What's Alan Watching?: Lost, "There's No Place Like Home, Pt. 2 & 3": Dude, where's my island?:
-re: Libby, Boone, Charlie
They all died on the island, but so did Shannon, Eko, Ana-Lucia, and countless red-shirts. Why not mention any of them or Jin? All 3 are dead, pop up in visions to others, but I don't recall any significant interaction between the 3 of them. Everything seems deliberate on this show.
--My theory is that all three were people that Jack personally tried to save, and so he had the emotional memory to carry out the 'lie' that's good without seeming false to their families. He lost both Boone and Libby after treating them, and although Charlie died away from him, there was the time when Charlie was discovered after the Ethan kidnapping and Jack pounded his chest to bring him back to life. The other deaths were not as personal to him; not sure if this was a calculated move, but at least a subconscious choice by Jack.
also in these comments, longish somewhat solid critique of finale by Vic DiGital, and (I guess bcs it brought me down a bit) I was glad to find that first a post by Alan S & then more extensively a post by Matthew L address point-by-point many of her criticisms to my satisfaction.
such that what remains unaddressed of her criticism (at least on my quick read through of the end of this long thread) has to do, seemingly, with the shortening of the season, eg:
-a massive course-change with the whole freighter story, mid-season. I'm sure the Writer's Strike had something to do with it, but everything we were told at the beginning of the season ("You don't want to mess with the captain of the freighter!!") turned out to be meaningless. I guess that's right. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the whole "blow up the ship" plan was silly when you really look at it, especially since there's no reason why Keamy would have felt the need to wire himself up. yeah maybe. I don't mind it. it doesn't clearly make sense but it doesn't clearly not make sense either. it's not outstandingly~egregiously nonsensical. As far as he knew, the only people on the boat were the skeleton crew left behind. Granted, he was threatening the Losties only hope for escape, but unless he read the script for the finale, there's no way he'd know how much of a threat the Dead Man's Switch would actually be. well he used the switch earlier *on* the freighter as a way of preventing others from stopping him. so, seems possibly a good strategy for controlling those on the freighter who would oppose him.
and about wanting a finale in the game-changing style:
-One final note about why this finale left me a bit underwhelmed:It was an okay episode, but as far as being a finale, and the last Lost we get for eight months, it didn't cut it. This felt exactly like the end of Season One, when we finally got to open the hatch, and all they showed us was a ladder that went down. Well, we already figured there'd be that. Same with this year. We figured we'd get to see who was in the coffin, the Island disappear, the Oceanic Six rescued. We didn't get any compelling or mind-blowing glimpse into the future. hmm. I guess got this not only last year, season 3's 'game-changing' flashforward, but also with season 2's finale, which had the weird foot statue that everyone still asks about, the suspense of the Others taking Jack & Sawyer & Kate and letting Michael leave the island, and the hatch blowing up & Desmond turning the failsafe. plus, final scene (I think? seen mentioned here) then had the fellows in the tracking station getting a blip from the electromagnetic event and calling up Penny.
What they should have done was left us with at least one short scene on the island, wherever/whenever it now is. Imagine how wild it would have been to have seen snow falling on the trees, or to see a pterodactyl fly overhead, or to have the camera pan across the water (from the perspective of the shore of the beach) and alight upon an old sailing ship bearing down on the island with the name "Black Rock" on the side, or for us to see a half-dozen people emerge from the forest, and it's Juliet with short hair (or grey hair) or Rose with a bandoleer strapped across her chest, standing next to an almost-familar Asian man with long hair and a wicked goatee (or maybe some burn scars), or Sawyer with a shaved head, or maybe a new young child running around. (speaking of, there's still a passel of children somewhere on the island, isn't there?)
so this is similar to the critique iterated in AlanS's pre-Lost post about the ending of Exodus, season 1 finale, and how should have zoomed down into the hatch & shown Desmond there, some hint of what was to come. well it strikes me as pretty obvious that narratively there is usually going to be a trade-off between surprises in the finale and in the following season opener. Didn't get to see into the hatch in Exodus. therefore, premiere of season 2 got to start with the mind-blower where watch Desmond eating breakfast, taking shower; and assume it's a flashback, but instead: surprise! camera moves out & up the hatch to Jack & Locke looking down. by most accounts that beginning was fantastic, right? people think that episode, Man of Science Man of Faith one of the best.
ok so then season 2 ends with lots of new openings, and did the season3 opener blow any minds? ooh wait, I think it did, by going back to the plane crash from perspective of Juliet right? and first we see suburbia, book club meeting, then surprise! it's on the Island. so okay, I guess there the writers pulled off both a season finale of surprises and a season opener of surprises. but then, season 3's big surprise meant that the opener of season 4, Beginning of the End, with Hurley's flash forwards, was a continuation of what had already been glimpsed. a good solid episode but no big surprise. just as this finale was good & solid, but no big surprise (Locke in the coffin was a possibility already, not out of nowhere). so doesn't this mean that the opener of next season is potentially awesome? that, even if it fails to be, we can sit down to watch it with the excitement of having no idea what to expect to see?
boy that sounds great. I've convinced myself. turning on the premiere of season 5 next January is going to be exciting moment! . .
Saturday, May 31, 2008
“There’s No Place Like Home, Part 2” | The A.V. Club by Noel Murray once again am impressed by hist write up
A year ago, Lost’s third season ended with Jack making two phone calls. Off the island, in a flash-forward, he called Kate, and told her they had to “go back.” On the island, he called Charles Widmore’s freighter and asked their people to come rescue his people.
Would it surprise you to know that from the moment Jack called the boat to the moment he headed off into the jungle in part one of this year's season finale, only nine days passed? It’s been a crazy nine days too, during which the castaways have split into factions, the island saw a population explosion meaning the four freighties & the mercenaries?, old friends died who? Clare? oh also Rousseau & Karl & Alex, old friends returned Michael, and Jack had outpatient surgery.
Off the island, meanwhile, Jack and Kate have had an on-and-off relationship, Hurley went crazy again, Sayid got married then widowed then drafted into Ben’s army of international assassins, and Sun had a baby and bought a controlling stake in her dad’s company. good sum. All of which happened before Jack grew a beard, became a pillhead, and made that fateful call to Kate.
The second part of the Season Four finale picks up where last year’s finale left off, with Kate and Jack bickering by the airport. And right off the bat, Kate spills the beans about whose obituary Jack’s been carrying around: “Jeremy Bentham.” According to Kate, Bentham visited her, and she thinks he’s crazy. Bentham also apparently visited Taller Non-Ghost Walt, who later contacts Hurley in Santa Rosa to ask why the Oceanic Six has been lying to the world (and why none of them came to see him once they got home). Bentham is also known to Sayid, who shows up in Santa Rosa to spirit Hurley away in reaction to Bentham's demise. Just who is Jeremy Bentham? Well, that’s one of tonight’s big twists, and how you feel about that twist may determine how you feel about “There’s No Place Like Home.”
Your opinion probably also hinges on what you thought about the on-island action, which featured punch-outs, gun-fights, a selfless Sawyer sacrifice, and a whopping piece of mystical ju-ju. Let’s address the ju-ju first. In one of the most straightforward demonstrations we’ve yet seen of the island’s supernatural properties, Ben blasts a hole in the wall of the subterranean Orchid station, crawls down into an icy cave, turns a big wheel, and causes the island to disappear. We all knew this moment was coming, and yet the literalizing of such a strange procedure—even more so than Desmond turning the fail-safe key at the end of Season Two—may well strike some as…well, goofy.
For me though, all the business with Ben and Locke at The Orchid was maybe my favorite part of the episode. I liked Locke and Jack talking “leader stuff.” I liked Ben’s exasperation at John’s inability to find the entrance. I loved Locke's "I don't know what they *look* like." in response to Ben's "You couldn't find the ~amyrisms (kind of flowered plant), could you?" I loved Locke watching Ben act in contradictiony to everything “Edgar Halliwax” was saying on The Orchid orientation film, by loading the time travel chamber with inorganic matter.And yes, I loved the big wheel. And the disappearing island. And the helicopter crash that followed.
But I was less enamored of some of the other island business, which felt a little rushed to me. As I’ve said before, I’m not necessarily convinced that Lost works best as a straightforward action-adventure show yes I tht sth like this during the rnning-thru-jungle scenes, that I guess other fans want action-packed episodes but not v int to me, because while I recognize that those action scenes are necessary to move the story forward, the more people yell at each other and shoot at each other on Lost, the more the show veers towards run-of-the-mill pulp yes. Tonight’s episode had one decent action sequence yes, when Richard and his band of merry Others came whispering out of the jungle to put the kapow on Keamy’s Commandos. Otherwise, the action seemed to consist of a lot of running back and forth, and hurried goodbyes.
The best part of the rescue sequence? The unexpected appearance of Penny and her boat “Searcher,” which brought her and Desmond together at last. (Did anyone see that coming? I didn’t, and I thought it was a terrific surprise.)
What about Daniel and his cargo of redshirts, who apparently moved along with the island (since Frank and his passengers didn't see them) yes that's what I think even though they were in the water when the move happened?
In an unfortunately rushed scene, Charlotte tells Daniel she’s staying on the island because she’s “still looking for where I was born,” which is something Miles—who is so awesome, by the way—had apparently already guessed. When Miles tells Charlotte that he thought she'd been eager to get back to the island, she says, “What do you mean?” and he says, in that inimitably smart-ass Miles way, “What do I mean?” Man I hope there’s more of Miles next year. As well as Charlotte’s quest for homecoming.
Some guesses as to what’s going to happen next year, besides what I already mentioned about Charlotte searching for her past:
The Widmore/Paik alliance will work overtime to prevent the Ben/Jack alliance from finding the island before they can, though Jack will eventually wear Sun down. that's int: is Sun really allied with Widmore? against Ben & Jack? ...*just read (& added in post below) cmmt on AlanS blog:
-If Locke was Bentham and he visited all Oceanic Six folks, then that means he told Sun that Ben knowingly killed Keamy and thus blew up the boat. ah. good. *that* is how Sun would know & blame Ben for Jin's death. been reading speculation that she is uniting with Widmore bcs blames Ben, but cldn't see how she'd know that Ben was responsible for the explosion. this makes very good sense, she learned from J Bentham, then went to see Widmore. the common interests she spoke of (I tht she was not sincere, now am thinking she was) may be mainly this: they share an enmity against Ben.
In order to find the island, Jack will have to locate the surviving members of the Dharma Initiative. hmm. hits me as out of left field but possible. In the island flashbacks, we’ll see all-out war between Sawyer’s camp and Locke’s camp as resources dwindle. ~ dunno about that. Sawyer's camp is awfully small, wldn't they just join up with Locke & Richard & Others?
And as much as I hate to say it, I think Penny’s going to die, bringing Desmond back into the fold with Jack (even though it may well be Sayid who does the killing). It’ll be brother against brother and the secrets of Dharma, coming in ’09.
A fond farewell:
I don’t have the exact numbers, but judging by the number of comments and what I hear from the bosses, this Lost blog has been the most popular in the brief history of the TV Club, and much of the credit for that goes to all of you...not just for reading, but for contributing what to my mind is some of the best Lost-chat on the net. I’m not saying that just to butter you up. I read a lot of Lost blogs, and even the best of them—like Jeff Jensen’s always-provocative posts at ew.com—tend to draw mostly inane one-liners, half-cocked nitpicking and general asshattery. In terms of quantity mixed with quality, I think we had almost every other site beat.
Now gouge away. You can gouge away.*
* I love repetition. & oh this is a reference to song used in episode, per cmmt on AlanS post -the six-to-seven seconds of "Gouge Away" blasting from Jack's jeep seemed pretty relevant to the story for me. "Gouge Away" is about the story of Samson and Delilah, and Locke makes for a nice Samson: a man of faith who gets his strength from an unlikely source, in Locke's case, of course it's the island.
1039 Comments
-Bentham quote: 'Take me forward, I entreat you, to the future -- do not let me go back to the past.' that's cool.
-polar bears! by Noel Murray: Having finished my post, I just read the comments over on Alan Sepinwall's blog (where the commenters are also good, if not as numerous) and commenter "Myles" pointed out that Dharma must've used their polar bears to move the island. Hence the bear skeleton in Tunisia.
-but i wonder why they used polar bears?
-Noel Murray: I don't think they *needed* polar bears, but since whomever moves the wheel leaves the island for good ah right, why not a bear instead of a person?
A year ago, Lost’s third season ended with Jack making two phone calls. Off the island, in a flash-forward, he called Kate, and told her they had to “go back.” On the island, he called Charles Widmore’s freighter and asked their people to come rescue his people.
Would it surprise you to know that from the moment Jack called the boat to the moment he headed off into the jungle in part one of this year's season finale, only nine days passed? It’s been a crazy nine days too, during which the castaways have split into factions, the island saw a population explosion meaning the four freighties & the mercenaries?, old friends died who? Clare? oh also Rousseau & Karl & Alex, old friends returned Michael, and Jack had outpatient surgery.
Off the island, meanwhile, Jack and Kate have had an on-and-off relationship, Hurley went crazy again, Sayid got married then widowed then drafted into Ben’s army of international assassins, and Sun had a baby and bought a controlling stake in her dad’s company. good sum. All of which happened before Jack grew a beard, became a pillhead, and made that fateful call to Kate.
The second part of the Season Four finale picks up where last year’s finale left off, with Kate and Jack bickering by the airport. And right off the bat, Kate spills the beans about whose obituary Jack’s been carrying around: “Jeremy Bentham.” According to Kate, Bentham visited her, and she thinks he’s crazy. Bentham also apparently visited Taller Non-Ghost Walt, who later contacts Hurley in Santa Rosa to ask why the Oceanic Six has been lying to the world (and why none of them came to see him once they got home). Bentham is also known to Sayid, who shows up in Santa Rosa to spirit Hurley away in reaction to Bentham's demise. Just who is Jeremy Bentham? Well, that’s one of tonight’s big twists, and how you feel about that twist may determine how you feel about “There’s No Place Like Home.”
Your opinion probably also hinges on what you thought about the on-island action, which featured punch-outs, gun-fights, a selfless Sawyer sacrifice, and a whopping piece of mystical ju-ju. Let’s address the ju-ju first. In one of the most straightforward demonstrations we’ve yet seen of the island’s supernatural properties, Ben blasts a hole in the wall of the subterranean Orchid station, crawls down into an icy cave, turns a big wheel, and causes the island to disappear. We all knew this moment was coming, and yet the literalizing of such a strange procedure—even more so than Desmond turning the fail-safe key at the end of Season Two—may well strike some as…well, goofy.
For me though, all the business with Ben and Locke at The Orchid was maybe my favorite part of the episode. I liked Locke and Jack talking “leader stuff.” I liked Ben’s exasperation at John’s inability to find the entrance. I loved Locke's "I don't know what they *look* like." in response to Ben's "You couldn't find the ~amyrisms (kind of flowered plant), could you?" I loved Locke watching Ben act in contradictiony to everything “Edgar Halliwax” was saying on The Orchid orientation film, by loading the time travel chamber with inorganic matter.And yes, I loved the big wheel. And the disappearing island. And the helicopter crash that followed.
But I was less enamored of some of the other island business, which felt a little rushed to me. As I’ve said before, I’m not necessarily convinced that Lost works best as a straightforward action-adventure show yes I tht sth like this during the rnning-thru-jungle scenes, that I guess other fans want action-packed episodes but not v int to me, because while I recognize that those action scenes are necessary to move the story forward, the more people yell at each other and shoot at each other on Lost, the more the show veers towards run-of-the-mill pulp yes. Tonight’s episode had one decent action sequence yes, when Richard and his band of merry Others came whispering out of the jungle to put the kapow on Keamy’s Commandos. Otherwise, the action seemed to consist of a lot of running back and forth, and hurried goodbyes.
The best part of the rescue sequence? The unexpected appearance of Penny and her boat “Searcher,” which brought her and Desmond together at last. (Did anyone see that coming? I didn’t, and I thought it was a terrific surprise.)
What about Daniel and his cargo of redshirts, who apparently moved along with the island (since Frank and his passengers didn't see them) yes that's what I think even though they were in the water when the move happened?
In an unfortunately rushed scene, Charlotte tells Daniel she’s staying on the island because she’s “still looking for where I was born,” which is something Miles—who is so awesome, by the way—had apparently already guessed. When Miles tells Charlotte that he thought she'd been eager to get back to the island, she says, “What do you mean?” and he says, in that inimitably smart-ass Miles way, “What do I mean?” Man I hope there’s more of Miles next year. As well as Charlotte’s quest for homecoming.
Some guesses as to what’s going to happen next year, besides what I already mentioned about Charlotte searching for her past:
The Widmore/Paik alliance will work overtime to prevent the Ben/Jack alliance from finding the island before they can, though Jack will eventually wear Sun down. that's int: is Sun really allied with Widmore? against Ben & Jack? ...*just read (& added in post below) cmmt on AlanS blog:
-If Locke was Bentham and he visited all Oceanic Six folks, then that means he told Sun that Ben knowingly killed Keamy and thus blew up the boat. ah. good. *that* is how Sun would know & blame Ben for Jin's death. been reading speculation that she is uniting with Widmore bcs blames Ben, but cldn't see how she'd know that Ben was responsible for the explosion. this makes very good sense, she learned from J Bentham, then went to see Widmore. the common interests she spoke of (I tht she was not sincere, now am thinking she was) may be mainly this: they share an enmity against Ben.
In order to find the island, Jack will have to locate the surviving members of the Dharma Initiative. hmm. hits me as out of left field but possible. In the island flashbacks, we’ll see all-out war between Sawyer’s camp and Locke’s camp as resources dwindle. ~ dunno about that. Sawyer's camp is awfully small, wldn't they just join up with Locke & Richard & Others?
And as much as I hate to say it, I think Penny’s going to die, bringing Desmond back into the fold with Jack (even though it may well be Sayid who does the killing). It’ll be brother against brother and the secrets of Dharma, coming in ’09.
A fond farewell:
I don’t have the exact numbers, but judging by the number of comments and what I hear from the bosses, this Lost blog has been the most popular in the brief history of the TV Club, and much of the credit for that goes to all of you...not just for reading, but for contributing what to my mind is some of the best Lost-chat on the net. I’m not saying that just to butter you up. I read a lot of Lost blogs, and even the best of them—like Jeff Jensen’s always-provocative posts at ew.com—tend to draw mostly inane one-liners, half-cocked nitpicking and general asshattery. In terms of quantity mixed with quality, I think we had almost every other site beat.
Now gouge away. You can gouge away.*
* I love repetition. & oh this is a reference to song used in episode, per cmmt on AlanS post -the six-to-seven seconds of "Gouge Away" blasting from Jack's jeep seemed pretty relevant to the story for me. "Gouge Away" is about the story of Samson and Delilah, and Locke makes for a nice Samson: a man of faith who gets his strength from an unlikely source, in Locke's case, of course it's the island.
1039 Comments
-Bentham quote: 'Take me forward, I entreat you, to the future -- do not let me go back to the past.' that's cool.
-polar bears! by Noel Murray: Having finished my post, I just read the comments over on Alan Sepinwall's blog (where the commenters are also good, if not as numerous) and commenter "Myles" pointed out that Dharma must've used their polar bears to move the island. Hence the bear skeleton in Tunisia.
-but i wonder why they used polar bears?
-Noel Murray: I don't think they *needed* polar bears, but since whomever moves the wheel leaves the island for good ah right, why not a bear instead of a person?
Friday, May 30, 2008
.
. mirrormattermoon:
Dark = Black = Island = Right = Mirror Matter (~Dark Matter)
Light = White = Earth = Left = Our Matter
"It's dark, Jack, very dark." That disconnected line from Ben and other elements of the finale seemed to lend some weight to this story. In fact, I think we must be dealing with a crashed junk of matter with a crazy core of awesomeness. The abundance of references to "Alice matter" (light/dark, shadows, Alice in Wonderland, the foot, chalkboard, etc.) I think make a strong case for the island being composed of mirror matter and serving as a bridge between light and dark sides (left and right) of the universe because of its wormhole-enabling core.
PLEASE NOTE: This is a new blog post. Your wonderful comments are here (the just-prior version, March) and here (an even earlier version, December). 35 comments
Dark = Black = Island = Right = Mirror Matter (~Dark Matter)
Light = White = Earth = Left = Our Matter
"It's dark, Jack, very dark." That disconnected line from Ben and other elements of the finale seemed to lend some weight to this story. In fact, I think we must be dealing with a crashed junk of matter with a crazy core of awesomeness. The abundance of references to "Alice matter" (light/dark, shadows, Alice in Wonderland, the foot, chalkboard, etc.) I think make a strong case for the island being composed of mirror matter and serving as a bridge between light and dark sides (left and right) of the universe because of its wormhole-enabling core.
PLEASE NOTE: This is a new blog post. Your wonderful comments are here (the just-prior version, March) and here (an even earlier version, December). 35 comments
"Lost": The nuttiest final scene ever in a series finale?
// Burning questions =thr
// A suitably great finale = usatoday
tvtattle.com
Lostwatch: We Gotta Get the Band Back Together - Tuned In - James Poniewozik - TIME
*Many nice one-liners in this episode, particularly involving Michael Emerson's inimitable delivery. ("Is he talking about what I think he's talking about?" "If you mean time traveling bunnies, yes.") If we never see him with live-Locke again, that'll be a shame. I was really impressed by Emerson's delivery as Ben commenting on Jack flying passenger planes, hoping to crash: "That's dark, Jack. Very dark." eyes wide & unblinking, eyebrows raised.
*Last week, we were debating who it was who ultimately rescued the Six. In retrospect, I can't believe I didn't guess Penny. Though somehow I didn't think we'd be seeing her get reuinited with Desmond until the final episode of the series. That they're back together may just have cost Desmond his life-insurance policy. *Speaking of life-insurance policies, what are the odds for Faraday, drifitng on open sea in a boat full of cannon-fodder extras? I hope he makes it back to the island. I think he might have.
*Significance of Charlotte (apparently) having been born on the Island? I've read the speculation that she's Annie right, Ben's childhood sweetheart, but she seems clearly too young right, unless there's some Alpertification going on right - I'd thoght time alteration, not lack of aging but that's good. Alpertification.
*Oh, and back to Locke. My own guess on the coffin was wrong: I had my money on Ben in the coffin, alive, having faked his death to get to Jack. huh, had not hrd that gess, it's good. It did seem it had to be Locke or Ben, or maybe Michael, to warrant Kate's "why would I go to his funeral?" the alternate reveals they filmed in order to keep ending secret (as show on GoodMorningAmer & linked by tvtattle), of Sawyer & Desmond respectively as the corpse, would have required totally additional story to explain Kate's hostility. I'd mourn Locke more yes, but again we run into the whole lack-of-faith-he's-permanently-dead thing right-Ben saying they have to take him seems almost certainly to mean he would be reanimated on return to the island, plus I can't imagine the series continuing without Terry O'Quinn in some substantial role—though I suppose he could be in flashbacks to the Island after the O6's rescue.
* Speaking of which: I end up asking a question I was asking after last finale—where are we at the beginning of next season, now that the O6's rescue story has been told? I have a hard time imagining Lost going a long while without any of the cast who are back on the Island. really? bt of the original Losties, the only one left there is Sawyer. not counting Locke as 'left there'. well also Rose & Bernard, but they've appearred only occasionally anyway. & Claire, but she seems to be crossed over to some other state. then there is Juliet. so mainly, Sawyer & Juliet - funny the suggestn that they could be the Adam & Eve skeletons, I like it bcs wld not before have speculated that, since those two had no previous significance as a pairing. other than them, there are Miles, Charlotte, Richard Alpert, other Others. Do the O6 come back that quickly? Is there a fill-in-the-gaps stretch of episodes—or parts of episodes—showing what happened on the Island from 2004 to 2007? And if so, are those considered flashbacks?
And how do they get back? As Ben said, "I have a few ideas." Now you've got about eight months to think about yours.
*Many nice one-liners in this episode, particularly involving Michael Emerson's inimitable delivery. ("Is he talking about what I think he's talking about?" "If you mean time traveling bunnies, yes.") If we never see him with live-Locke again, that'll be a shame. I was really impressed by Emerson's delivery as Ben commenting on Jack flying passenger planes, hoping to crash: "That's dark, Jack. Very dark." eyes wide & unblinking, eyebrows raised.
*Last week, we were debating who it was who ultimately rescued the Six. In retrospect, I can't believe I didn't guess Penny. Though somehow I didn't think we'd be seeing her get reuinited with Desmond until the final episode of the series. That they're back together may just have cost Desmond his life-insurance policy. *Speaking of life-insurance policies, what are the odds for Faraday, drifitng on open sea in a boat full of cannon-fodder extras? I hope he makes it back to the island. I think he might have.
*Significance of Charlotte (apparently) having been born on the Island? I've read the speculation that she's Annie right, Ben's childhood sweetheart, but she seems clearly too young right, unless there's some Alpertification going on right - I'd thoght time alteration, not lack of aging but that's good. Alpertification.
*Oh, and back to Locke. My own guess on the coffin was wrong: I had my money on Ben in the coffin, alive, having faked his death to get to Jack. huh, had not hrd that gess, it's good. It did seem it had to be Locke or Ben, or maybe Michael, to warrant Kate's "why would I go to his funeral?" the alternate reveals they filmed in order to keep ending secret (as show on GoodMorningAmer & linked by tvtattle), of Sawyer & Desmond respectively as the corpse, would have required totally additional story to explain Kate's hostility. I'd mourn Locke more yes, but again we run into the whole lack-of-faith-he's-permanently-dead thing right-Ben saying they have to take him seems almost certainly to mean he would be reanimated on return to the island, plus I can't imagine the series continuing without Terry O'Quinn in some substantial role—though I suppose he could be in flashbacks to the Island after the O6's rescue.
* Speaking of which: I end up asking a question I was asking after last finale—where are we at the beginning of next season, now that the O6's rescue story has been told? I have a hard time imagining Lost going a long while without any of the cast who are back on the Island. really? bt of the original Losties, the only one left there is Sawyer. not counting Locke as 'left there'. well also Rose & Bernard, but they've appearred only occasionally anyway. & Claire, but she seems to be crossed over to some other state. then there is Juliet. so mainly, Sawyer & Juliet - funny the suggestn that they could be the Adam & Eve skeletons, I like it bcs wld not before have speculated that, since those two had no previous significance as a pairing. other than them, there are Miles, Charlotte, Richard Alpert, other Others. Do the O6 come back that quickly? Is there a fill-in-the-gaps stretch of episodes—or parts of episodes—showing what happened on the Island from 2004 to 2007? And if so, are those considered flashbacks?
And how do they get back? As Ben said, "I have a few ideas." Now you've got about eight months to think about yours.
What's Alan Watching?: Lost, "There's No Place Like Home, Pt. 2 & 3": Dude, where's my island?
I think the first thing to do is to chart the location and status of everyone, as best I can figure, at the end of this whole deal.
Out in the real world: Jack, Kate, Aaron, Hurley, Sayid, Sun, Walt, Ben, Widmore
Dead in 2007: Locke (as Jeremy Bentham, the mysterious man in the coffin from "Through the Looking Glass")
In hiding: Desmond, Penny, maybe Lapidus (though he could just be kicking it in the Caribbean again right, assuming he's too small a fish for Widmore's people to go after)
On the island: Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, Charlotte, Richard & the Others, probably Rose and Bernard (Rose was chiding Miles moments before we saw Faraday load up a raft filled with redshirt Lostaways, and I doubt Bernard would've left without her), potentially other redshirts (though their ranks are running pretty low at this point; the freighter explosion was like the "Lost" equivalent of the Moldavian Massacre) and Faraday? ah, next:
Maybe dead, maybe lost at sea, maybe back on the island: Jin (who was on deck and could have miraculously jumped clear of the explosion), plus Faraday and the redshirts on his raft (and if any or all of these people weren't absorbed in the island-disappearing effect, then they're kinda screwed, as Penny's boat obviously didn't find them) my guess is that Faraday & his boat of redshirts were absorbed in the island disappearing effect. at lst I hope so. we saw them in their boat in the flash of white when the island moved. saw the flash around the helicopter too, but it seemed to contain the boat, more. anyway we at least know they did not die in the explosion of the freighter since this was after that, when helicopter already in air
Dead in 2004: Michael bcs not on deck like Jin? cld not have jumped clear, Keamy and his mercenaries
Location known, status unknown: Claire and Christian (who are on the island but may be the walking dead) good. well-done.
I'm glad that Miles and Charlotte stayed on the island, and not only because Ken Leung's one of the best additions to the cast over the run of the show. I still want to find out what Abaddon's Plan A was yes that required him to assemble a team including a mercenary (Naomi), a mentally-ill physicist (Faraday), a medium (Miles), and an anthropologist who may or may not have been born on the island (Charlotte). yes, and what is the relation between Abaddon & Widmore? ie why were Naomi, Miles, Faraday, Charlotte, & Frank as chopper pilot permitted to come along on the freighter?
my qstns, pts of int:
-when Sun meaningfully tells Widmore that he knows the O6 are not the only ones who left the island, is she referring to Desmond (& Frank Lapidus)? what is the meaning, the weight of this, to Widmore?
-Ben to Locke: Whoever moves the island can not ever go back. (why?)
three years later, Ben to Jack at Locke's coffin: I said all of you. *We* have to take him too. (we? so Ben can now return to the island, with them?)
-qstn begged with the reveal of Locke in the coffin in final scene of this finale: why was Locke now being called Jeremy Bentham? what had happened in the three intervening years on the island, how did he leave, why did he kill himself? and, who is he? what was his calling to the island? is he Jacob? Lindelof said fans who want to prepare for season5 should look into the Tibetan tradition of wh the reincarnation-"which of these objects already belong to you?"-test that Richard gave young Locke was part. bcs that backstory will figure in show's mythology. -oh, and, what is the deal with Richard Alpert not aging? still no hints at explanation for that...
152 Comments:
-So didn't Ben tell Locke that the person who moves the island can't stay there? But he wants to go back with Jack? I thought once Ben moved it, he couldn't go back...
-How does Ben know that the island won't let him go back now that he's moved it? I'm inclined to think that there's a previous island "caretaker" out there. Widmore? Abbadon? Dave?* cool. *who's Dave!? oh: Hurley's imaginary friend. well no I do not think he is a candidate, but makes the list sort of funny, like: could be anyone, Tom Dick or Harry... or Dave.
-I love the theory that the last person who moved the island and isn't allowed to return is someone we've met. Widmore is a great thought: would explain his obsession with finding it, and also his twisted relationship with Ben (who is his replacement as the caretaker.) Of course it could be Abadon, too (his role in trying to get people to the island could be to line up the necessary people to help it, since he's unable to), although he's probably still just the hired by Widmore? don't we have the impression they are separate forces? gun and Widmore is the guy who moved the island.
also, elsewhere, Aaron as next caretaker: Completely 'Lost': Bend it like Bentham: "the idea that Aaron will be Locke’s successor, and that the Others need the child to lead them, picking up where Locke (Jacob’s presumed heir) left off."
oh and Walt might be or have been a candidate also. after all he was "special" and taken by the Others bcs of it: "We're gonna have to take the boy." and then subjected to tests (wld be cool if there was some hint he was given the same 'which of these objects belong to you?' test; but if there had been any hint of that, I suppose I'd have seen mention of it by now)
-Tall Walt to Locke on the island is still a mystery. Was he whisked back from the future? Is he actually one of the dead visions? He'd be the logical next island caretaker, but likely lacks the acting props.
-So with the prospect now of a parallel to Christian with Locke returning to the island in a coffin, and the idea of a chain of succession with regard to "caretakers" of the island, I wonder if we'll find out that Christian Shepard was also at one time a caretaker of the island. He wasn't allowed to return to the island while he was alive. Anything in the timeline that would preclude that?
--Christian's demeanor in all the Jack flashbacks certainly didn't really suggest that the guy had once lived a secret life as ruler of a time-traveling, sentient island.
---I don't know. Maybe all that Dharma Rum was where he picked up his drinking problem. And, just like his son, it's why he kept flying back and forth to Australia.
---The parallel to Locke returning to the island in a coffin is still cool, though.
-cpennylane said... [re Charlotte] 'Can't be Annie. She died why Ben gassed the barracks. He closed her eyes.' Ben closed Horace Goodspeed's eyes, and Annie was no where to be found. good glad this got answered. I've liked cpennylane's cmmts here before, I think, have clicked thru to her blog posts re BabysittersClub books. I thought the episode was excellent. I liked it a lot more than last year's, because I thought the flashforwards in "Through the Looking Glass" really dragged everything down. They weren't interesting until the very end. huh that's an int pofview. I watched already knowing it was a flashforward (reading about that scene on a list of top tv scenes of the year is *why* I turned attn to Lost at all) and anyway the hook for me was Jack's despair. the maps spread around the room. esp knowing this is an after-the-end, in the ever after, a wanting to: go back.
-Loved this episode, and loved that they truly surprised me with a Des/Pen reunion 2 years earlier than I thought it would be coming. I think Charlotte is Ben & Annie's daughter, but that he doesn't know it. ah that's good. I've thought for a long time that part of what drives Ben must be that Annie died in childbirth. right I think that's a good guess. had forgotten. Maybe he doesn't know that their daughter survived.
-maybe Annie left with the baby after seeing how Ben was starting to act strangely (sneaking into the woods to meet Richard, talking crazily about the island powers) and that's what precipitated the purge. Makes sense for Ben's kidnapping of Alex, too: he wanted to replace the daughter that was taken from him. that's a good thought.
-If Locke was Bentham and he visited all Oceanic Six folks, then that means he told Sun that Ben knowingly killed Keamy and thus blew up the boat. ah. good. *that* is how Sun would know & blame Ben for Jin's death. (so that when she tells her father she blames he is one of two people at fault, she means him Paik and Ben.) been reading speculation that she is uniting with Widmore bcs blames Ben, but cldn't see how she'd know that Ben was responsible for the explosion. this makes very good sense, she learned from J Bentham, then went to see Widmore. the common interests she spoke of may be mainly this: they share an enmity against Ben.
-Sun is waging economic war on Paik and Widmore, and luring Widmore into a deeper involvement is the first step (or second step after the Paik takeover).
--So perhaps Sun is "The Economist"? ooh that's good. probably not the case though. Sayid's spy-lovergirl referred to her boss as 'he', I'm pretty sure. ~probably it's Widmore. and, it is now seeming to me that Sun might be sincere in partnering with Widmore in common interest of going after Ben.
-And one last question, when “Jeremy Bentham” visited the O6, was he in a wheelchair?
-I've always considered John Locke the hero of this story and the character closest to its heart. Locke's journey is the reason I care about the show. The mythology is cool, and Ben is clearly the best character cool that this is clear, whatever 'best' might clearly mean, but Locke's the reason i got sucked in and while i don't need him to have a happy ending, I need him to get a satisfying ending. Not be dead on arrival. If he can die, why was the island done with him? All those years to get him there and then he only got three years in charge (although I still believe that could be 40 years in island time). Then again, he was rounding people up to go back to the island... I'm so emotionally invested in his journey that I need him to have a period of time where he's unambiguously and unapologetically the man. bodes well that Lindelof said could prepare for coming season by researching tibetan reincarnation. this is my second noting of that so, should link & quote what actually said:
'Lost': Behind-the-scenes secrets from reading the uncensored scripts - ShowTracker -LosAngelesTimes: The producers have some advice for summer beach extracurricular “Lost” fare. Now that we know that John Locke has been drafted to the island over his lifetime, Lindelof has a suggestion: “We would basically advise those who have time on their hands to look into Buddhist traditions and the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. We used a lot of that back story in the creation of this myth.”
The Watcher - That crazy 'Lost' finale - 52 comments :
-Overall, there were at least twice the amount of game changers as last season's flash forward. I mean, the island is freakin' gone!!! They could start the next season on a UFO ship for all we know. The possibilities for next season are endless:
Is Locke the leader of the savages in the past as the Dharma folks first arrive at the Island? ooh I like that. and makes haunting Ben's answer to Hurley, that he Ben did not order the purge of the Dharma people and has not always been in charge. haunting, bcs maybe *Locke* was in charge then, and he ordered the purge. and Ben is telling Hurley this, as they watch Locke go into the pit of the Dharma skeletons and find the map in Horace's worksuit pocket.
Is Charlotte a Dharma love child born on the Island?
Does Ben know of another Dharma time machine that will allow them to return to the Island?
How does Sun know that Widmore used to be on the Island? ooh is that who she meant? "you know we are not the only ones to get off the island" ~ I tht re Desmond? but why said so dripping with meaning? so, int: bcs Widmore has been on the island? & she knows it.
-Sun teaming with Widmore now? I take it she considers Ben to be the other man responsible for Jin's (supposed) death? Makes sense, since he caused the bomb to go off.
-Just watched Dharma video above.Thought: Locke has been cloned before?
-I think this finale had as many "OMG" moments as past ones had; the difference is these "OMG"s were emotionally driven, not plot-twist driven. Sun watching the freighter blow up with Jin on it (although I am not convinced he is actually dead). Sawyer's goodbye to Kate and sacrificing his rescue for the others. Desmond and Penny's reunion. Claire ordering Kate to not take Aaron back to the island.
-This wasn't the classic "oh my God" Lost season finale but Locke in the coffin was pretty shocking. Plus -- the story is moving forward with this pervasive feeling of 'destiny' -- my hope is that somehow this all wraps up/back/into the closing scene being all of the events leading back to all the passengers taking Flight 815 again. y that'd be cool.
David Bianculli of TV Worth Watching thought it reinforced Lost's status as a classic and "answered more old questions than it posed new ones, definitely a first for a seasonal cliffhanger. And in the middle of all the angst & explosions and shifts of time & space, there was one fabulously satisfying moment, the reunion of Penny and Desmond, that paid off a story line that has been years in the making.
The episode also explained everything we needed to know about the Oceanic 6's origin and discovery, and set up not only why Ben had been wearing a parka in the desert, but how he steered the island somewhere else. Or somewhen else. I'm not sure, just as I'm not sure whether Jin really died, as it appears.
Locke died, that's for sure: that was the stunner to keep us buzzing until season five. And it seems just as certain that Jack will return to the island, with the body of Locke and the rest of the Oceanic 6 in tow... but then what?" yes indeed, then what?
I think the first thing to do is to chart the location and status of everyone, as best I can figure, at the end of this whole deal.
Out in the real world: Jack, Kate, Aaron, Hurley, Sayid, Sun, Walt, Ben, Widmore
Dead in 2007: Locke (as Jeremy Bentham, the mysterious man in the coffin from "Through the Looking Glass")
In hiding: Desmond, Penny, maybe Lapidus (though he could just be kicking it in the Caribbean again right, assuming he's too small a fish for Widmore's people to go after)
On the island: Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, Charlotte, Richard & the Others, probably Rose and Bernard (Rose was chiding Miles moments before we saw Faraday load up a raft filled with redshirt Lostaways, and I doubt Bernard would've left without her), potentially other redshirts (though their ranks are running pretty low at this point; the freighter explosion was like the "Lost" equivalent of the Moldavian Massacre) and Faraday? ah, next:
Maybe dead, maybe lost at sea, maybe back on the island: Jin (who was on deck and could have miraculously jumped clear of the explosion), plus Faraday and the redshirts on his raft (and if any or all of these people weren't absorbed in the island-disappearing effect, then they're kinda screwed, as Penny's boat obviously didn't find them) my guess is that Faraday & his boat of redshirts were absorbed in the island disappearing effect. at lst I hope so. we saw them in their boat in the flash of white when the island moved. saw the flash around the helicopter too, but it seemed to contain the boat, more. anyway we at least know they did not die in the explosion of the freighter since this was after that, when helicopter already in air
Dead in 2004: Michael bcs not on deck like Jin? cld not have jumped clear, Keamy and his mercenaries
Location known, status unknown: Claire and Christian (who are on the island but may be the walking dead) good. well-done.
I'm glad that Miles and Charlotte stayed on the island, and not only because Ken Leung's one of the best additions to the cast over the run of the show. I still want to find out what Abaddon's Plan A was yes that required him to assemble a team including a mercenary (Naomi), a mentally-ill physicist (Faraday), a medium (Miles), and an anthropologist who may or may not have been born on the island (Charlotte). yes, and what is the relation between Abaddon & Widmore? ie why were Naomi, Miles, Faraday, Charlotte, & Frank as chopper pilot permitted to come along on the freighter?
my qstns, pts of int:
-when Sun meaningfully tells Widmore that he knows the O6 are not the only ones who left the island, is she referring to Desmond (& Frank Lapidus)? what is the meaning, the weight of this, to Widmore?
-Ben to Locke: Whoever moves the island can not ever go back. (why?)
three years later, Ben to Jack at Locke's coffin: I said all of you. *We* have to take him too. (we? so Ben can now return to the island, with them?)
-qstn begged with the reveal of Locke in the coffin in final scene of this finale: why was Locke now being called Jeremy Bentham? what had happened in the three intervening years on the island, how did he leave, why did he kill himself? and, who is he? what was his calling to the island? is he Jacob? Lindelof said fans who want to prepare for season5 should look into the Tibetan tradition of wh the reincarnation-"which of these objects already belong to you?"-test that Richard gave young Locke was part. bcs that backstory will figure in show's mythology. -oh, and, what is the deal with Richard Alpert not aging? still no hints at explanation for that...
152 Comments:
-So didn't Ben tell Locke that the person who moves the island can't stay there? But he wants to go back with Jack? I thought once Ben moved it, he couldn't go back...
-How does Ben know that the island won't let him go back now that he's moved it? I'm inclined to think that there's a previous island "caretaker" out there. Widmore? Abbadon? Dave?* cool. *who's Dave!? oh: Hurley's imaginary friend. well no I do not think he is a candidate, but makes the list sort of funny, like: could be anyone, Tom Dick or Harry... or Dave.
-I love the theory that the last person who moved the island and isn't allowed to return is someone we've met. Widmore is a great thought: would explain his obsession with finding it, and also his twisted relationship with Ben (who is his replacement as the caretaker.) Of course it could be Abadon, too (his role in trying to get people to the island could be to line up the necessary people to help it, since he's unable to), although he's probably still just the hired by Widmore? don't we have the impression they are separate forces? gun and Widmore is the guy who moved the island.
also, elsewhere, Aaron as next caretaker: Completely 'Lost': Bend it like Bentham: "the idea that Aaron will be Locke’s successor, and that the Others need the child to lead them, picking up where Locke (Jacob’s presumed heir) left off."
oh and Walt might be or have been a candidate also. after all he was "special" and taken by the Others bcs of it: "We're gonna have to take the boy." and then subjected to tests (wld be cool if there was some hint he was given the same 'which of these objects belong to you?' test; but if there had been any hint of that, I suppose I'd have seen mention of it by now)
-Tall Walt to Locke on the island is still a mystery. Was he whisked back from the future? Is he actually one of the dead visions? He'd be the logical next island caretaker, but likely lacks the acting props.
-So with the prospect now of a parallel to Christian with Locke returning to the island in a coffin, and the idea of a chain of succession with regard to "caretakers" of the island, I wonder if we'll find out that Christian Shepard was also at one time a caretaker of the island. He wasn't allowed to return to the island while he was alive. Anything in the timeline that would preclude that?
--Christian's demeanor in all the Jack flashbacks certainly didn't really suggest that the guy had once lived a secret life as ruler of a time-traveling, sentient island.
---I don't know. Maybe all that Dharma Rum was where he picked up his drinking problem. And, just like his son, it's why he kept flying back and forth to Australia.
---The parallel to Locke returning to the island in a coffin is still cool, though.
-cpennylane said... [re Charlotte] 'Can't be Annie. She died why Ben gassed the barracks. He closed her eyes.' Ben closed Horace Goodspeed's eyes, and Annie was no where to be found. good glad this got answered. I've liked cpennylane's cmmts here before, I think, have clicked thru to her blog posts re BabysittersClub books. I thought the episode was excellent. I liked it a lot more than last year's, because I thought the flashforwards in "Through the Looking Glass" really dragged everything down. They weren't interesting until the very end. huh that's an int pofview. I watched already knowing it was a flashforward (reading about that scene on a list of top tv scenes of the year is *why* I turned attn to Lost at all) and anyway the hook for me was Jack's despair. the maps spread around the room. esp knowing this is an after-the-end, in the ever after, a wanting to: go back.
-Loved this episode, and loved that they truly surprised me with a Des/Pen reunion 2 years earlier than I thought it would be coming. I think Charlotte is Ben & Annie's daughter, but that he doesn't know it. ah that's good. I've thought for a long time that part of what drives Ben must be that Annie died in childbirth. right I think that's a good guess. had forgotten. Maybe he doesn't know that their daughter survived.
-maybe Annie left with the baby after seeing how Ben was starting to act strangely (sneaking into the woods to meet Richard, talking crazily about the island powers) and that's what precipitated the purge. Makes sense for Ben's kidnapping of Alex, too: he wanted to replace the daughter that was taken from him. that's a good thought.
-If Locke was Bentham and he visited all Oceanic Six folks, then that means he told Sun that Ben knowingly killed Keamy and thus blew up the boat. ah. good. *that* is how Sun would know & blame Ben for Jin's death. (so that when she tells her father she blames he is one of two people at fault, she means him Paik and Ben.) been reading speculation that she is uniting with Widmore bcs blames Ben, but cldn't see how she'd know that Ben was responsible for the explosion. this makes very good sense, she learned from J Bentham, then went to see Widmore. the common interests she spoke of may be mainly this: they share an enmity against Ben.
-Sun is waging economic war on Paik and Widmore, and luring Widmore into a deeper involvement is the first step (or second step after the Paik takeover).
--So perhaps Sun is "The Economist"? ooh that's good. probably not the case though. Sayid's spy-lovergirl referred to her boss as 'he', I'm pretty sure. ~probably it's Widmore. and, it is now seeming to me that Sun might be sincere in partnering with Widmore in common interest of going after Ben.
-And one last question, when “Jeremy Bentham” visited the O6, was he in a wheelchair?
-I've always considered John Locke the hero of this story and the character closest to its heart. Locke's journey is the reason I care about the show. The mythology is cool, and Ben is clearly the best character cool that this is clear, whatever 'best' might clearly mean, but Locke's the reason i got sucked in and while i don't need him to have a happy ending, I need him to get a satisfying ending. Not be dead on arrival. If he can die, why was the island done with him? All those years to get him there and then he only got three years in charge (although I still believe that could be 40 years in island time). Then again, he was rounding people up to go back to the island... I'm so emotionally invested in his journey that I need him to have a period of time where he's unambiguously and unapologetically the man. bodes well that Lindelof said could prepare for coming season by researching tibetan reincarnation. this is my second noting of that so, should link & quote what actually said:
'Lost': Behind-the-scenes secrets from reading the uncensored scripts - ShowTracker -LosAngelesTimes: The producers have some advice for summer beach extracurricular “Lost” fare. Now that we know that John Locke has been drafted to the island over his lifetime, Lindelof has a suggestion: “We would basically advise those who have time on their hands to look into Buddhist traditions and the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. We used a lot of that back story in the creation of this myth.”
The Watcher - That crazy 'Lost' finale - 52 comments :
-Overall, there were at least twice the amount of game changers as last season's flash forward. I mean, the island is freakin' gone!!! They could start the next season on a UFO ship for all we know. The possibilities for next season are endless:
Is Locke the leader of the savages in the past as the Dharma folks first arrive at the Island? ooh I like that. and makes haunting Ben's answer to Hurley, that he Ben did not order the purge of the Dharma people and has not always been in charge. haunting, bcs maybe *Locke* was in charge then, and he ordered the purge. and Ben is telling Hurley this, as they watch Locke go into the pit of the Dharma skeletons and find the map in Horace's worksuit pocket.
Is Charlotte a Dharma love child born on the Island?
Does Ben know of another Dharma time machine that will allow them to return to the Island?
How does Sun know that Widmore used to be on the Island? ooh is that who she meant? "you know we are not the only ones to get off the island" ~ I tht re Desmond? but why said so dripping with meaning? so, int: bcs Widmore has been on the island? & she knows it.
-Sun teaming with Widmore now? I take it she considers Ben to be the other man responsible for Jin's (supposed) death? Makes sense, since he caused the bomb to go off.
-Just watched Dharma video above.Thought: Locke has been cloned before?
-I think this finale had as many "OMG" moments as past ones had; the difference is these "OMG"s were emotionally driven, not plot-twist driven. Sun watching the freighter blow up with Jin on it (although I am not convinced he is actually dead). Sawyer's goodbye to Kate and sacrificing his rescue for the others. Desmond and Penny's reunion. Claire ordering Kate to not take Aaron back to the island.
-This wasn't the classic "oh my God" Lost season finale but Locke in the coffin was pretty shocking. Plus -- the story is moving forward with this pervasive feeling of 'destiny' -- my hope is that somehow this all wraps up/back/into the closing scene being all of the events leading back to all the passengers taking Flight 815 again. y that'd be cool.
David Bianculli of TV Worth Watching thought it reinforced Lost's status as a classic and "answered more old questions than it posed new ones, definitely a first for a seasonal cliffhanger. And in the middle of all the angst & explosions and shifts of time & space, there was one fabulously satisfying moment, the reunion of Penny and Desmond, that paid off a story line that has been years in the making.
The episode also explained everything we needed to know about the Oceanic 6's origin and discovery, and set up not only why Ben had been wearing a parka in the desert, but how he steered the island somewhere else. Or somewhen else. I'm not sure, just as I'm not sure whether Jin really died, as it appears.
Locke died, that's for sure: that was the stunner to keep us buzzing until season five. And it seems just as certain that Jack will return to the island, with the body of Locke and the rest of the Oceanic 6 in tow... but then what?" yes indeed, then what?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
"Lost" scripts are loaded with F-bombs and other profanity
That's what the LA Times learned after producers offered a behind-the-scenes script-to-screen comparison. "Our favorite characters cannot cuss on ABC, so the writers do it for them, sometimes in the directions, sometimes parenthetically in dialogue," writes The Times' Maria Elena Fernandez. "The one constant is how frequently the f-bombs flow. Remember the beautiful opening scene of the May 15 episode? The one in which the Oceanic 6 are seen in the helicopter arriving at civilization? That alone had three f-words." Why all the profanity? Carlton Cuse explains: "In a network environment where you can’t have the characters say everything that they would say, we sometimes try to provide those words parenthetically so that the actors know to perform the dialogue as though they were saying that word."
It took 5 weeks to craft tonight's finale no: 5 weeks to write The Constant [ "The Constant," arguably the most highly praised episode of a well-received fourth season, saw island castaway Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick) connect via his consciousness to a younger version of himself in England. It took five weeks, rather than the usual two, for the writers to put that story together, because they needed to determine its ramifications on future stories. Executive producer Damon Lindelof says "The Constant" may be the most important episode of the series in laying out Lost's rules for time travel. ]
// The Philosophy behind "Lost"
Why "Lost" is the best game show in TV history
Emilie de Ravin is worried // "Lost" questions are all the fun
Heads up!: ABC's 8 pm "Lost" rerun will contain "modifications"
Take "The Hardest Lost Quiz Ever!" // CBS, Fox gamble on "Lost"-like shows
tvtattle.com
That's what the LA Times learned after producers offered a behind-the-scenes script-to-screen comparison. "Our favorite characters cannot cuss on ABC, so the writers do it for them, sometimes in the directions, sometimes parenthetically in dialogue," writes The Times' Maria Elena Fernandez. "The one constant is how frequently the f-bombs flow. Remember the beautiful opening scene of the May 15 episode? The one in which the Oceanic 6 are seen in the helicopter arriving at civilization? That alone had three f-words." Why all the profanity? Carlton Cuse explains: "In a network environment where you can’t have the characters say everything that they would say, we sometimes try to provide those words parenthetically so that the actors know to perform the dialogue as though they were saying that word."It took 5 weeks to craft tonight's finale no: 5 weeks to write The Constant [ "The Constant," arguably the most highly praised episode of a well-received fourth season, saw island castaway Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick) connect via his consciousness to a younger version of himself in England. It took five weeks, rather than the usual two, for the writers to put that story together, because they needed to determine its ramifications on future stories. Executive producer Damon Lindelof says "The Constant" may be the most important episode of the series in laying out Lost's rules for time travel. ]// The Philosophy behind "Lost"
Why "Lost" is the best game show in TV historyEmilie de Ravin is worried // "Lost" questions are all the funHeads up!: ABC's 8 pm "Lost" rerun will contain "modifications"Take "The Hardest Lost Quiz Ever!" // CBS, Fox gamble on "Lost"-like shows tvtattle.com
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Forests, Death, Gardens robert pogue harrison merwin at least uphold a difference between meaning something at all, and not.
az- Gardens: An Essay on the Human Condition: Robert Pogue Harrison:
backcover shows just this:
"In this book's two great predecessors, Forests: The Shadow of Civilization and The Dominion of the Dead, Robert Pogue Harrison took two preoccupying images of the human psyche and considered them with a depth and originality that revealed their unlimited and unbroken presence in every assumption and moment of our lives. Gardens he describes modestly as an essay, but it does, or at least suggests, the same kind of pervasive presence of an underlying human impulse in our relation to the world around us. He does it with eloquence, grace, and erudition rooted in the literatures of his four native languages (including Turkish) that informed his earlier books. The range of his perspective on the human myth suggests that he may be our Bachelard."-W. S. Merwin
I want this to be meaningful bcs talking about 'my' ~ ruminative retelling ~ Calasso, PortraitoftheLover ...
----always these are Italians? rooted in Italian literature? Harrison is professor of Italian Literature at Stanford.
yes: eloquent, erudite, (wide)ranging perspective on myth. preoccupations. psyche. considered. depth originality. pervasive presense. what underlies.. relation to world around us. myth. and I looked at Dominion of the Dead at Semcoop when published few yrs ago, and re Forests, before. thought elegant.
but there are these problems, troubling:preoccupying images. images that preoccupy, okay. of the psyche. okay. revealed the presence of these images in every assumption, every moment. ~ death. forest. okay.
Gardens he describes as an essay, but it does, or at least suggests, the same kind of pervasive presence of an underlying human impulse
-wait - the book *does* the same kind of pervasive presence ? Gardens does the same pervasive presence.. does consider. does examine, does treat. ~ a straight up error, mean to bother about it? ~ but it's centered on the back, elegantly, this quote. and this sentence has a straight up error ? an absence where the predicate is wanted. (or what am I not understanding? how is this sense? syntax, grammar. it's not nothing. it's everything.)
but leaving that, okay: Gardens suggests the same pervasive presence of an underlying human impulse in our relation to the world around us. what is pervasively present? an underlying human impulse ( ~ restating: preoccupying image of human psyche) in our relation to the world. ? okay: some in-each-case certain not-here-specified impulse that underlies and is always present in our relation to the world. an impulse having to do, respectively w Forests, Death, Gardens.
okay, the trouble is I wanted this to be meaninful, about what kind of book this is ~ ruminative retelling ~ a mediation, okay. and then read that sentence aloud to KM and tht, this didn't say anything. an underlying impulse in relation to world around us?
makes me not trust Merwin, does he know what he is saying?
makes feel at odds, with an 'everyone else' doesn't think there's a problem with the sense. at odds, saying: this matters. say things. don't say not-things. ~that is not what I meant at all. that is not it, at all.~
at least try to say what mean. at least uphold a difference between meaning something at all, and not.
or don't, whatever. it upsets me. not pedantry. it makes me feel alone.
ok with me if make mistake. if using word mean something else. what's not okay? carelessness ~ pretention. pretension.the human myth. what other kind? really maybe it is necess to say 'human' psyche, 'human' impulse, 'human' myth. but if it is, tell me. have reasons for what you say. choose to say it. or else, what? you're not talking to me. whats his name in the Metaphysics that Aristotle mentions C____ moving his finger instead of speaking. Cratylus ~
backcover shows just this:
"In this book's two great predecessors, Forests: The Shadow of Civilization and The Dominion of the Dead, Robert Pogue Harrison took two preoccupying images of the human psyche and considered them with a depth and originality that revealed their unlimited and unbroken presence in every assumption and moment of our lives. Gardens he describes modestly as an essay, but it does, or at least suggests, the same kind of pervasive presence of an underlying human impulse in our relation to the world around us. He does it with eloquence, grace, and erudition rooted in the literatures of his four native languages (including Turkish) that informed his earlier books. The range of his perspective on the human myth suggests that he may be our Bachelard."-W. S. Merwin
I want this to be meaningful bcs talking about 'my' ~ ruminative retelling ~ Calasso, PortraitoftheLover ...
----always these are Italians? rooted in Italian literature? Harrison is professor of Italian Literature at Stanford.
yes: eloquent, erudite, (wide)ranging perspective on myth. preoccupations. psyche. considered. depth originality. pervasive presense. what underlies.. relation to world around us. myth. and I looked at Dominion of the Dead at Semcoop when published few yrs ago, and re Forests, before. thought elegant.
but there are these problems, troubling:preoccupying images. images that preoccupy, okay. of the psyche. okay. revealed the presence of these images in every assumption, every moment. ~ death. forest. okay.
Gardens he describes as an essay, but it does, or at least suggests, the same kind of pervasive presence of an underlying human impulse
-wait - the book *does* the same kind of pervasive presence ? Gardens does the same pervasive presence.. does consider. does examine, does treat. ~ a straight up error, mean to bother about it? ~ but it's centered on the back, elegantly, this quote. and this sentence has a straight up error ? an absence where the predicate is wanted. (or what am I not understanding? how is this sense? syntax, grammar. it's not nothing. it's everything.)
but leaving that, okay: Gardens suggests the same pervasive presence of an underlying human impulse in our relation to the world around us. what is pervasively present? an underlying human impulse ( ~ restating: preoccupying image of human psyche) in our relation to the world. ? okay: some in-each-case certain not-here-specified impulse that underlies and is always present in our relation to the world. an impulse having to do, respectively w Forests, Death, Gardens.
okay, the trouble is I wanted this to be meaninful, about what kind of book this is ~ ruminative retelling ~ a mediation, okay. and then read that sentence aloud to KM and tht, this didn't say anything. an underlying impulse in relation to world around us?
makes me not trust Merwin, does he know what he is saying?
makes feel at odds, with an 'everyone else' doesn't think there's a problem with the sense. at odds, saying: this matters. say things. don't say not-things. ~that is not what I meant at all. that is not it, at all.~
at least try to say what mean. at least uphold a difference between meaning something at all, and not.
or don't, whatever. it upsets me. not pedantry. it makes me feel alone.
ok with me if make mistake. if using word mean something else. what's not okay? carelessness ~ pretention. pretension.the human myth. what other kind? really maybe it is necess to say 'human' psyche, 'human' impulse, 'human' myth. but if it is, tell me. have reasons for what you say. choose to say it. or else, what? you're not talking to me. whats his name in the Metaphysics that Aristotle mentions C____ moving his finger instead of speaking. Cratylus ~
Friday, May 16, 2008
What's Alan Watching?: Lost, "There's No Place Like Home": The man with the plan
"There's No Place Like Home" was bursting with emotion, and with payoffs to character arcs dating back to season one: We had Sun taking out her righteous widowed(*) fury on her dad by buying out his company(**). We had Sayid reunited with his beloved Nadia (even though we know she'll be dead within a year). And, in maybe Matthew Fox's single best moment in the history of the show, we had Jack finally find out that Claire is his sister -- after he's already left her behind (and very possibly dead) on the island.
To have Jack find out that way -- and after the Oceanic Six had, for reasons that I'm sure will be explained in two weeks, had agreed to a cover story that included Aaron being Kate's biological kid (which means no Aaron-grandma bonding, or the cover's blown) -- was a cruel, powerful twist on the part of the "Lost" writers, and Fox played Jack's anguish beautifully. Of all the members of the Six, he was the only one who seemed at peace with what had happened for most of the episode, and that just destroyed him. I knew Jack's "and you're not even related to him!" rant from "Something Nice Back Home" meant that Jack knew he was an uncle; I just didn't imagine it would come out this way.
(*) I'm still on board with the idea that Jin dies while the Six escape (which would make the season finale Daniel Dae Kim's last episode as a regular, unfortunately). Too many things about the way Sun carried herself both here and in "Ji Yeon" suggest a widow and not a woman separated from her husband by thousands of miles (and maybe years, depending on what The Orchid does), and there's no reason for her to tell her father that two people are responsible for Jin's death(***) if he's not dead. She's got plenty enough reason to hate the guy. Plus, I feel like there needs to be a payoff to Jin extracting the promise of Sun's safety from Charlotte, and we didn't get that here.
(***) The answer nice, treating the begged question as obvious (which I suppose it is), Who is the other of the two people Sun says are to blame for Jin's death?could turn out to be Ben or Widmore or Keamy or Michael or lots of other people, but I have a feeling the other person Sun blames is herself. that's what I thought too.
When "Lost" is at its best -- I'm talking "Walkabout" or "Through the Looking Glass" best -- it manages to balance revelations (shocking and otherwise) with great character moments. I don't know that I'd put this one in the pantheon (again, a lot of it was set-up for the finale, for which I have extremely high hopes), but it was definitely in the spirit of what I love about the show. We managed to flit around all these different locations and groups of people (including Richard and The Others coming back on the board and suddenly looking like they are, in fact, the good guys) without ever losing sight of them as people. The show is as much about Sun's relationship with her father as it's about the Numbers, as much about Sayid's globe-trotting quest for the woman of his dreams as about who's in the coffin, or as much Kate not having anybody to greet her on the tarmac as Jacob's true identity, etc.
can not figure out how Sun and Aaron are going to wind up with the rest of the Oceanic Six, who are all converging at The Orchid...
Again, how is Sun going to get from the explosives-laden freighter to the location of the rest of the Six?
"There's No Place Like Home" was bursting with emotion, and with payoffs to character arcs dating back to season one: We had Sun taking out her righteous widowed(*) fury on her dad by buying out his company(**). We had Sayid reunited with his beloved Nadia (even though we know she'll be dead within a year). And, in maybe Matthew Fox's single best moment in the history of the show, we had Jack finally find out that Claire is his sister -- after he's already left her behind (and very possibly dead) on the island.
To have Jack find out that way -- and after the Oceanic Six had, for reasons that I'm sure will be explained in two weeks, had agreed to a cover story that included Aaron being Kate's biological kid (which means no Aaron-grandma bonding, or the cover's blown) -- was a cruel, powerful twist on the part of the "Lost" writers, and Fox played Jack's anguish beautifully. Of all the members of the Six, he was the only one who seemed at peace with what had happened for most of the episode, and that just destroyed him. I knew Jack's "and you're not even related to him!" rant from "Something Nice Back Home" meant that Jack knew he was an uncle; I just didn't imagine it would come out this way.
(*) I'm still on board with the idea that Jin dies while the Six escape (which would make the season finale Daniel Dae Kim's last episode as a regular, unfortunately). Too many things about the way Sun carried herself both here and in "Ji Yeon" suggest a widow and not a woman separated from her husband by thousands of miles (and maybe years, depending on what The Orchid does), and there's no reason for her to tell her father that two people are responsible for Jin's death(***) if he's not dead. She's got plenty enough reason to hate the guy. Plus, I feel like there needs to be a payoff to Jin extracting the promise of Sun's safety from Charlotte, and we didn't get that here.
(***) The answer nice, treating the begged question as obvious (which I suppose it is), Who is the other of the two people Sun says are to blame for Jin's death?could turn out to be Ben or Widmore or Keamy or Michael or lots of other people, but I have a feeling the other person Sun blames is herself. that's what I thought too.
When "Lost" is at its best -- I'm talking "Walkabout" or "Through the Looking Glass" best -- it manages to balance revelations (shocking and otherwise) with great character moments. I don't know that I'd put this one in the pantheon (again, a lot of it was set-up for the finale, for which I have extremely high hopes), but it was definitely in the spirit of what I love about the show. We managed to flit around all these different locations and groups of people (including Richard and The Others coming back on the board and suddenly looking like they are, in fact, the good guys) without ever losing sight of them as people. The show is as much about Sun's relationship with her father as it's about the Numbers, as much about Sayid's globe-trotting quest for the woman of his dreams as about who's in the coffin, or as much Kate not having anybody to greet her on the tarmac as Jacob's true identity, etc.
can not figure out how Sun and Aaron are going to wind up with the rest of the Oceanic Six, who are all converging at The Orchid...
Again, how is Sun going to get from the explosives-laden freighter to the location of the rest of the Six?
“There’s No Place Like Home, Part 1” | The A.V. Club
So here’s where we stand as hour one ends:
Jin, Sun, Aaron, Michael, Desmond are on a freighter that may be about to blow up;
Juliet, Bernard, Rose, Charlotte & presumably Miles are back at the beach;
Daniel’s on a rubber boat;
Sayid, Kate are surrounded by Richard Alpert & the Others;
Jack, Sawyer, Frank are making plans to ‘copter off the island as soon as they can rescue Hurley;
and Hurley’s parked in the brush with Locke outside The Orchid, waiting to see how Ben’s new plan--to surrender to Keamy--is going to work out.
All of which raises question: How in the world are Jack, Hurley, Sun, Aaron, Kate and Sayid going to get off the island together and become The Oceanic Six?
-The structure of this finale—with flash-forwards covering multiple characters—mirrors Season One’s three-hour conclusion “Exodus.” mm yes nice. I wonder if there will be any other similarities?
-I like Sawyer’s comment to Jack as he followed him into the jungle: “You don’t get to die alone” Way to throw the doc’s words back at him, big guy. Live together, die alone.
Flashbackin’…Season Three, Eps. 13-16:
This group of episodes included two of my favorite mythology-rich episodes, “The Man From Tallahassee” and “One Of Us”—the first of which reveals the details of Locke’s paralysis and introduces the idea of Ben’s “magic box,” and the second of which continues the story of Juliet’s transformation from meek medical researcher to duplicitous murderess—as well as the fairly scattered “Left Behind,” which juggles handcuffed-Kate-and-Juliet on-island thrills with merely functional Juliet-and-Cassidy off-island flashbackin’.
But I want to start this week with one of the more divisive, controversial episodes in Lost history. Season Three, Episode Fourteen. Better known as…
“Exposé”
As I’ve indicated before, the problems with “Exposé” are twofold.
Firstly, the Lost creative team erred by trying to integrate Nikki and Paolo into the show well before they were needed. didn't mind that. & probably was meant to ward off viewer complaints of them appearing out of nowhere, shld have been eased in. If they wanted to do a story about the background characters, they should’ve introduced these two as a one-off.
Secondly, it may have been a bad idea in the first place to try to do a standalone episode in the middle of a tightly serialized show, especially when the potboiler narrative was finally starting to heat up. ok. might have bothered me, I suppose, if following week to week rather than watching season as a whole.“Exposé” is more of a fanfic idea, or something for the series of Lost novels that some enterprising publisher will undoubtedly produce after the show is over. fair enough. but since it was so good a standalone - see next paragraph - maybeworthwhile to air as actual episode so that most viewers saw it
And yet, as an entertaining hour of TV, “Exposé” is pretty hard to beat, from its Rosencranz & Guildenstern approach to Lost lore right - cool: same events viewed from perspective of now central formerly side characters to its twist ending y that has Nikki waking up from her temporary paralysis just before Sawyer buries her and Paolo alive. Fun, fun stuff.
But it’s more than that too. “Exposé” follows through on several of Lost’s core themes: the villain’s redemption, the perils of mistrust, and mysteries within mysteries. It also, I’m half-convinced, contains one whopper of a clue about what’s going on in Lost’s meta-narrative, teased in the show-within-the-show. If you’ll recall, Nikki’s character on the striper-crimefighter series Exposé discovers right before her death that the man she thought was her boss and friend (played by Billy Dee Williams) is actually the criminal mastermind she’s been fighting against. Now, while I don’t think Lost big reveal is going to be quite so clunky—if only because “good” and “evil” are a little more fluid on this show—I have been watching ever since for hints that one of our beloved castaways is actually behind everything that’s been going on. that'd be int Did the mega-rich Hurley finance this whole adventure in some way? nah no way - he's not faking his horror of the numbers. Or did Locke arrange it all as one big game? also no way. Again, I don’t think the real answer is going to be quite so ungainly, but in this season in particular, Lost has been edging closer to revealing that Locke in particular might have a hidden history with the island that even he doesn’t fully know. well yes. but now, you've seen last week's episode where this was clear (visited as infant and as small boy by Alpert, then after his fall by Abbadon). After all, in “The Man Behind The Curtain” (which I’ll be writing about next week), doesn’t Jacob look an awful lot like Terry O’Quinn? And doesn't the Jacob reveal look a little like the Billy Dee Williams reveal in Exposé? so, good reasons for Expose have aired as an episode of the show proper.
Quick notes on the other eps:
“The Man From Tallahassee”
In Locke’s flashback, he’s watching Exposé.
Did we ever find out definitively whether Locke blew up Ben’s submarine, or if he faked it? no. And who here thinks that the submarine was just a prop in the first place, designed to provide a cover for how Ben and his inner circle really get on and off the island?
Great Ben line, when Locke wonders whether he secretly signaled Richard and Mr. Friendly: “We don’t have a code for, ‘There’s a man in my closet with a gun to my daughter’s head’…although we obviously should.” This episode is awesome, by the way.
“Left Behind”
In this episode’s appearance of the smoke monster, it flashes bright lights at Kate and Juliet. What’s that about? I really like mirrormattermoon theory explaining smoke monster as interactions coming through from other-handed matter world (our world) as light & evidently as force
A lot of people were surprised by the way Juliet got the drop on Kate in this season’s “The Other Woman,” but it happens in this episode too. As badass as Kate may be, Juliet is apparently her kryptonite. these recaps are well written - by Noel Murray
“One Of Us”
The writers have played all kinds of games with the fans when it comes to Juliet, teasing us about whether she’s a force for good or for ill, but they’ve been very consistent about a few aspects of her personality: She was fundamentally sweet and caring before Ben Linus got a hold of her, and she’s got a smart-ass sense of humor. One of her best (and first) one-liners came in this episode, when Hurley asked her why she wasn’t on the dock when he was shackled and bagged, and she responded, “I had the day off.”
This show has always been good at reunions, and “One Of Us” has one of the best, with Jack, Kate, Sayid returning to the beach, and Sawyer—up until that moment, the new leader at camp—hesitates before hugging Kate (and Jack!). [above, in recap of current epis: I’ve always liked Lost’s “reunion theme,” which appears way more often on the show, usually accompanied by slow-motion hugging.]
This episode is awesome too.
So here’s where we stand as hour one ends:
Jin, Sun, Aaron, Michael, Desmond are on a freighter that may be about to blow up;
Juliet, Bernard, Rose, Charlotte & presumably Miles are back at the beach;
Daniel’s on a rubber boat;
Sayid, Kate are surrounded by Richard Alpert & the Others;
Jack, Sawyer, Frank are making plans to ‘copter off the island as soon as they can rescue Hurley;
and Hurley’s parked in the brush with Locke outside The Orchid, waiting to see how Ben’s new plan--to surrender to Keamy--is going to work out.
All of which raises question: How in the world are Jack, Hurley, Sun, Aaron, Kate and Sayid going to get off the island together and become The Oceanic Six?
-The structure of this finale—with flash-forwards covering multiple characters—mirrors Season One’s three-hour conclusion “Exodus.” mm yes nice. I wonder if there will be any other similarities?
-I like Sawyer’s comment to Jack as he followed him into the jungle: “You don’t get to die alone” Way to throw the doc’s words back at him, big guy. Live together, die alone.
Flashbackin’…Season Three, Eps. 13-16:
This group of episodes included two of my favorite mythology-rich episodes, “The Man From Tallahassee” and “One Of Us”—the first of which reveals the details of Locke’s paralysis and introduces the idea of Ben’s “magic box,” and the second of which continues the story of Juliet’s transformation from meek medical researcher to duplicitous murderess—as well as the fairly scattered “Left Behind,” which juggles handcuffed-Kate-and-Juliet on-island thrills with merely functional Juliet-and-Cassidy off-island flashbackin’.
But I want to start this week with one of the more divisive, controversial episodes in Lost history. Season Three, Episode Fourteen. Better known as…
“Exposé”
As I’ve indicated before, the problems with “Exposé” are twofold.
Firstly, the Lost creative team erred by trying to integrate Nikki and Paolo into the show well before they were needed. didn't mind that. & probably was meant to ward off viewer complaints of them appearing out of nowhere, shld have been eased in. If they wanted to do a story about the background characters, they should’ve introduced these two as a one-off.
Secondly, it may have been a bad idea in the first place to try to do a standalone episode in the middle of a tightly serialized show, especially when the potboiler narrative was finally starting to heat up. ok. might have bothered me, I suppose, if following week to week rather than watching season as a whole.“Exposé” is more of a fanfic idea, or something for the series of Lost novels that some enterprising publisher will undoubtedly produce after the show is over. fair enough. but since it was so good a standalone - see next paragraph - maybeworthwhile to air as actual episode so that most viewers saw it
And yet, as an entertaining hour of TV, “Exposé” is pretty hard to beat, from its Rosencranz & Guildenstern approach to Lost lore right - cool: same events viewed from perspective of now central formerly side characters to its twist ending y that has Nikki waking up from her temporary paralysis just before Sawyer buries her and Paolo alive. Fun, fun stuff.
But it’s more than that too. “Exposé” follows through on several of Lost’s core themes: the villain’s redemption, the perils of mistrust, and mysteries within mysteries. It also, I’m half-convinced, contains one whopper of a clue about what’s going on in Lost’s meta-narrative, teased in the show-within-the-show. If you’ll recall, Nikki’s character on the striper-crimefighter series Exposé discovers right before her death that the man she thought was her boss and friend (played by Billy Dee Williams) is actually the criminal mastermind she’s been fighting against. Now, while I don’t think Lost big reveal is going to be quite so clunky—if only because “good” and “evil” are a little more fluid on this show—I have been watching ever since for hints that one of our beloved castaways is actually behind everything that’s been going on. that'd be int Did the mega-rich Hurley finance this whole adventure in some way? nah no way - he's not faking his horror of the numbers. Or did Locke arrange it all as one big game? also no way. Again, I don’t think the real answer is going to be quite so ungainly, but in this season in particular, Lost has been edging closer to revealing that Locke in particular might have a hidden history with the island that even he doesn’t fully know. well yes. but now, you've seen last week's episode where this was clear (visited as infant and as small boy by Alpert, then after his fall by Abbadon). After all, in “The Man Behind The Curtain” (which I’ll be writing about next week), doesn’t Jacob look an awful lot like Terry O’Quinn? And doesn't the Jacob reveal look a little like the Billy Dee Williams reveal in Exposé? so, good reasons for Expose have aired as an episode of the show proper.
Quick notes on the other eps:
“The Man From Tallahassee”
In Locke’s flashback, he’s watching Exposé.
Did we ever find out definitively whether Locke blew up Ben’s submarine, or if he faked it? no. And who here thinks that the submarine was just a prop in the first place, designed to provide a cover for how Ben and his inner circle really get on and off the island?
Great Ben line, when Locke wonders whether he secretly signaled Richard and Mr. Friendly: “We don’t have a code for, ‘There’s a man in my closet with a gun to my daughter’s head’…although we obviously should.” This episode is awesome, by the way.
“Left Behind”
In this episode’s appearance of the smoke monster, it flashes bright lights at Kate and Juliet. What’s that about? I really like mirrormattermoon theory explaining smoke monster as interactions coming through from other-handed matter world (our world) as light & evidently as force
A lot of people were surprised by the way Juliet got the drop on Kate in this season’s “The Other Woman,” but it happens in this episode too. As badass as Kate may be, Juliet is apparently her kryptonite. these recaps are well written - by Noel Murray
“One Of Us”
The writers have played all kinds of games with the fans when it comes to Juliet, teasing us about whether she’s a force for good or for ill, but they’ve been very consistent about a few aspects of her personality: She was fundamentally sweet and caring before Ben Linus got a hold of her, and she’s got a smart-ass sense of humor. One of her best (and first) one-liners came in this episode, when Hurley asked her why she wasn’t on the dock when he was shackled and bagged, and she responded, “I had the day off.”
This show has always been good at reunions, and “One Of Us” has one of the best, with Jack, Kate, Sayid returning to the beach, and Sawyer—up until that moment, the new leader at camp—hesitates before hugging Kate (and Jack!). [above, in recap of current epis: I’ve always liked Lost’s “reunion theme,” which appears way more often on the show, usually accompanied by slow-motion hugging.]
This episode is awesome too.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Lostwatch: Will the Real John Locke Please Stand Up - Tuned In - James Poniewozik - TIME
Sepinwall (below) -
The "Claire is dead" theory (with extensive elaboration) was posted yesterday on ew.com.
= ''Lost'': Jacob, reveal thyself! | Doc Jensen | TV | Entertainment Weekly | 1
Sepinwall (below) -
The "Claire is dead" theory (with extensive elaboration) was posted yesterday on ew.com.
= ''Lost'': Jacob, reveal thyself! | Doc Jensen | TV | Entertainment Weekly | 1
“Cabin Fever” | The A.V. Club
What makes Locke special?
Ah, now here’s where this episode really shines. In our first old-fashioned castaway flashback all season (Jin and Michael don’t count), we witness the birth of Locke and his not-so-great upbringing. Dumped by his teenage mother. Pestered by his sister in the home of the family who adopts him. Pushed around in high school. Left paralyzed by his dad. And yet, all along, he’s being watched by the agents of…well, we don’t really know yet, do we?
“Hostile” Richard is there when Locke is still a preemie, and he returns when Locke’s a young boy to give him the test I mentioned up top. And Richard returns yet again when Locke’s a teenager to drop off a pamphlet for a Mittelos Bioscience summer camp (which Locke, denying his destiny yet again, refuses to attend).
And finally, Abaddon—who later will have a hand in placing Charlotte, Miles, Frank, Daniel and Naomi on the freighter, but may or may not work for Widmore—comes to see Locke when he’s rehabbing from his spinal injury, and plants the bug in his ear to go on a Walkabout in Australia.
What a thoughtful piece of character definition by the writers. The model of the reluctant, ignorant and/or unexpected hero is fairly common in myth (and in fantasy fiction), but the way these archetypes have been combined in Locke is especially compelling. Here’s a guy who wants to be a hero, but keeps missing the signs and opportunities, because the model of heroism in his head is all cocked-up. See also: Jack. And Ben, I’m guessing.
When Sayid hopped onto his boat to ride off to the island, the Lost team cued up the show's rarely used “adventure theme," usually saved for season finales. I love that theme.
...
Flashbackin’…Season Three, Eps. 9-12:
Stranger in a strange land, Tricia Tanaka is dead, Enter 77, Par Avion.
“Tricia Tanaka Is Dead” If Lost were like any other TV drama, this would qualify as a standout episode. It was funny, sweet, and even tense toward the end as Hurley and Charlie put their lives and their potential optimism in the care of a rusted-out engine, straining to kick over. Those who've grown impatient with Lost's hurry-up-and-wait approach to story development have plenty of reason to complain about “Tricia Tanaka Is Dead,” especially since plunging ratings may mean that the show is going to have to wrap up quick next year. But those who've been waiting for our heroes to interact with each other again got their spirits lifted this week, especially when a cranky Sawyer was disarmed by Hurley throwing a big bear hug his way and exclaiming—with genuine relief—“Dude, you're alive!”
Saywer to Hurley: “Hey, you got yourself a hippie car!”
Note from the present day: Remember back before we heard the news about Lost’s exit strategy, when it seemed like the show was about to be cancelled? Those were the days, huh?
What makes Locke special?
Ah, now here’s where this episode really shines. In our first old-fashioned castaway flashback all season (Jin and Michael don’t count), we witness the birth of Locke and his not-so-great upbringing. Dumped by his teenage mother. Pestered by his sister in the home of the family who adopts him. Pushed around in high school. Left paralyzed by his dad. And yet, all along, he’s being watched by the agents of…well, we don’t really know yet, do we?
“Hostile” Richard is there when Locke is still a preemie, and he returns when Locke’s a young boy to give him the test I mentioned up top. And Richard returns yet again when Locke’s a teenager to drop off a pamphlet for a Mittelos Bioscience summer camp (which Locke, denying his destiny yet again, refuses to attend).
And finally, Abaddon—who later will have a hand in placing Charlotte, Miles, Frank, Daniel and Naomi on the freighter, but may or may not work for Widmore—comes to see Locke when he’s rehabbing from his spinal injury, and plants the bug in his ear to go on a Walkabout in Australia.
What a thoughtful piece of character definition by the writers. The model of the reluctant, ignorant and/or unexpected hero is fairly common in myth (and in fantasy fiction), but the way these archetypes have been combined in Locke is especially compelling. Here’s a guy who wants to be a hero, but keeps missing the signs and opportunities, because the model of heroism in his head is all cocked-up. See also: Jack. And Ben, I’m guessing.
When Sayid hopped onto his boat to ride off to the island, the Lost team cued up the show's rarely used “adventure theme," usually saved for season finales. I love that theme.
...
Flashbackin’…Season Three, Eps. 9-12:
Stranger in a strange land, Tricia Tanaka is dead, Enter 77, Par Avion.
“Tricia Tanaka Is Dead” If Lost were like any other TV drama, this would qualify as a standout episode. It was funny, sweet, and even tense toward the end as Hurley and Charlie put their lives and their potential optimism in the care of a rusted-out engine, straining to kick over. Those who've grown impatient with Lost's hurry-up-and-wait approach to story development have plenty of reason to complain about “Tricia Tanaka Is Dead,” especially since plunging ratings may mean that the show is going to have to wrap up quick next year. But those who've been waiting for our heroes to interact with each other again got their spirits lifted this week, especially when a cranky Sawyer was disarmed by Hurley throwing a big bear hug his way and exclaiming—with genuine relief—“Dude, you're alive!”
Saywer to Hurley: “Hey, you got yourself a hippie car!”
Note from the present day: Remember back before we heard the news about Lost’s exit strategy, when it seemed like the show was about to be cancelled? Those were the days, huh?
What's Alan Watching?: Lost, "Cabin Fever": Break me off a piece of that Apollo bar
Break me off a piece of that kit-kat-bar. catchy downward moving tune
Hurley sharing his candy bar with unlikely/unwanted ally Ben was a priceless bit of silent comedy. Emerson and Garcia both had a number of funny moments in this episode but the range of emotions playing over each man's face in that exchange was wonderful.
Spoilers for "Lost" coming up just as soon as I chop down the same tree three times...
did Horace chop down the same tree over & over? I d n notice, assumed he was chopping tree after tree... I did expect him to repeat himself in full, like a simulation, when he started again with "Hullo" but he didn't.
We actually did get an answer to Hurley's query about why someone would build a cabin in the jungle: Horace Goodspeed (last seen in the Ben origin story episode "The Man Behind the Curtain") wanted a getaway spot for himself and his wife. And I still doubt we've seen the last of either Horace or Mrs. Goodspeed; the producers cast Doug Hutchison and Samantha Mathis oh? I like her fr watching ~w Clare? ~snow day? unexpectedly enjoying The Thing Called Love in those roles for a reason.
Mo Ryan said... The test Alpert gave young Locke is not limited to Dalai Lamas, though it is used for them too. For all Tibetan Buddhist tulkus, or enlightened masters, the same test is used. When a child is found that appears to be the next incarnation of a tulku who has died, the monks of that lineage do the same thing that Alpert seemed to do: put a bunch of objects in front of the kid and see if he can pick out the ones that belonged to the previous incarnation of the tulku.
cpenny lane said: we had
the knife, which we see later on the island
the compass, which was later on the island
the comic book, which belonged to hugo on plane, then to walt on the island this was the same comic?
a book of laws, which I'm sure will come into play later.
the vial of sand/ash that rings the area around Jacob's cabin
What I can't seem to figure out though, is why Locke didn't recognize Alpert when they met on the Island.
-I don't remember anyone I met for less than five minutes when I was young Locke's age.
-If I grew up white in the '60s, I'd probably remember a strikingly handsome Cuban fellow in a suit being allowed into the house through the front door. Especially if he then plopped a bunch of random objects in front of me and asked me which one I already owned. Especially-especially if one of them was a knife.
-You might remember the incident, but would you remember the facial features? Can you call to mind a good enough recollection of your 1st grade teacher to recognize her now?
Alan Sepinwall: On the one hand, it was a five-minute encounter from 40 years ago. On the other, if I was John Locke, raised in a series of foster homes by disapproving foster parents, and a man once appeared who promised to take me away from all that because I was special -- and who then went back on his word after a very strange but memorable game -- I suspect I would remember the event, if not the face of the man in it. Locke didn't need to immediately identify Richard when they met, but he could have paused to look at him a second time, I suppose.
In season three... is there anything unusual in terms of Richard's behavior in the first episode where their paths cross? (I'm thinking it was "The Brig.")"
-as far as the memory thing goes, I don't find it unreasonable that Locke's or anyone else's brain wouldn't make the connection since Richard didn't age a day. ..not imagine it possible that the person Locke encountered in the present could possibly be anyone from forty years ago.
-How are we defining plot movement? nice sum:
They found the cabin, Locke interacted with Christian Shepherd, Locke reconnects with his 'destiny', Abbadon & Alpert have interests in Locke being on the island, Claire is with her dad in the moving cabin, the boat people are coming back, so is Sayid, they're moving the island, Kevin Johnson is outed, Lipidus drops the phone so they can track him (or stay away maybe). cool. the boat ppl are coming, so is sayid, they're moving the island...
It took awhile to find the cabin, but taking awhile has been this show's calling card since episode three.They moved pieces into place. How is that not advancing the plot? We're acting as if that's the most boring thing they could do. I feel like we want the first chapter and the last chapter and anything else is considered subpar.
-Taking things in the order Alan mentioned them...
Mittelos: Besides what's been mentioned, we now know they've existed roughly as long as the Dharma Initiative, if not longer. Blows apart my theory that the Others took over Dharma's off-island resources and renamed them Mittelos right y had seemed like Mittelos was a form of Dharma Init as part of Ben's coup.
The test: Irony or coincidence that the Buddhist reincarnation test is done by the group not named after a Buddhist concept?
-My wife suggests that Claire's appearance in the cabin means she's dead. I think she's probably right. Horace and Jack's dad are both dead, after all.
tahltales said... I wish I could take credit for this theory, but it goes to a coworker of mine:
Claire did not actually survive the explosion in Othertown. Jacob/the island kept her body alive so that here's the rub, why? Jacob-as-Christian could get to her and bring her to the cabin hmm~ (for whatever reason). I like it because it explains when Miles was so wary of her last week: he can sense her un-dead-ness. ok that's cool.
said... I was sad when Locke asked Christian, "How do I save the island?" He could have asked "How do I save the people on the island?" But that is not Locke's priority. That is not the mission he believes he is on. His prioritizing the island itself over his friends is not new and is consistent with his past actions (See Boone and Hurley.) But it still made me sad when he phrased the question that way.
-Count me among those who thinks Claire is dead. I like the "Claire died in the explosion theory." Anonymous, thanks for your comment about Locke's question - you put your finger on something that was bothering me as well. When Christian said that Locke really had only one question he wanted to or should be asking, I was also thinking it would be, "People are coming here to kill us. How do I save them?" The question he asked was so appropriate to Locke, but made me sad. It also made me realize that Jack is the one who would ask about saving the people, not Locke.
Break me off a piece of that kit-kat-bar. catchy downward moving tune
Hurley sharing his candy bar with unlikely/unwanted ally Ben was a priceless bit of silent comedy. Emerson and Garcia both had a number of funny moments in this episode but the range of emotions playing over each man's face in that exchange was wonderful.
Spoilers for "Lost" coming up just as soon as I chop down the same tree three times...
did Horace chop down the same tree over & over? I d n notice, assumed he was chopping tree after tree... I did expect him to repeat himself in full, like a simulation, when he started again with "Hullo" but he didn't.
We actually did get an answer to Hurley's query about why someone would build a cabin in the jungle: Horace Goodspeed (last seen in the Ben origin story episode "The Man Behind the Curtain") wanted a getaway spot for himself and his wife. And I still doubt we've seen the last of either Horace or Mrs. Goodspeed; the producers cast Doug Hutchison and Samantha Mathis oh? I like her fr watching ~w Clare? ~snow day? unexpectedly enjoying The Thing Called Love in those roles for a reason.
Mo Ryan said... The test Alpert gave young Locke is not limited to Dalai Lamas, though it is used for them too. For all Tibetan Buddhist tulkus, or enlightened masters, the same test is used. When a child is found that appears to be the next incarnation of a tulku who has died, the monks of that lineage do the same thing that Alpert seemed to do: put a bunch of objects in front of the kid and see if he can pick out the ones that belonged to the previous incarnation of the tulku.
cpenny lane said: we had
the knife, which we see later on the island
the compass, which was later on the island
the comic book, which belonged to hugo on plane, then to walt on the island this was the same comic?
a book of laws, which I'm sure will come into play later.
the vial of sand/ash that rings the area around Jacob's cabin
What I can't seem to figure out though, is why Locke didn't recognize Alpert when they met on the Island.
-I don't remember anyone I met for less than five minutes when I was young Locke's age.
-If I grew up white in the '60s, I'd probably remember a strikingly handsome Cuban fellow in a suit being allowed into the house through the front door. Especially if he then plopped a bunch of random objects in front of me and asked me which one I already owned. Especially-especially if one of them was a knife.
-You might remember the incident, but would you remember the facial features? Can you call to mind a good enough recollection of your 1st grade teacher to recognize her now?
Alan Sepinwall: On the one hand, it was a five-minute encounter from 40 years ago. On the other, if I was John Locke, raised in a series of foster homes by disapproving foster parents, and a man once appeared who promised to take me away from all that because I was special -- and who then went back on his word after a very strange but memorable game -- I suspect I would remember the event, if not the face of the man in it. Locke didn't need to immediately identify Richard when they met, but he could have paused to look at him a second time, I suppose.
In season three... is there anything unusual in terms of Richard's behavior in the first episode where their paths cross? (I'm thinking it was "The Brig.")"
-as far as the memory thing goes, I don't find it unreasonable that Locke's or anyone else's brain wouldn't make the connection since Richard didn't age a day. ..not imagine it possible that the person Locke encountered in the present could possibly be anyone from forty years ago.
-How are we defining plot movement? nice sum:
They found the cabin, Locke interacted with Christian Shepherd, Locke reconnects with his 'destiny', Abbadon & Alpert have interests in Locke being on the island, Claire is with her dad in the moving cabin, the boat people are coming back, so is Sayid, they're moving the island, Kevin Johnson is outed, Lipidus drops the phone so they can track him (or stay away maybe). cool. the boat ppl are coming, so is sayid, they're moving the island...
It took awhile to find the cabin, but taking awhile has been this show's calling card since episode three.They moved pieces into place. How is that not advancing the plot? We're acting as if that's the most boring thing they could do. I feel like we want the first chapter and the last chapter and anything else is considered subpar.
-Taking things in the order Alan mentioned them...
Mittelos: Besides what's been mentioned, we now know they've existed roughly as long as the Dharma Initiative, if not longer. Blows apart my theory that the Others took over Dharma's off-island resources and renamed them Mittelos right y had seemed like Mittelos was a form of Dharma Init as part of Ben's coup.
The test: Irony or coincidence that the Buddhist reincarnation test is done by the group not named after a Buddhist concept?
-My wife suggests that Claire's appearance in the cabin means she's dead. I think she's probably right. Horace and Jack's dad are both dead, after all.
tahltales said... I wish I could take credit for this theory, but it goes to a coworker of mine:
Claire did not actually survive the explosion in Othertown. Jacob/the island kept her body alive so that here's the rub, why? Jacob-as-Christian could get to her and bring her to the cabin hmm~ (for whatever reason). I like it because it explains when Miles was so wary of her last week: he can sense her un-dead-ness. ok that's cool.
said... I was sad when Locke asked Christian, "How do I save the island?" He could have asked "How do I save the people on the island?" But that is not Locke's priority. That is not the mission he believes he is on. His prioritizing the island itself over his friends is not new and is consistent with his past actions (See Boone and Hurley.) But it still made me sad when he phrased the question that way.
-Count me among those who thinks Claire is dead. I like the "Claire died in the explosion theory." Anonymous, thanks for your comment about Locke's question - you put your finger on something that was bothering me as well. When Christian said that Locke really had only one question he wanted to or should be asking, I was also thinking it would be, "People are coming here to kill us. How do I save them?" The question he asked was so appropriate to Locke, but made me sad. It also made me realize that Jack is the one who would ask about saving the people, not Locke.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
No other woman or goddess had so many deaths as Ariadne.
Ariadne closed her eyes so as never to have to see again either the god or the man who of their natures could do nothing more than appear or disappear. the men who by their nature only appear & disappear.
The girl, Kore, Persephone taking her throne - with her abduction, the game that had once been played out between one shape and another was now reduced to the mere alternation of appearance and disappearance.
From now on it was a question not only of accepting life in a single form but of accepting the certainty that that form would one day disappear without trace. Demeter's anger is the revolt against this new regime.
Hades imposed an absence on the earth, imposed a situation where every presence was now enveloped in a far greater cloak of absence.
Ariadne witnessed the disappearance. Kore is the disappearance.
Penelope waiting. sitting on a barstool, turning the pages of a newspaper (Fitzgerald, Tender is the Night, the girl's mother)
post-classic life... Being the last, Odysseus is closest to the life that will follow, a life never more to close in any cycle.
For Odysseus simulation must know no limits. Palamedes had demonstrated the existence of a truth behind the simulation, a truth of gesture. Odysseus responded by demonstrating the opposite: that the truest of gestures could be judged a perfect pretense.
Athena - everything about that little girl was sharp.
p225: Now Zeus felt the crown of his skull being scraped by Athena’s sharp javelin. Everything about that little girl was sharp: her eyes, her mind – now living in the mind of her father – the point of her helmet. Every female concavity was hidden away, like the reverse side of her shield... Now, he could see her too: she had climbed down to the ground and was walking away from her father. Turning her head in silent greeting, she was the only one who looked him in the eyes. Was it is his daughter he saw, or his own image gazing back at him?
Kore sees herself in her abductor's eye, discovers reflection, duplication...
Dionysus is not a useful god who helps weave or knot things together, but a god who loosens and unties. is the river we hear an incessant booming from far away then one day it rises and floods everything
as if the normal above water state of things, the sober delimitation of our existence - logic just a flap of Apollo's cloak - were but a brief parenthesis overwhelmed in an instant
notes on Calasso, Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony
Ariadne closed her eyes so as never to have to see again either the god or the man who of their natures could do nothing more than appear or disappear. the men who by their nature only appear & disappear.
The girl, Kore, Persephone taking her throne - with her abduction, the game that had once been played out between one shape and another was now reduced to the mere alternation of appearance and disappearance.
From now on it was a question not only of accepting life in a single form but of accepting the certainty that that form would one day disappear without trace. Demeter's anger is the revolt against this new regime.
Hades imposed an absence on the earth, imposed a situation where every presence was now enveloped in a far greater cloak of absence.
Ariadne witnessed the disappearance. Kore is the disappearance.
Penelope waiting. sitting on a barstool, turning the pages of a newspaper (Fitzgerald, Tender is the Night, the girl's mother)
post-classic life... Being the last, Odysseus is closest to the life that will follow, a life never more to close in any cycle.
For Odysseus simulation must know no limits. Palamedes had demonstrated the existence of a truth behind the simulation, a truth of gesture. Odysseus responded by demonstrating the opposite: that the truest of gestures could be judged a perfect pretense.
Athena - everything about that little girl was sharp.
p225: Now Zeus felt the crown of his skull being scraped by Athena’s sharp javelin. Everything about that little girl was sharp: her eyes, her mind – now living in the mind of her father – the point of her helmet. Every female concavity was hidden away, like the reverse side of her shield... Now, he could see her too: she had climbed down to the ground and was walking away from her father. Turning her head in silent greeting, she was the only one who looked him in the eyes. Was it is his daughter he saw, or his own image gazing back at him?
Kore sees herself in her abductor's eye, discovers reflection, duplication...
Dionysus is not a useful god who helps weave or knot things together, but a god who loosens and unties. is the river we hear an incessant booming from far away then one day it rises and floods everything
as if the normal above water state of things, the sober delimitation of our existence - logic just a flap of Apollo's cloak - were but a brief parenthesis overwhelmed in an instant
notes on Calasso, Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Echo, Self, and Sensibility
Through the chronologically sequential plays Richard II and both parts of Henry IV, Shakespeare presents us with portraits of three successive kings: Richard, Henry, and Hal. As characters, the three are revealed in provocative contrast to one another.
...
Hal cleverly provides his own foil: his later self-performance will be seen in flattering contrast to this earlier unprincely one. The person, for Hal, is not wedded to one specific performance, and its bachelorhood can be applied to advantage.
...
When, in Richard II, Henry is banished, his father John of Gaunt advises him: "Teach thy necessity to reason thus- There is no virtue like necessity... Look, what thy soul holds dear, imagine it To lie that way thou go'est." Henry, however, rejects this means of comfort: "O, who can hold a fire in his hand By thinking on the frosty Caucasus? Or cloy the hungry edge of an appetite By bare imagination of a feast? Or wallow naked in December snow By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?"
[ Caucasus - geopolitical mountain-barrier region located between the two continents of Europe and Asia - ?? not a warm place, as would fit the rhetoric here - ah: Prometheus was chained there by Zeus after Prometheus had presented man with the gift of fire. ]
To set this against a contrasting disposition, let me add: Who, being bounded in a nutshell, could count himself a king of infinite space? For the familiar answer ... bring Hamlet into the discussion for his ready presentation of this sensibility: that "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." If the air to him seems "a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours," this estimation of it is not improved by knowing the air could seem a "most excellent canopy...this brave o'erhanging firmament." I think of this sensibility as poetic, because it feels itself to make. For Hamlet, the quality of the world is not in its presence, but in his response to it. This does not imply some greater control over experience. Hamlet does not mean that he can choose to make all things good: he controls his own thinking no more than Henry controls the situation. Hamlet does not let his claim, that he could count himself a king of infinite space, stand undiminished: he says he could, "were it not that I have bad dreams." The difference is that, where Henry thinks about what is the case, Hamlet thinks about what he thinks. Henry suffers the situation; Hamlet suffers his consciousness. Of course, the state of Hamlet's consciousness --what he thinks-- is his response to a situation. And for that matter, Henry's experience like anyone's is mediated by thought--but he does not dwell as Hamlet does self-consciously within that mediation.
Richard is the character in this sequence of plays who is most like Hamlet. Hamlet finds Denmark a prison; Richard makes his prison into a world, populated with his thoughts. We see Richard, bounded, counting himself a king of infinite space: "I have been studying how I may compare This prison where I live unto the world... My brain I'll prove the female to my soul, My soul the father, and these two beget A generation of still-breeding thoughts, And these same thoughts people this little world..." Richard's is a poetic sensibility: he evidently believes that thoughts make. In this same speech, he speaks of becoming what he thinks himself to be: "treason makes me wish myself a beggar, And so I am." When persuaded that it is better he be a king, he is one; but he is one no longer, when thinking that he is "unking'd" by Henry. As he thinks it, so it may as well be. And his thoughts are the substance of his torment: "O...that I could forget what I have been! Or not remember what I must be now!" This would not be the lament of a person like Henry, to whom the forgetting would not change the importance of what he in fact is, regardless of what he thinks himself to be. Henry, as we see when he is banished, grieves over circumstance. Richard does as well, but foremost he laments his awareness of his circumstance: not the nutshell, but the bad dreams.
...
Hal might say with Richard, "Thus play I , in one person, many people," but Hal would not continue with him, "And none contented..."
...
The Duke of York warns Richard not to interfere in the passage of hereditary rights from Gaunt to Henry. To intercept a son's inheritance from his father, says York, is to "take from Time His charters and his customary rights; Let not tomorrow, then, ensue today, Be not thyself -- for how art thou a king But by fair sequence and succession?" By interrupting the passage of rights from father to son, Richard disturbs that principle of fair succession which makes him king --he becomes not king, not himself. We see this happen: right order is broken. Henry usurps Richard, and being king loses the meaning with it had.
Henry takes what remains: the publicly recognized title, the trappings of power. He plans "rather to be myself, Might and to be fear'd, than my condition." By being less his condition (his private disposition), Henry will be more the king, which now, for him, means being mighty. But Hal? What does the prince mean when he says he will "hereafter be more myself"? We should remember the difference in their heavenly metaphors: Henry compared himself only to a comet, but Hal compares himself to the sun, the old-order celestial counterpart of the king. Richard several times speaks of himself as the sun, "the searching eye of heaven...rising in our throne, the east." To him the metaphor is given: it symbolizes his divine sponsorship, his sun-like place in a natural and right order. When that sponsorship and order is broken, Henry takes over the kingship but can not inhabit the metaphor. Hal, however, can. He has the poetic spirit which is able to appropriate it: "Yet herein will I imitate the sun." Hal can make a new order, can think himself the sun and thereby make it so. After promising to be more himself, this daring poet's further words to his father the king supply an echo which resounds to this effect: I will, says Prince Hal, "in the closing of some glorious day, Be bold to tell you that I am your son."
Through the chronologically sequential plays Richard II and both parts of Henry IV, Shakespeare presents us with portraits of three successive kings: Richard, Henry, and Hal. As characters, the three are revealed in provocative contrast to one another.
...
Hal cleverly provides his own foil: his later self-performance will be seen in flattering contrast to this earlier unprincely one. The person, for Hal, is not wedded to one specific performance, and its bachelorhood can be applied to advantage.
...
When, in Richard II, Henry is banished, his father John of Gaunt advises him: "Teach thy necessity to reason thus- There is no virtue like necessity... Look, what thy soul holds dear, imagine it To lie that way thou go'est." Henry, however, rejects this means of comfort: "O, who can hold a fire in his hand By thinking on the frosty Caucasus? Or cloy the hungry edge of an appetite By bare imagination of a feast? Or wallow naked in December snow By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?"
[ Caucasus - geopolitical mountain-barrier region located between the two continents of Europe and Asia - ?? not a warm place, as would fit the rhetoric here - ah: Prometheus was chained there by Zeus after Prometheus had presented man with the gift of fire. ]
To set this against a contrasting disposition, let me add: Who, being bounded in a nutshell, could count himself a king of infinite space? For the familiar answer ... bring Hamlet into the discussion for his ready presentation of this sensibility: that "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." If the air to him seems "a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours," this estimation of it is not improved by knowing the air could seem a "most excellent canopy...this brave o'erhanging firmament." I think of this sensibility as poetic, because it feels itself to make. For Hamlet, the quality of the world is not in its presence, but in his response to it. This does not imply some greater control over experience. Hamlet does not mean that he can choose to make all things good: he controls his own thinking no more than Henry controls the situation. Hamlet does not let his claim, that he could count himself a king of infinite space, stand undiminished: he says he could, "were it not that I have bad dreams." The difference is that, where Henry thinks about what is the case, Hamlet thinks about what he thinks. Henry suffers the situation; Hamlet suffers his consciousness. Of course, the state of Hamlet's consciousness --what he thinks-- is his response to a situation. And for that matter, Henry's experience like anyone's is mediated by thought--but he does not dwell as Hamlet does self-consciously within that mediation.
Richard is the character in this sequence of plays who is most like Hamlet. Hamlet finds Denmark a prison; Richard makes his prison into a world, populated with his thoughts. We see Richard, bounded, counting himself a king of infinite space: "I have been studying how I may compare This prison where I live unto the world... My brain I'll prove the female to my soul, My soul the father, and these two beget A generation of still-breeding thoughts, And these same thoughts people this little world..." Richard's is a poetic sensibility: he evidently believes that thoughts make. In this same speech, he speaks of becoming what he thinks himself to be: "treason makes me wish myself a beggar, And so I am." When persuaded that it is better he be a king, he is one; but he is one no longer, when thinking that he is "unking'd" by Henry. As he thinks it, so it may as well be. And his thoughts are the substance of his torment: "O...that I could forget what I have been! Or not remember what I must be now!" This would not be the lament of a person like Henry, to whom the forgetting would not change the importance of what he in fact is, regardless of what he thinks himself to be. Henry, as we see when he is banished, grieves over circumstance. Richard does as well, but foremost he laments his awareness of his circumstance: not the nutshell, but the bad dreams.
...
Hal might say with Richard, "Thus play I , in one person, many people," but Hal would not continue with him, "And none contented..."
...
The Duke of York warns Richard not to interfere in the passage of hereditary rights from Gaunt to Henry. To intercept a son's inheritance from his father, says York, is to "take from Time His charters and his customary rights; Let not tomorrow, then, ensue today, Be not thyself -- for how art thou a king But by fair sequence and succession?" By interrupting the passage of rights from father to son, Richard disturbs that principle of fair succession which makes him king --he becomes not king, not himself. We see this happen: right order is broken. Henry usurps Richard, and being king loses the meaning with it had.
Henry takes what remains: the publicly recognized title, the trappings of power. He plans "rather to be myself, Might and to be fear'd, than my condition." By being less his condition (his private disposition), Henry will be more the king, which now, for him, means being mighty. But Hal? What does the prince mean when he says he will "hereafter be more myself"? We should remember the difference in their heavenly metaphors: Henry compared himself only to a comet, but Hal compares himself to the sun, the old-order celestial counterpart of the king. Richard several times speaks of himself as the sun, "the searching eye of heaven...rising in our throne, the east." To him the metaphor is given: it symbolizes his divine sponsorship, his sun-like place in a natural and right order. When that sponsorship and order is broken, Henry takes over the kingship but can not inhabit the metaphor. Hal, however, can. He has the poetic spirit which is able to appropriate it: "Yet herein will I imitate the sun." Hal can make a new order, can think himself the sun and thereby make it so. After promising to be more himself, this daring poet's further words to his father the king supply an echo which resounds to this effect: I will, says Prince Hal, "in the closing of some glorious day, Be bold to tell you that I am your son."
remind
Wendell Berry, What Are People For? p88-92 The Responsibility of the Poet:
It has seemd to me increasingly that a poem--a good poem--exists at the center of a complex reminding, to which it relates as both cause and effect. The process of this reminding is too complex ever to be fully mapped or explained..
Fundamentally, the existence of a poem reminds first its poet and then its readers of the technical means of poetry, which is to say its power as speech or song: the play of line against syntax and against stanza; the play of variation against form and against theme; the play of phrase against line; and of phrase against phrase within the line; the play of likenesses & differences of sounds; the play of statement with and against music; the play of rhyme against rhythm and as rhythm; the play of the poem as a made thing with and within and against the histories--personal, literary, national and local--that produce it. all this happens in any writing but poetry is poetry as aware of its conditions (recently read where? ~ the literary is writing that is aware of and responds to its conditions - good). it is *attention* - re-minding, yes, calling and keeping to & in mind. (..please, help me to be responsive to my blessings..)
Auden: as praise. this attention is prayer. acknowledgment, gratitude. 'whatever else it does, a poem must praise all that it can, for being and for saying' - all that it regards, praise for being ~ Making,Knowing, Judging. in The Dyer's Hand.
A poem, that is, has the power to remind poet & reader alike of things they have read & heard. yes. Also--and this is partly why the subject is so complex--it has the power to remind them of things they have not read & heard, but that have been read & heard by others whom they have read & heard. yes. this is is it? how I may have known I felt an affinity for ie Kierkegaard before ever reading Kierkegaard.
Thus the art, so private in execution, is also communal and filial. It can only exist as a common ground between the poet and other poets and other people, living and dead. TSEliot on tradition. Any poem worth the name is the product of a convocation. yes. It exists, literally, by recalling past voices into presence. yes. calling. to mind. keeping. honoring. -N Ginzburg ~ 'my world is a barren one, in which cadences rise to the surface.'
Poetry can be written only because it has been written.
'It survives / in the valley of its making / a way of being, a mouth' ~ Auden, In Memoriam W. B. Yeats
A poem, too, may remind poet & reader alike of what is remembered or ought to be remembered--as in elegies, poems of history, love poems, celebrations of nature, poems of praise or worship, or poems as prayers. liturgy ~ poetry as enactment of thanking. One of the functions of the music or formality of poetry is to make memorable.
By its formal integrity a poem reminds us of the formal integrity of other works, creatures, and structures of the world. The form of a good poem is, in a way perhaps not altogether explainable or demonstrable, an analogue of the forms of other things. By its form it alludes to other forms, evokes them, resonates with them, and so becomes a part of the system of analogies or harmonies by which we live.
Thus the poet affirms and collaborates in the formality of the Creation. This, I think, is a matter of supreme, and mostly unacknowledged, importance.
A poem reminds us also of the spiritual elation that we call 'inspiration' or 'gift.' Ted Hughes re TSE, A Dancer to God. the muse, or the inner 'true self', met in dreams, takes over. the fire and the rose. Or perhaps we should say that it should do so, it should be humble enough to do so humility is endless, because we know that no permanently valuable poem is made by the merely intentional manipulation of its scrutable components. but -thorpe- can we always tell the difference? may be ~ Hence, it reminds us of love. It is amateur's work, lover's work.
What we now call 'professionalism' is anathema to it. A good poem reminds us of love because it can not be written or read in distraction; it can not be written or understood by anyone thinking of praise or publication or promotion. It is ruined utterly by what Donald Davie has called "the fluctuations of philistine but sophisticated fashion." ..To those who wish to defend of the possibility of good or responsible work, the distinction (between amateur & professional) reminas useful today because of the need to discriminate against professionalism. Professional standards, the standards of ambition and selfishness, are always sliding downward.. tend always to narrow the ground of judgement. But amateur standards, the standards of love, are always straining upward toward the humble and the best. They enlarge the grounds of judgement. The context of love is the world.
The standards of love are inseparable from the process or system of reminding that I am talking about. This reminding .. is to a considerable extent what poets respond to and is to a considerable extent what they respond with.
It has seemd to me increasingly that a poem--a good poem--exists at the center of a complex reminding, to which it relates as both cause and effect. The process of this reminding is too complex ever to be fully mapped or explained..
Fundamentally, the existence of a poem reminds first its poet and then its readers of the technical means of poetry, which is to say its power as speech or song: the play of line against syntax and against stanza; the play of variation against form and against theme; the play of phrase against line; and of phrase against phrase within the line; the play of likenesses & differences of sounds; the play of statement with and against music; the play of rhyme against rhythm and as rhythm; the play of the poem as a made thing with and within and against the histories--personal, literary, national and local--that produce it. all this happens in any writing but poetry is poetry as aware of its conditions (recently read where? ~ the literary is writing that is aware of and responds to its conditions - good). it is *attention* - re-minding, yes, calling and keeping to & in mind. (..please, help me to be responsive to my blessings..)
Auden: as praise. this attention is prayer. acknowledgment, gratitude. 'whatever else it does, a poem must praise all that it can, for being and for saying' - all that it regards, praise for being ~ Making,Knowing, Judging. in The Dyer's Hand.
A poem, that is, has the power to remind poet & reader alike of things they have read & heard. yes. Also--and this is partly why the subject is so complex--it has the power to remind them of things they have not read & heard, but that have been read & heard by others whom they have read & heard. yes. this is is it? how I may have known I felt an affinity for ie Kierkegaard before ever reading Kierkegaard.
Thus the art, so private in execution, is also communal and filial. It can only exist as a common ground between the poet and other poets and other people, living and dead. TSEliot on tradition. Any poem worth the name is the product of a convocation. yes. It exists, literally, by recalling past voices into presence. yes. calling. to mind. keeping. honoring. -N Ginzburg ~ 'my world is a barren one, in which cadences rise to the surface.'
Poetry can be written only because it has been written.
'It survives / in the valley of its making / a way of being, a mouth' ~ Auden, In Memoriam W. B. Yeats
A poem, too, may remind poet & reader alike of what is remembered or ought to be remembered--as in elegies, poems of history, love poems, celebrations of nature, poems of praise or worship, or poems as prayers. liturgy ~ poetry as enactment of thanking. One of the functions of the music or formality of poetry is to make memorable.
By its formal integrity a poem reminds us of the formal integrity of other works, creatures, and structures of the world. The form of a good poem is, in a way perhaps not altogether explainable or demonstrable, an analogue of the forms of other things. By its form it alludes to other forms, evokes them, resonates with them, and so becomes a part of the system of analogies or harmonies by which we live.
Thus the poet affirms and collaborates in the formality of the Creation. This, I think, is a matter of supreme, and mostly unacknowledged, importance.
A poem reminds us also of the spiritual elation that we call 'inspiration' or 'gift.' Ted Hughes re TSE, A Dancer to God. the muse, or the inner 'true self', met in dreams, takes over. the fire and the rose. Or perhaps we should say that it should do so, it should be humble enough to do so humility is endless, because we know that no permanently valuable poem is made by the merely intentional manipulation of its scrutable components. but -thorpe- can we always tell the difference? may be ~ Hence, it reminds us of love. It is amateur's work, lover's work.
What we now call 'professionalism' is anathema to it. A good poem reminds us of love because it can not be written or read in distraction; it can not be written or understood by anyone thinking of praise or publication or promotion. It is ruined utterly by what Donald Davie has called "the fluctuations of philistine but sophisticated fashion." ..To those who wish to defend of the possibility of good or responsible work, the distinction (between amateur & professional) reminas useful today because of the need to discriminate against professionalism. Professional standards, the standards of ambition and selfishness, are always sliding downward.. tend always to narrow the ground of judgement. But amateur standards, the standards of love, are always straining upward toward the humble and the best. They enlarge the grounds of judgement. The context of love is the world.
The standards of love are inseparable from the process or system of reminding that I am talking about. This reminding .. is to a considerable extent what poets respond to and is to a considerable extent what they respond with.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
az- The Post-Birthday World: A Novel by L Shriver | p425
Over the course of those two days Ramsey assembled a veritable retrospective of Irina's transgressions in the post-birthday world: arranging "appointment TV to ogle Lawrence on the news, "declaring her love for Anorak Man" in front of her mother, "running him down" to other players in Preston--all the way back to You should have packed a bag.
I like that. I like near all about Ramsey, resembles TVZ. So to me, no contest, the life in which she kisses Ramsey is preferable. even with all the rows.
so I disagree with Irina's book in that life, Frame Match, and with the point of view of the novel, that either choice leads to both good and bad, that it does not matter much which way you go. No, even if the two paths are hardly different at the outset, even if 'the passing there / Had worn them really about the same', whichever you happen to choose may well later seem to have 'made all the difference.' You do not end up sitting over coffee with the same person, having the same feelings, either way. well maybe you do, maybe you don't.
there is real regret. regret, not just sitting in the chair in your old flat, visiting your former self, but violently sorry that you turned away from that. the kid in Frame Match may regret for the rest of his life that he gave up snooker, and no, he would not certainly have regretted just as much that he forsook school for snooker.
and in Irina's other book, Ivan & the Terribles, Ivan 'feels terrible' both after he sees his best friend hurt by how quickly he was replaced and later when he himself is replaced. Irina says she is showing that both betraying and being betrayed feel terrible, one is not clearly worse than the other. but to this novel, I say bullocks, being betrayed ("five years" Lawrence has been seeing another woman. and he never kisses Irina!) feels way worse. Betraying may feel terrible too - yes Irina feels sad and like a lesser person having left Lawrence - but if you betrayed 'everything' for 'everything plus something more' than you now have, besides your sadness, that everything and something more. She has Ramsey who adores her actually more devotedly than Lawrence and loves to kiss her.
No, being left usually feels worse than leaving. You leave for somewhere else. Being left, you are bereft.
I enjoyed most of Ramsey's speaking. but otherwise the tone of the novel - more prosaic than I like. adult, sane. reflective - but not on or aware of any real edge. civilized. tone gets so much in my thoughts. it's here. this one was not all that welcome.
Over the course of those two days Ramsey assembled a veritable retrospective of Irina's transgressions in the post-birthday world: arranging "appointment TV to ogle Lawrence on the news, "declaring her love for Anorak Man" in front of her mother, "running him down" to other players in Preston--all the way back to You should have packed a bag.
I like that. I like near all about Ramsey, resembles TVZ. So to me, no contest, the life in which she kisses Ramsey is preferable. even with all the rows.
so I disagree with Irina's book in that life, Frame Match, and with the point of view of the novel, that either choice leads to both good and bad, that it does not matter much which way you go. No, even if the two paths are hardly different at the outset, even if 'the passing there / Had worn them really about the same', whichever you happen to choose may well later seem to have 'made all the difference.' You do not end up sitting over coffee with the same person, having the same feelings, either way. well maybe you do, maybe you don't.
there is real regret. regret, not just sitting in the chair in your old flat, visiting your former self, but violently sorry that you turned away from that. the kid in Frame Match may regret for the rest of his life that he gave up snooker, and no, he would not certainly have regretted just as much that he forsook school for snooker.
and in Irina's other book, Ivan & the Terribles, Ivan 'feels terrible' both after he sees his best friend hurt by how quickly he was replaced and later when he himself is replaced. Irina says she is showing that both betraying and being betrayed feel terrible, one is not clearly worse than the other. but to this novel, I say bullocks, being betrayed ("five years" Lawrence has been seeing another woman. and he never kisses Irina!) feels way worse. Betraying may feel terrible too - yes Irina feels sad and like a lesser person having left Lawrence - but if you betrayed 'everything' for 'everything plus something more' than you now have, besides your sadness, that everything and something more. She has Ramsey who adores her actually more devotedly than Lawrence and loves to kiss her.
No, being left usually feels worse than leaving. You leave for somewhere else. Being left, you are bereft.
I enjoyed most of Ramsey's speaking. but otherwise the tone of the novel - more prosaic than I like. adult, sane. reflective - but not on or aware of any real edge. civilized. tone gets so much in my thoughts. it's here. this one was not all that welcome.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
read Shriver, Segal, Sciascia (& other detective genre in galleys -No One Tells Evth - The Fifth Floor)
read N Katherine Hayles -Writing Machines -My Mother is A Computer. Code as writing? "These guys write really good code. when they're not in prison."-Morris, in 24. and I tht, I want to write really good code.
take notes on W Berry re poetry is reminding, Chs Guignon re Heidegger & diagnosis Cartesian
substvly re-engage concerns of old: poem, philos.
and psy? well ~ take notes Winnicott maybe too.
and there's all my other books to read. & galleys. ~ dragon girl tattoo. -Ebershoff (score!) on polygamy (cool).
read N Katherine Hayles -Writing Machines -My Mother is A Computer. Code as writing? "These guys write really good code. when they're not in prison."-Morris, in 24. and I tht, I want to write really good code.
take notes on W Berry re poetry is reminding, Chs Guignon re Heidegger & diagnosis Cartesian
substvly re-engage concerns of old: poem, philos.
and psy? well ~ take notes Winnicott maybe too.
and there's all my other books to read. & galleys. ~ dragon girl tattoo. -Ebershoff (score!) on polygamy (cool).
Andersen on the Media on Obama - Tuned In - James Poniewozik - TIME :
New York magazine columnist Kurt Andersen (who is like me a declared Obama voter) has had some great observations all this election season on the Democratic primary and how it reflects American culture. He has a new column this week about the "elitism" issue:
About That Crush on Obama: If Barack Obama Is Out of Touch With America, Is the Media Too? New York Magazine [115 comments]
comments
-Chaddog: The issue with Obama and Clinton is not that "it's fine to be Ivy-educated and extremely smart—but only if you're willing to show the requisite shame for it by recognizing, that you must pretend to be regular folks." I mean, no one really expects to run in to the Obamas riding the El or bus in Chicago on their way out to watch a NASCAR race at Chicagoland Speedway, or Hillary Clinton waiting in line at 4 am for the Walmart after Thanksgiving sale so she can grab a cheap television, while Bill heads out with the boys for some hunting. Rather, the issue is respect and genuineness. I wouldn't expect Clinton or Obama to be huge NASCAR fans, but I do expect them to respect the millions of NASCAR fans in this country. I don't expect to see them out doing shots of whiskey at a dive bar, but I do expect them to understand and respect the fact that doing the occasional boilermaker is real and fun for millions of Americans, and not look down their nose at it.
And as an Obama supporter, I guess that's why I find Clinton so off-putting: the pandering and shots and speaking from the bed of a pickup truck isn't Hillary "being one of us", but rather her pretending to be something she's not, and in the process demeaning it as beneath her. I don't get the same feel from Obama - he's still shooting hoops, which he did long before he was a candidate. Sure he went bowling, but he sucked, admitted it, and still said he had fun and had a few beers while he did it. Slight pandering, but no one (at least not me) was hurt because Obama never came in trying to be something (i.e. a good bowler who regularly frequented the alley in his neighborhood) that he was not. Nor did he insult or pander in regards to the millions of people that enjoy bowling.
Anyways, I think the issue is not "being what they're not" but rather Obama and Clinton actually respecting the genuine likes of people unlike them. It's amazing that the Democratic party has such a problem when the "multiculturalism" is drawn on class, rather than racial-religious-sexual preference lines.
-JamesP: @Chaddogg: There's actually nothing in your response I'd disagree with. I think the distinction here is that Andersen (and I in responding to them) are characterizing how the MEDIA judges candidates' handling of the "elitism" question you should act like regular folks or you are a snob, and you're talking about how, you know, actual voters with common sense see it you should respect us, and be real. I tend to agree with you, in that the typical voter probably does not care if a candidate bowls or does shots or hunts: they just don't want to feel looked down on themselves for doing it. But they way the press has covered this matter in the campaign is: Ah, she's drinking a shot and a beer! Well played! Oooh, he bowled a 37! Bad move! But he got four baskets in that pickup game! Nice recovery! etc. The political press covers the perceived effectiveness of the pander rather than the actual authenticity.
-Shara Says: @James and Chaddog - good points all around. I totally agree with Chaddog that Clinton's pandering is increasingly transparent, and increasingly insulting. Maybe I'm walking a strange line here: I'm a southern Knoxville girl who likes my whiskey straight up and wants my various uncles to have all the guns they want. I'm also politically progressive, I was raised by middle-class parents, both of whom were raised in poverty, and Mr. Shara Says and I barely break even most months. I have a strong appalachian accent, as well as degrees in politics and law. So what box do I fit in? Definitely not in Hilary's. She irritates the bejezus out of me with her fake accent and her fake photo ops and her fake sincerity and her manipulative catch phrases. On the other hand, Obama appears to be a dude who can handle dealing with real differences among people in a meaningful and significant way , which makes Hilary only look even more desperate to me.
So why is she suddenly gaining (some) ground, when everything she does and says is so obviously fake? My initial thought is that Hilary, with her pandering, is taking advantage of people who just don't know better. I wonder if the way I perceive her is colored by my political/legal education. But then my grandmother, who never got to go to high school, can take one look at Hilary and recognize insincerity a mile away.
My only reflection is that ... Obama looks at these different groups and offers to view them in context with everyone else. He offers to take their issues and find patterns & parallels to help them see connections (race, class, etc.) that they might not have perceived before, to help us face our demons and become better, as a society. But he does not offer them the comfort of remaining an isolated "other" hm who want NASCAR and guns and tradition and the rest of the world be damned. He wants to uplift everybody, and some people just don't want to be uplifted, because they're scared of change. hmm. Hilary offers to wear a flag pin and recognize -nay, emphasize- their "otherness" well their identity (I dunno if it's an identity of otherness ~though, okay, may be in opposition to highbrow snobs) in stereotypical ways, and, in doing so, she appears less threatening to their way of life. Maybe its obviously manipulative, but people are used to being manipulated by politicians. People are used to valence symbols being thrown around, used to hearing meaningless doublespeak, used to being skeptical of the Gub'ment. Maybe it sucks, but it sucks in a way that they are used to, and in a way that allows them to maintain their identity as an outsider. hm. Obama (in theory) offers something different than that, so people are waffling because they don't know if they really want to leave what is familiar territory for something new: something that would require them to re-evaluate their relationship with the rest of the country, and the rest of the world. And the politics of "hope" can also be scary for people who have had hope before, and seen what came of it: idealism takes courage and patience, especially when society has seen idealism beaten down time and time again by cynicism and partisan crap. Totally gets at the heart of the differences between the campaigns, and about how we are totally torn amongst ourselves about what path to take.
-I'm in the Jon Stewart camp of "elitism" in that I don't want a "regular Joe" to run the country. I want someone who is smarter, more ethical, and more sincere than most of the country and knows it.
-I fear that people are too threatened by those who are smarter than they, whether on the job or in the White House. Who knows--maybe they assume someone highly intelligent can't understand them or their needs? Pandering, right or wrong, nauseating or not, sure seems to work. While I admire Obama for trying to minimize his pandering (because he hasn't avoided it completely), I worry that it will hurt him in a general election. It's cynical, but it's how the game is played, as John McCain has clearly realized.
-Chaddog: See, the Stewart camp is the problem, in that they think Americans are NOT voting for the person who is smartest (in this case equating smarts with the person with the best ideas to lead America). Call this the "What's Wrong With Kansas?" insult. In the book (to paraphrase), the author states that conservatives have "blinded" rural and low-income voters such as the good people of Kansas to vote against their economic interest, which he arrogantly presumes is served best by liberal/Democratic economic policies, and for Republicans due to agreement on social issues i.e. pro-life, anti-gay rights, etc. good, good statement of the book's thesis. The central conceit of the entire argument is that twofold: one that these voters are voting against their economic interest (if anything, economics shows that by voting for smaller government-free trade-market competition they are voting FOR their interests intelligently yeah?), and two that it is somehow stupid or "wrong" to base your vote based on your personal moral judgments (for example, why is it "wrong" to say to yourself "Hey, the government really doesn't have any power over whether I keep my job, so I might as well vote for representatives who will uphold what I view to be traditional moral values"?).
-I think our real point of difference, though, is that I think many people vote more on personality than on issues. I sure do. but do note that 'personality' does probably involve more info re stance on social issues, moral values than re economic policies.
-Chaddog: I just don't think that people are as "dumb" as the media makes them out to me. No one is voting for Clinton because she's throwing back shots, and no one is voting for Obama because he can hoop it up or bowls horribly. And I really don't think Bush won because of a "I speak your language" persona. I think it had a lot to do with the perceived phoniness/weakness of his opposing candidates. I mean, let's face it - if Bye Bye Birdie is correct and "You Gotta Be Sincere" is the mantra for successful campaigns, Al "Alpha Male Today?" Gore and John "Voted For It Before I Voted Against It" Kerry don't scream out "sincerity."
It's not being "a man (or woman) of the people" that matters, it's being genuine, sincere, and at least superficially honest. well but the two are easily related ~ being of the people suggests being genuine. and seeming above suggests putting on false airs. Bill Clinton, say what you will about his honesty, always came across as sinceree."I feel your pain," indeed. Reagan was unapologetically sunny, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically conservative. Even this year, the more "sincere" or "genuine" candidate McCain won out over the somewhat polished but strangely artificial one on the Republican side, Romney.
The problem is .. Obama may be sincere and genuine, but he's had trouble making that connection,whether it was due to the fawning of the media at his eloquence, his Ivy educational background, or just the fact that voters are having to reassess their personal sincerity-meters due to the fact that they haven't dealt with a young African-American candidate before, I'll leave to the pundits and others to sort out. It's sincerity, not being "one of us", that voters are looking for.
-I would argue that most Americans want someone smarter than the typical citizen in the Oval Office. I think it's that our definition of 'smarter' may vary. To me, it means being well-read and well-informed, with the ability to select trustworthy advisors and the understanding that it is important to look at all sides of an issue and learn from your own & others' experiences. The ability to give a speech or press conference without butchering important words or phrases is good too. For this reason, I voted for Obama today. (Three months ago, it would never have occurred to me that my IN vote would count for anything.) But I realize others may value McCain's ample experience or Clinton's policy knowledge as contributing to their intellect. That being said, I think there is validity in the argument that people get distracted by the media's (or an opponenent's) caricature of a candidate, or of the issues. I want to have Chaggog's positive view of people very carefully weighing their options & selecting the candidate that best fits their beliefs-needs-positions, but I do feel that some voters focus on more trivial matters (like flag pins) and base their votes on those.
I have to say, this is a far more thoughtful and respectful debate than I have ever seen on Swampland...
-Shara Says: Ahhh, Tuned In, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and the children are all above average.
New York magazine columnist Kurt Andersen (who is like me a declared Obama voter) has had some great observations all this election season on the Democratic primary and how it reflects American culture. He has a new column this week about the "elitism" issue:
About That Crush on Obama: If Barack Obama Is Out of Touch With America, Is the Media Too? New York Magazine [115 comments]
Obama is educated, thoughtful, twigged to nuance, a lovely writer, well-traveled, witty, cool, dignified, candid, a little quixotic, a clued-in grown-up but not yet ruined by the ugly facts of Washington life.There's a great general insight here about politics and the media's internalized anti-intellectualism. In the eyes of the press, it's fine to be Ivy-educated and extremely smart—but only if you're willing to show the requisite shame for it by recognizing that you must pretend to be regular folks. Being smart, successful and highly educated and not trying to hide it: that's snobby.
The world depicted in the media is overwhelmingly a bright, shiny, upscale, youngish world. Uneducated white people, residents of the so-called C and D counties, and the elderly—Hillary Clinton voters—are seldom allowed into the mass-media foreground, and when they appear it’s usually as bathetic figures, victims or losers.
And working-class black pop culture is considered part of the sexy mainstream in a way that working-class white pop culture is not.
Certain journalistic stars these last few weeks , instead of copping to the “elitist” sensibilities they obviously share with Obama (and the Clintons and McCain)—we travel abroad and read books, we have healthy bank accounts and drink wine—reacted by parroting the Clinton campaign’s faux-populist talking points about Obama’s condescension toward the yokel class.
But pandering to the yokels, pretending to share their tastes and point of view? That goes pretty much unchallenged. If the wellborn New England Wasp George W. Bush could be successfully refashioned as a down-home rustic, why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton be talkin’ guns and drinkin’ Crown Royal shots and droppin’ all the g’s from her gerunds whenever she speaks extemporaneously these days?
comments
-Chaddog: The issue with Obama and Clinton is not that "it's fine to be Ivy-educated and extremely smart—but only if you're willing to show the requisite shame for it by recognizing, that you must pretend to be regular folks." I mean, no one really expects to run in to the Obamas riding the El or bus in Chicago on their way out to watch a NASCAR race at Chicagoland Speedway, or Hillary Clinton waiting in line at 4 am for the Walmart after Thanksgiving sale so she can grab a cheap television, while Bill heads out with the boys for some hunting. Rather, the issue is respect and genuineness. I wouldn't expect Clinton or Obama to be huge NASCAR fans, but I do expect them to respect the millions of NASCAR fans in this country. I don't expect to see them out doing shots of whiskey at a dive bar, but I do expect them to understand and respect the fact that doing the occasional boilermaker is real and fun for millions of Americans, and not look down their nose at it.
And as an Obama supporter, I guess that's why I find Clinton so off-putting: the pandering and shots and speaking from the bed of a pickup truck isn't Hillary "being one of us", but rather her pretending to be something she's not, and in the process demeaning it as beneath her. I don't get the same feel from Obama - he's still shooting hoops, which he did long before he was a candidate. Sure he went bowling, but he sucked, admitted it, and still said he had fun and had a few beers while he did it. Slight pandering, but no one (at least not me) was hurt because Obama never came in trying to be something (i.e. a good bowler who regularly frequented the alley in his neighborhood) that he was not. Nor did he insult or pander in regards to the millions of people that enjoy bowling.
Anyways, I think the issue is not "being what they're not" but rather Obama and Clinton actually respecting the genuine likes of people unlike them. It's amazing that the Democratic party has such a problem when the "multiculturalism" is drawn on class, rather than racial-religious-sexual preference lines.
-JamesP: @Chaddogg: There's actually nothing in your response I'd disagree with. I think the distinction here is that Andersen (and I in responding to them) are characterizing how the MEDIA judges candidates' handling of the "elitism" question you should act like regular folks or you are a snob, and you're talking about how, you know, actual voters with common sense see it you should respect us, and be real. I tend to agree with you, in that the typical voter probably does not care if a candidate bowls or does shots or hunts: they just don't want to feel looked down on themselves for doing it. But they way the press has covered this matter in the campaign is: Ah, she's drinking a shot and a beer! Well played! Oooh, he bowled a 37! Bad move! But he got four baskets in that pickup game! Nice recovery! etc. The political press covers the perceived effectiveness of the pander rather than the actual authenticity.
-Shara Says: @James and Chaddog - good points all around. I totally agree with Chaddog that Clinton's pandering is increasingly transparent, and increasingly insulting. Maybe I'm walking a strange line here: I'm a southern Knoxville girl who likes my whiskey straight up and wants my various uncles to have all the guns they want. I'm also politically progressive, I was raised by middle-class parents, both of whom were raised in poverty, and Mr. Shara Says and I barely break even most months. I have a strong appalachian accent, as well as degrees in politics and law. So what box do I fit in? Definitely not in Hilary's. She irritates the bejezus out of me with her fake accent and her fake photo ops and her fake sincerity and her manipulative catch phrases. On the other hand, Obama appears to be a dude who can handle dealing with real differences among people in a meaningful and significant way , which makes Hilary only look even more desperate to me.
So why is she suddenly gaining (some) ground, when everything she does and says is so obviously fake? My initial thought is that Hilary, with her pandering, is taking advantage of people who just don't know better. I wonder if the way I perceive her is colored by my political/legal education. But then my grandmother, who never got to go to high school, can take one look at Hilary and recognize insincerity a mile away.
My only reflection is that ... Obama looks at these different groups and offers to view them in context with everyone else. He offers to take their issues and find patterns & parallels to help them see connections (race, class, etc.) that they might not have perceived before, to help us face our demons and become better, as a society. But he does not offer them the comfort of remaining an isolated "other" hm who want NASCAR and guns and tradition and the rest of the world be damned. He wants to uplift everybody, and some people just don't want to be uplifted, because they're scared of change. hmm. Hilary offers to wear a flag pin and recognize -nay, emphasize- their "otherness" well their identity (I dunno if it's an identity of otherness ~though, okay, may be in opposition to highbrow snobs) in stereotypical ways, and, in doing so, she appears less threatening to their way of life. Maybe its obviously manipulative, but people are used to being manipulated by politicians. People are used to valence symbols being thrown around, used to hearing meaningless doublespeak, used to being skeptical of the Gub'ment. Maybe it sucks, but it sucks in a way that they are used to, and in a way that allows them to maintain their identity as an outsider. hm. Obama (in theory) offers something different than that, so people are waffling because they don't know if they really want to leave what is familiar territory for something new: something that would require them to re-evaluate their relationship with the rest of the country, and the rest of the world. And the politics of "hope" can also be scary for people who have had hope before, and seen what came of it: idealism takes courage and patience, especially when society has seen idealism beaten down time and time again by cynicism and partisan crap. Totally gets at the heart of the differences between the campaigns, and about how we are totally torn amongst ourselves about what path to take.
-I'm in the Jon Stewart camp of "elitism" in that I don't want a "regular Joe" to run the country. I want someone who is smarter, more ethical, and more sincere than most of the country and knows it.
-I fear that people are too threatened by those who are smarter than they, whether on the job or in the White House. Who knows--maybe they assume someone highly intelligent can't understand them or their needs? Pandering, right or wrong, nauseating or not, sure seems to work. While I admire Obama for trying to minimize his pandering (because he hasn't avoided it completely), I worry that it will hurt him in a general election. It's cynical, but it's how the game is played, as John McCain has clearly realized.
-Chaddog: See, the Stewart camp is the problem, in that they think Americans are NOT voting for the person who is smartest (in this case equating smarts with the person with the best ideas to lead America). Call this the "What's Wrong With Kansas?" insult. In the book (to paraphrase), the author states that conservatives have "blinded" rural and low-income voters such as the good people of Kansas to vote against their economic interest, which he arrogantly presumes is served best by liberal/Democratic economic policies, and for Republicans due to agreement on social issues i.e. pro-life, anti-gay rights, etc. good, good statement of the book's thesis. The central conceit of the entire argument is that twofold: one that these voters are voting against their economic interest (if anything, economics shows that by voting for smaller government-free trade-market competition they are voting FOR their interests intelligently yeah?), and two that it is somehow stupid or "wrong" to base your vote based on your personal moral judgments (for example, why is it "wrong" to say to yourself "Hey, the government really doesn't have any power over whether I keep my job, so I might as well vote for representatives who will uphold what I view to be traditional moral values"?).
-I think our real point of difference, though, is that I think many people vote more on personality than on issues. I sure do. but do note that 'personality' does probably involve more info re stance on social issues, moral values than re economic policies.
-Chaddog: I just don't think that people are as "dumb" as the media makes them out to me. No one is voting for Clinton because she's throwing back shots, and no one is voting for Obama because he can hoop it up or bowls horribly. And I really don't think Bush won because of a "I speak your language" persona. I think it had a lot to do with the perceived phoniness/weakness of his opposing candidates. I mean, let's face it - if Bye Bye Birdie is correct and "You Gotta Be Sincere" is the mantra for successful campaigns, Al "Alpha Male Today?" Gore and John "Voted For It Before I Voted Against It" Kerry don't scream out "sincerity."
It's not being "a man (or woman) of the people" that matters, it's being genuine, sincere, and at least superficially honest. well but the two are easily related ~ being of the people suggests being genuine. and seeming above suggests putting on false airs. Bill Clinton, say what you will about his honesty, always came across as sinceree."I feel your pain," indeed. Reagan was unapologetically sunny, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically conservative. Even this year, the more "sincere" or "genuine" candidate McCain won out over the somewhat polished but strangely artificial one on the Republican side, Romney.
The problem is .. Obama may be sincere and genuine, but he's had trouble making that connection,whether it was due to the fawning of the media at his eloquence, his Ivy educational background, or just the fact that voters are having to reassess their personal sincerity-meters due to the fact that they haven't dealt with a young African-American candidate before, I'll leave to the pundits and others to sort out. It's sincerity, not being "one of us", that voters are looking for.
-I would argue that most Americans want someone smarter than the typical citizen in the Oval Office. I think it's that our definition of 'smarter' may vary. To me, it means being well-read and well-informed, with the ability to select trustworthy advisors and the understanding that it is important to look at all sides of an issue and learn from your own & others' experiences. The ability to give a speech or press conference without butchering important words or phrases is good too. For this reason, I voted for Obama today. (Three months ago, it would never have occurred to me that my IN vote would count for anything.) But I realize others may value McCain's ample experience or Clinton's policy knowledge as contributing to their intellect. That being said, I think there is validity in the argument that people get distracted by the media's (or an opponenent's) caricature of a candidate, or of the issues. I want to have Chaggog's positive view of people very carefully weighing their options & selecting the candidate that best fits their beliefs-needs-positions, but I do feel that some voters focus on more trivial matters (like flag pins) and base their votes on those.
I have to say, this is a far more thoughtful and respectful debate than I have ever seen on Swampland...
-Shara Says: Ahhh, Tuned In, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and the children are all above average.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)