Brian,

    Remember, Hurley asked Libby if he did know her from somewhere. I think the flashbacks are definitely real, thus the Hurley/Libby relationship should be an interesting one to watch. We know Libby was really a Psych because of helping Claire remember her kidnapping, but other than that…?

  22. Tim J, I commented at the time that Libby’s supposed “therapy” with Claire felt like a farce. Basically, it was a lot of relaxing and breathing. I could have done that. She also seemed pretty reluctant to help at all. I don’t think Libby’s a real clinical psychologist at all. I think she’s using it as a cover for “crazy person,” and she’s had enough interaction with psychologists to pull off a decent impersonation.

  23. brian g. said:

    It’s funny because one day in L.A. I went to a burrito place and the actor who plays Michael was in there.

    I wanted to run up to him and say, “Shouldn’t you be looking for Walt?”

    funny, i had my own sighting a few weeks ago. i was in santa monica coming out from a movie and saw the guy who plays jin on the street.

    i gave him that “where do i know you from?” look and was about to say “hi” because i thought i knew him. then i realized where i knew him from and did the awkward look the other direction thing and pretended like i hadn’t seen him after all.

  24. I just recently finished Season 1 of this series, and I am in love with the Philosophical references, particularily to the character of Rosseau.

    Similar to Rosseau’s theory that a child born free of society and a part of nature would be the beacon of hope and purity reminded me of how the character’s own child was torn from her hands and was raised in similar, though different, circumstances.

    The emphasis on children, such as Walt, Aaron, and Alex (who has yet to make an appearance, but when she does I believe it will be a very significant episode) and the seperate philosophies they represent in context to three seperate idealisms: One in tune with spirituality (Walt/Psychic/Prophet), One in tune with reality (Aaron/society/order), and the other with nature (Alex/wild/mystery) creates a certain triumvirate.

    Regardless, as societies fall apart and murder one another, the Children display a sense of hope, of fresh starts and beginnings. Whatever the Island is designed for, I’m curious to see if it was made to create a perfect utopian society – especially since the Security System preys on the guilty and the fearful – two major factors that create sin. Basically, it’s weeding out the question of ‘sin’ and maintaining the order of purity.

    This is a very farfetched series, but there are so many philosophical overtones that you have to question whether or not the Island was designed specifically for a similar philosophy. Watership Down, Moses, Jesus, Rosseau, Locke… All of these elements produce the same basic idea – A society that is closer to God, one without corruption, one of innocence. An Island of Children.

  25. One more note before I’m off.
    I was recently looking up the meaning of names out of sheer curiousity. It’s interesting, because every single name shared by the main characters are in some way related to Light, Purity, Protection, or God(Of christian or any other belief). Look it up in any baby-name finder. It’s very fascinating, and again I can’t help but emphasize my former theory concerning a Society closer to God.

    Answering Davis’ questions:
    1. I believe that Aaron isn’t the only messiah, but all the children play a very ‘messiah’ like role. Walt is considered odd, Alex – while we haven’t seen her – is evidently a savior in her own right, and Aaron too will play a vital role amongst them.

    2. It may prove that The Others are using the children to save themselves from the security system, like a barrier or a gate.

    3. Eh. Dinno 😛

    4. I consider Walt a prophet, not necessarily a psychic. Especially in relation to the themes of this story. He reminds me of Fiver from Watership Down.

    5. No idea.

    6. It may have been a mental condition, or simply madness.

    7. Claire

    8. She’s better than Shannon.

    9. I doubt Locke was from the military. Keep in mind the themes in this Island. Locke was once a man who depended on everyone else. Once he crashed, he became something more. He was a person whom everyone else depended on. The reasons he carried the knives were originally for The Walkabout, but his intentions and reasons were completely altered the day ‘John’ died and ‘Locke’ was reborn. He is not the same person. He is, in every effect, another man that is completely seperate from the one we see in the flashbacks. Unlike the others, he has accepted his fate and role on the island and does not hold onto the person he once was.

    10. Jack annoys the hell out of me.

  26. Alyxandria,

    Thanks for adding your thoughts on Lost to this thread. Since I haven’t seen you comment here before I hope you continue to read and share your thoughts on this blog. I particularly thought what you had to say about the children was interesting.

    The idea that they’re used to get around the island and escape the security system is very clever.

    Alex makes an appearance in the second season that you should keep an eye out for.

    And the fact you find Jack annoying speaks very highly of you.

    P.S. Your new haircut looks nice–although I have no idea what it looked like before.

  27. yeah, alex has made an appearance.

    i definitely think there is something to the books and the names. those things are rarely if ever meaningless in stories like this.

    I also think they are part of some kind of experiment.

    re 36, point 2 — what about the bands of children’s feet (and the teddy bear hanging from one of their hands) that the tailies see as they make their way to Jack and Locke’s crew? This is something that has also been left hanging.

    Brian, I think that John is fundamentally good. Remember, he stands up to the cerebus system in one of the very first episodes when he was hunting the boar. His observation following that experience was that he “has looked into the heart of this island and what he saw was beautiful,” or something close. John’s problem is that he is too trusting, and is thus easily conned. Why he has ended up on the island, however, remains a mystery.

    My wife and I have noticed a slightly annoying shift as the show has developed, however. In the first season, things were very mystical and supernatural. This season has had very little of that.

    Supernatural things from the first season:

    – Locke’s healing.
    – Claire’s psychic.
    – Walt’s luck/mystical power (having the bird killed at his home in Australia; seeing the polar bear on the back of the comic book and then encountering it; always winning at backgammon; etc.)
    – the light from the hatch.
    – ethan’s superhuman strength.

    By contrast, this season lacks in supernatural occurences but abounds in conspiracy-drenched pseudo-scientific explanations and experiences.

  28. (if locke turns out to be a bad guy, it will be because he has been manipulated into it and has unwittingly participated in a sinister cause.)

Comments are closed.