I hope I’m not the only one who thought this episode was AWFUL. Locke’s actions made no sense. Jack’s actions made no sense. Sawyer’s actions made no sense. No one acted remotely like real people would CONCEIVABLY act in that kind of situation.
That was an idiotic contrived plot twist which just makes the characters seem even dumber than they already seem.
There were some good lines, and I enjoyed the flashbacks, but the locke/jack/sawyer/charlie business was The Poo.
That was a damned good episode.
That is all.
Does anyone honestly believe we will actually find out what happens when the clock runs out in next week’s episode? What’s going to happen will be the clock will run out next week. But three years from now, we’ll still be trying to guess what the consequences of that are.
Anybody else notice the director credit?
It makes perfect sense, as far as one of the contrasting political philosphies of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau w/r/t the State of Nature/role of property/Social Contract/etc. is concerned.
We have Sawyer motivated by a desire to hoard property beyond its personal usefulness to him, in order to gain power and influence over his peers. He is a cynical person’s sketch of the way that human nature manifests in the absence of law – totally selfish. His inordinate selfishness, unchecked, is harmful to everyone else.
Jack has been the “leader” from the start. By what right? He just sort of fell into it, and he’s only human, no matter how well-intentioned. John Locke doesn’t trust the concentration of power.
Locke would ideally like to see our castaways voluntarily enter into a society (which requires that they give up the absolute freedom of the State of Nature) for the common good. Without society, you have a “War of All against All,” with everyone enduring constant losses. Society protects personal property. Force of arms is controlled and exercised only in a way that furthers the common good – and transgressors are punished so that they are discouraged from transgressing again. Lock up the guns and the valuable property that are required to maintain the public good. Strict access. The Lockean view is that individuals are animals without government and men in a State of Nature tend towards the feral.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s view of the State of Nature contrasts with that sharply. He embraced the concept of the Noble Savage. Individuals, absent an imposed social order, are basically good. It’s unnatural society that drives individuals to harmful actions. If we weren’t distorted by living in these conditions, we’d get along like fluffy bunnies. Unequal society makes men desire position and advantage, and we go over each others’ backs to get it. Skullduggery abounds, and no-one is safe.
This is why [Danielle] Rousseau was so certain that the castaways would succumb to the “sickness” and start killing each other. Well, now the rot is setting in. Property, power, jealousy. It’s been bubbling away, and now it’s boiling over.
Apart from that, and just sticking to the literal drift of the show, everyone acted in perfect accord with their motivations. What’s your objection? What doesn’t make sense?
:smack: I got so distracted by the appearance of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge that it didn’t dawn on me until now what Locke was looking for in the books.
Little help for the easily distracted amongst us?
Sorry, I thought it was just me.
When Eko brought Locke that segment of the orientation film, it was still in the hollowed-out bible that he’d found it in. I think Locke was looking for more, since there are still a few obvious gaps.
I thought it said Roxann Dawson. Does that mean something? (Should it?)
An observation of a parallel between Charlie’s storyline and that of another show:
Man decides that friend’s baby needs his help
Man kidnaps baby in order to provide this “help”
As a result of his betrayal, man becomes ostracized from group
Man becomes outlaw
Of course I’m talking about Wesley from Angel. It remains to be seen if Charlie becomes a badass and not just a pathetic figure, but I thought the parallels were pretty strong.
Does Sawyer have a nickname for Charlie? Did I miss it?
Good to see the ex-Star Trek: Voyager actress is getting work! She’s actually done quite a bit of TV directing over the past few years.
It never ceases to amuse me when the writers answer questions we posed in the same week. Upthread, John Mace asked why Jack was still wearing the key, and bingo–an explanation! If only that worked for everything.
sigh Charlie, Charlie, Charlie. I liked you. Now you suck. You hurt Sun, and that’s just not cool. And I could swear I saw Sun’s hands being tied in the original abduction scene, if that counts for anything.
Glad there’s a dentist somewhere on the island–with my teeth, I’d be S.O.L. if there wasn’t. 
Loved Hurley’s insinuation that they were listening to a broadcast from another time. It actually gave me chills. I know there are supposed to be “scientific” explanations for everything, but I’m totally cool with a time warp.
When the episode was over, I felt really disappointed. But the more I think about it this morning, the more I liked it.
I’m having the exact same reaction.
Fortunately for Sawyer, Locke was a moron and didn’t think that he didn’t have to move the guns, just the ammo… much easier to carry, probably in more environmentally-protected ammo boxes. However, in any case, it would have taken Locke several trips so Sawyer could have just lifted some ammo for the gun he wanted.
What was with Sawyer, counting in the car? Just waiting for the girl to get far enough that she wouldn’t notice him coming back into the house?
Thank you for that. It was driving me nuts. I kept thinking she looked like a combination of a few different actresses. I guess I’m not used to seeing her look so modern.
Oh, and for those of you who were too distracted by the book title to get that Locke was looking for more film, I was exactly the opposite. I was too distracted by Locke looking for more film that I failed to notice the title of the book. That’s why we’re in this together!
I thought he did put the case in the locker. Isn’t that what Jack brought in and gave to Locke, and Locke asked something like “Is that all of them?” To which Jack replied “Yep, all six and one box of ammo.” Then didn’t Jack take the key off his neck and put it with the case?
That’s what I thought I saw.
-rainy
Did anyone happen to catch the title of the manuscript? (not a riddle, I don’t know the answer…)
Damn. I checked in just to make that point about Bierce this morning. Ah well…
With respect to the radio transmission transcending time: I thought that the numbers originated from a fairly modern transmission made from the Island, before Danielle reprogrammed the tape. So, if the castaways are unstuck in time, that will be another wrinkle for the writers to iron out.
With respect to the next episode: (warning: WAG) Weren’t there blast doors in the hatch that Michael noticed when they were exploring? My guess is that those are tripped by letting the clock run out. I’ll bet that someone gets trapped inside. If so, that could be one reason that the writers had the guns moved out of the hatch while it was still accessible.
After the episode, my wife and I both suggested that the series seems to have taken an odd turn for the worst.
Sawyer’s “sheriff” speech was terribly cheesy.
His flashback, was not really that interesting.
We’ve had back to back bad episodes for the first time in the series.
Cause for concern.
I read it at the time, but I’ve forgotten. I’m pretty sure it was a two-word title, starting with “Bad”.
What?