:smack: Yep. Reading way too much into things.
So, do we think Ethan kidnapped the wrong boy, or that he actually wanted Aaron? If the latter, did Zeke and his crew also kidnap the wrong boy, or do they actually want Walt?
I think they actually want Walt. Zeke said he was “very special.” I believe Ethan wanted Aaron, though–probably for different reasons.
You’re right–but I don’t think the writers would name another character Alex just to mess with our heads … well, I could be wrong.
Walt is very special. He’s growing very quickly. Dang pubescent growth spurt!
While I don’t think there’s a connection to your sci-fi author, I don’t think the commonsense explanation for Sawyer’s chosen name is the end of it. After all, John Locke, Jack Shepherd, and Danielle Rousseau presumably all came by their names in the usual way, but they’re all still significant beyond that.
Sawyer is a rascal who finds himself adventuring on an island with an elaborate system of caves, populated by honest-to-gosh pirates, and with a freckled girl as a love interest.
It seems obvious that one of the key concepts behind Lost is the philosophical idea of the State of Nature so fundamental to Locke and Rousseau. What is natural for human behaviour absent an imposed political order? (I think Rousseau’s insistence on the “desert island” metaphor in his writings on natural education were a significant inspiration, too.)
The name “Sawyer” is perfectly in line with that, apart from the simple similarities of circumstance – Tom Sawyer would rather be “an outlaw in Sherwood Forest for a year than President of the United States forever.” This seems to describe the Sawyer of Lost well enough, and Locke, not knowing the details of Sawyer’s personal history, might just be digging at that. It’s more germaine to the immediate situation they were in, with Sawyer so eager to take up arms and run into the woods for a dramatic confrontation.
Locke’s approach to the Michael Problem is more-or-less Lockean. Michael’s opted out – that’s his business. By what right does their micro-social order impose its will on him by dragging him back? (The one acceptable answer would be to punish him for using violence towards other members of the group on the way out, in order to discourage other people from doing the same thing.) From a Lockean point of view, though, dragging him back because his actions pose a danger to himself (which seems to be Jack’s motivation) is totally unsupportable.
What/Who is the TCM?
TCM = Tree Crushing Monster
Zev Steinhardt
I could swear I’ve paid attention to every minute of every episode of this show, and I just can’t place this. When did it happen? I’m not saying it didn’t, I’m just surprised that I missed it.
It was in the first season finale, though I don’t know which part. She specified that Alex was her daughter–I think it may have been while she was talking to Claire, before Claire remembered having seen her before.
It was in the season one finale, when Rousseau showed up in camp to warn them that the Others were coming.
She said that she saw “a pillar of smoke,” and then that night “they came and took her.”
I remember this pretty clearly because at the end, when they took Michael, folks spotted a young woman assumed to be Alex (based on her age and sex) on the kidnappers’ boat.
As middleman said, Sawyer was the guy who swindled James’ mom. Robert J Sawyer’s books seem to have a level of dissecting our concepts of humanity and god wrapped up in scifi (at least the very few books of his I’ve read, been meaning to read more of his stuff…)
I agree. I thought Jack should have called him out on his lame analogy of making a comparison to trespassing in someone’s house. If a schoolbus crashes into my house I for one don’t run out and start killing some of the survivors. And when they try to go up the street to get some help I don’t torch their transportation and kidnap one of their kids.
I was pretty sure he (Bluebeard) said both things - that Michael was fine and that he’d never find them. Anyone tape it who can watch again and verify this?
Thanks! I still don’t remember it, but at least I know just how badly I’m losing it.
Bite your tongue, you fool! I want more of Jack. Sans clothes. My gosh but Matthew Fox floats my boat.
I’d also prefer the help of a Republican Guard officer to an unstable ex-cop in training an army. In any case, I’m good and sick of Our Gang being helpless whenever they encounter the various Others. (Although it looked like the Tailies could have dealt with their people-snatching Others by just keeping watch at night.)
In particular, I’d like to see Sawyer beat the ever-loving shit out of BB. But the survivors have been at the mercy of the various forces on the island long enough; I’d love to see them go on the offensive, kick some ass, and start to get a handle on the subject of What the Hell is Going On.
Does anything think (or is it obvious) that more happened between Jack and Gabriella than that one kiss?
When Jack was confessing in the kitchen, it sure sounded like more happened, but a kiss was all we saw.
I realize Jack loves his guilt, but he was acting way guiltier than he needed to, if the kiss was all that happened.
Funny, because when I saw “Bluebeard” I hollered “Rupert!”
Really? A romantic kiss outside of marriage is a pretty big deal, if you ask me. I don’t think anything else happened.
Unfortunately, I didn’t find that scene all that believable either. It just felt contrived. Her dad has been dead for only a matter of hours, and she’s suddenly all hot for the doctor? I don’t buy it. Just more poor writing.
I hate bagging on this show, because it’s still one of my favorites. I just wish the quality of the writing would improve a little.
I don’t think so. I think he felt guilty (rightfully so) that he had kissed another woman.
As a married man, I wouldn’t feel much worse about my wife sleeping with a guy than if she just kissed him.
I promise you my wife feels the same!
But I am intrigued by Gabriella. I have a feeling that her introduction was not just tacked on to explain the failure of Jack’s marriage.
That’s right. I think she’s in on it.
What “it” is, I have no idea!