I thought he just said that if they wanted guns, they were going to have to ask him nicely for them? I don’t see that as blackmail or betrayal and, given that it kept them from rushing off into the jungles with more guns to hand over to the Others, it probably was better than leaving Jack in charge of the guns. Remember Locke’s and Charlie’s point, that Aaron is not their responsibility? Well, nobody is Jack’s responsibility but Jack, but he keeps acting like he’s their leader. Nobody elected him; Sawyer just elected himself. Go Sawyer!
Actually, we kind of have. He called Jack on the idea of what right did they have to go hunt Michael down, and then he called Charlie on his right to be Aaron’s protector. It’s not so much that he’s a pacifist as he’s beginning to realize the people on the island can be a bunch of manipulative, meddlesome jerks, and he’s pulled back from that. Sawyer’s just better at it than anybody else, and he should be leading.
Consider:
Sawyer established a stash of useful items and hoarded them so they would last longer.
He found the cop’s gun and kilt a bar with it.
He didn’t withhold Shannon’s medicine, and resisted torture attempts to get the secret out of him, which is a good trick.
I don’t see that as much of a difference in vulnerability. Remember, they were all armed when they met up with Zeke, and ended up losing all their guns. Were they more vulnerable before or after the guns were found? They only thing they’ve been able to do with these guns is kill bears and the wrong people. The guns aren’t helping; I’m really hoping that, a few episodes from now, we find that Sawyer pitched them all into the sea, just like the Hurley solution with the food.
MaxTHe Vool - you did a really great job summarizing the reasons I didn’t like this episode. It all really only makes good character sense if they are succumbing to the mysterious “sickness”.
Otherwise, add me to the number who think it was all just a poor series of plot twisting by the writers in order to get the guns out of the hatch’s vault.
Right – so that’s why I said it wasn’t really out of character for him to be selfish and conniving – but that he also didn’t seem to be thinking as rationally as he might have otherwise (which could be the “sickness” at work). But it’s certainly not out of character for him to con the other Lostaways.
Extremely unlikely, and if he did, I’d hope someone on the island would poke him to death with a sharp stick for throwing away such useful tools. Sure, they haven’t yet proved useful, but it’d be stupid to throw away your options for some touchy feely warm gooey feeling.
Ethlirist, I’m relieved to see that I’m not the only one who sees Sawyer’s coup as healthy and unintendedly positive for the group. I’d actually trust Sawyer more than Jack or Locke to decide who should have guns and when. Sawyer has lived a life where knowing who to shoot and when, and who’s a tool and who’s not, was part of his survival method. He’s not overly burdened by sentiment, irrational rage or affection, a savior complex, a mystical sense of power, or anything else that might lead to stupid impulse action. This is why politicians are so often scumbags; the scum rises to the top.
They all hate Sawyer now, but I think he just gave them a big headcheck, much-needed and quite refreshing. I hope they take this opportunity to think about how this happened and what is says about them. Their feuding and in-fighting will be the death of them.
Well, this is where you lost me. Sawyer wouldn’t do that. He’s too logical. Also, they might need the guns someday, and if Sawyer deems the time is right, that will probably be the right moment.
I don’t know why I like Sawyer so much all of a sudden. I swear it wasn’t the sight of him half-naked. I think it was the cold logic in the midst of all that irrational bossiness and meddling.
Of course not. What makes you think that they did? They reacted pretty much the way you’d expect anyone to react to sneaky son-of-a-bitch holding forth with a rifle in his hands. There’s no reason to think they accept the new status quo, and that they’re going to just bow down before the new “boss.” Would you rush up to him and try to wrestle it away? They’ll take their time and find a way to straighten things out without anyone getting shot.
…oiling the rifle in his hands.
He’s not being pacifist, he’s (according to his own reckoning) being prudent. Waiting to see if Sawyer’s telling the truth isn’t an option. We know that it was poor judgement to accept Sawyer’s word that he was acting simply to spite Jack, but it seemed credible to him, based on the evidence he had.
His reasoning for not wanting to see a bunch of armed, frightened people with their blood up run out into the unknown is well-established – and not unreasonable, considering the the way that that’s played out twice in the past few days. Three times, if we count Shannon’s accidental death.
…and the expected group of vigilantes who are equally determined. The result of that tactic would be totally predetermined. Not an option, from Locke’s point of view.
Locke was working from the premise that keeping people safe and allowing them to run off willy-nilly on a snipe hunt were mutually exclusive. How could he keep them safe by going along, from his POV? Keep his body between every rustle in the brush and every gun barrell at all times?
Calculated risk. He had no reason to believe he was under constant survellance, and was acting to avert a much more likely (from his POV) danger. Indeed, the danger came from an entirely different quarter. There’s no question that he made a poor decision, but it makes perfect sense as far as the character’s motivation is concerned. What do you want? That every character should act in some objectively correct way? People don’t do that. They do what seems right (or at least advantageous, if they’re less than perfectly moral creatures) to them.
Again, his reasoning was consistently articulated.
These conditions are met, from Locke’s point of view.
It was the clearly the wrong thing to do, but it was the logical thing for Locke to do.
Wait a minute, you’re faulting the writers for failing to make Locke infallable? He was acting in the expectation of an angry mob coming his way. So Charlie got one over on him, when he was preoccupied with something else entirely. He wasn’t expecting a surreptitious hobbit. He fucked up. And so we have a source of dramatic tension.
People can be self-destructive or less-than-perfectly-rational and yet not want to drown or be eaten alive by sharks.
And the basis of your belief that Sawyer’s motivation is the general welfare of the group is… what?
There’s no reason to think that he had it worked out exactly as he had it planned. People work with contingencies. Misdirection to manipulate people into making their protected valuables vulnerable is a very old technique. Who says he planned for the guns to be moved? His original suggestion was for Locke to change the combination. If Locke did that, they could count on a window of time when the safe would be unsecurable. Probably not when Sawyer was around, since Locke isn’t going to trust him. He might not be thinking about Charlie, though, since he’d have no reason to suspect that Charlie would be aware of the vulnerability. Charlie sneaks in while Locke’s attention is on the precision work and out comes the cosh, giving him direct revenge and lovely, lovely heroin. Only it didn’t play out that way, so Sawyer says, “Listen, this is what we’re going to do…” …or any other number of possibilities. The important thing was that the guns were exposed, with the intent of making them more secure. Do nothing and they remain locked up. Create a need for something to be done with them and exploit whatever opportunity presents itself.
No plan has a hundred percent chance of success. Still, you’re reaching a bit with the Charlie/Sun thing. The biggest risk would be that he’d be recognized. Might have had some rudimentary disguise, or a “Nice day!” comment ready if he couldn’t get close – but come on – it’s not like it’s that hard to get the better of a 110lb woman who’s on the ground with her back to you. And if it didn’t work… it didn’t work. Charlie’s out of his mind and thinks he has nothing to lose. Sawyer certainly had nothing to lose by it.
I think you’re right on the money with that last. Again, [Jean-Jacques] Rousseau’s take on the “state of nature” is that people are basically decent, but that close contact with other people corrupts our good nature:
Sound familiar? This is [Danielle] Rousseau’s “sickness,” and it is spreading. Everything’s going for shit, just like she predicted.
And keep in mind that Locke wants to maintain a status quo on the island. He trusts the bargain they struck with The Others. He wants everyone to accept their life on the island and not make any waves. The last thing he wants is a war with The Others. He’s more likely to seek them out privately in order to strengthen the bargain they made.
Since it happened that way, I bet Jin will find out and Charlie will say, “I didn’t mean to…It’s not how it looks!”, for a lame excuse (just like with Locke when he was confronted with the stash of statues).
I agree. I think that one of the most interesting things about the show is trying to figure out what’s really going on with Locke, and whether he is misguided or even bad.
I thought this episode was poorly written and poorly acted by some of the regulars. I particularly don’t get what’s going on with Jack’s character–whether it’s intentional or sub par acting. The redeeming feature was that it was a Sawyer-centric episode.
But I’m very excited about next week. That looks promising!
The first thing is what motivates him. I think his main motivation is his screwed up feelings about his father. Locke wants to spite his father by becoming a perfect father.
He originally was trying to be a father figure to Walt. But once he saw Michael was capable of doing the job he backed off - the one thing he doesn’t want is to see a father and son relationship broken apart like his was. Then he had a second chance with Aaron. That’s why he’s so mad at Charlie - Charlie’s not a good father and that’s what Locke hates most.
(On a side note, who else has seen The Stepfather? Watch that and you’ll never look at O’Quinn the same way again.)
The second thing is his paralysis. It hasn’t been explained yet but I had a revelation - Locke’s paralysis was psychosomatic. The producers have said that nothing on the show is supernatural and having a character healed of a physcial paralysis would be hard to explain by any other means. So Locke’s paralysis must have been in his mind. Once he decided he could walk again, he could. And once he began having doubts, he almost lost the ability again.
Well, Larry, you’re probably right that I’m being too hard on Locke. But I can’t buy that he’s only out for the common good either. If that were true, why did he hide the heroin as well as the guns. Jack is the only person who can reasonably use it for any “theraputic” purpose and it’s unlikely that Jack and AnnaLucia are gonna go off with the stash and shoot up with the Others. In this instance Locke has put himself in a position where Jack has to ask for Locke for medical supplies.
The truth is probably a complicated mix of our two speculations regarding Locke’s motive.
What I would personally like to ses as the show progresses regarding Jack and Locke is for Locke to loose his faith and for Jack to gain his faith. I think they would both be better people for it.
I’d thought that Miller’s plane disappeared as he went from Paris to…someplace east?
And then I check and find that, no, it was the English Channel.. Turns out mom was right - I am fallible. Oops.
Otherwise, I liked the episode, except for the huge flaw in Sawyer’s plan that’s been pointed out already - counting on “I’m coming too” Kate sending HIM to wawn Locke. Totally doesn’t fit what we know about Kate. Then again, that could have been done for convenience, with Sawyer having backup plans in place - volunteering to go, convincing Kate she’s the best person to delay Jack by a few minutes to give them more time, etc.
