This post is about "Lost", so if you're not into it, no need to read on. I've been presenting my theory about what's going on, which is something along the lines of "Sixth Sense" meets Dante's "Divine Comedy" meets "Cast Away". I don't don't know if I'm right; time will tell. I'm not searching out any of the websites that are probably doing the same thing I'm doing–I don't have the time for that. I'm just connecting the dots that the writers have laid out as best I can.
I'm interested to do so because I am intrigued by the way the show's writers work with both Eastern and Western relgious ideas and symbols. It's an example of what I've bee calling retrieval and fusion, which in my opinion is the crux of the postmodern spiritual challenge. Where they go with this might in the long run disappoint me, but so far they've got me hooked.
I like the way they are playing with ideas about the ambiguity of good and evil and how the two interpenetrate. For instance, it's clear that the writers want the audience to see the Others as bad guys. I've been arguing that, in fact, they are agents of divine justice and that they seem evil from the point of view of human beings deluded by their fear, aggression, and need for control. From the point of view of the human being tortured by demons in Dante's Inferno, the demons are fearsome, evil beings. From another perspective you could argue that they are agents meting out karmic punishments as determined by the evil choices made in the human sufferer's life.
In Dante or Breughe–or in the hells described by the Tibetan Buddhists–are the demons agents of pure evil or are they the obedient agents of dharma or divine law? They have a nasty job, but somebody's got to do it. The clues about the dharmic role of the Others are found everywhere on the doors and hatches of the structures they have built. Could Ethan and the other Others be understood that way? It's an interesting ambiguity.
The way the writers play with the ambiguity of good and evil and the interpenetration of light and darkness is what got me hooked in the first place. That's what gives the show its intrigue. It could be that I'm overestimating what I think the writers are trying to do and that I will be let down with some cliche culmination, but all the signs point to something else going on here.
But in the meanwhile there are a number of questions that I'm very curious to learn the answers:
- Why do the others have such an interest in the children? Is it because they are fundamentally innocent? Will Michael show up again? Has he been reunited with Walt? It's sure that's a story line that will reappear at some time in the future.
- What relationship does Danielle's abducted daughter, Alexandra, have to the Others? Her helping Claire to escape before giving birth to Aaron suggests that she is a subversive in their midst. Does that make her good or bad? That's another storyline with a future.
- Why did Locke collude in the torture of Henry? HIs doing so seemed completely out of character and at odds with his attitude to the Others. He seems to be suffering a crisis of his faith in the fundamental goodness of the island, which seemed to have been his contrarian understanding of it. Henry, it would seem, is going to present a major test for Locke. He's going to be Locke's demon.
- Why did Eko confess his killing of the two Others to Henry? Is it an indicator that Eko sees Henry as a representative of the island's dharma?
We'll see. I've read somewhere that the writers have this plotted out for the first five years.
Leave a Reply