Screw it, I’m posting the whole thing: Lost Debate [television]

By: Y · January 21, 2009

ATTENTION: MASSIVE SPOILERS

We did this quite some time ago, in anticipation of the Lost Season 5 premiere today. It’s really, really long. I could have broken it up, but this isn’t the thing that people are sitting somewhere anticipating. If you are significantly interested in Lost, it will be good. If you aren’t interested in Lost, go read a review of a romantic comedy or something.

Y: Hello everyone, and welcome to the Lost debate. In preparation for the upcoming season 5 of Lost, we’ll have a series of arguments about the merits of the show and its overall quality. I’m Y, the moderator of this discussion. Even though I am a fan of the show, I feel I am in a unique position to moderate this discussion as I am the only one here who isn’t an extremist for one side or the other. I will strive as much as possible to make this a legitimate discussion, and not dissolve into E and Grimbil just making ad hom attacks against each other or insane geek snarkiness, though I am certain that’s where it will end. On the affirmative side, LD and E will be in favor of the show, while SN, Grimbil, and N8 will be negating its quality. As I have no idea what JC thinks, he is welcome to join either side, or make color commentary as we go along. Because of the odd numbers, the negative will go first. Then we will alternate between negative and affirmative until each person has written. I will then ask a series of questions to each side. SN, Grimbil, N8, choose amongst yourselves as to who goes first.

Grimbil: How about this: Nothing happens. Ok, stuff does happen, but over the course of 22 episodes in a season, you get about 3 hours of stuff happening. Look, lots of camera cuts and people yelling at each other with ominous music in the background does not make a good TV series.

LD: The thing is, Lost is its own creature. There are shows that excel at character (Battlestar Galactica), shows that survive on plot (24), and shows that survive on weird shit happening (at this point, really just Lost, but I’ll say Twin Peaks). While it doesn’t always fire on all cylinders, it’s always firing on one. I think the real issue over Lost’s quality is the viewer’s willingness to believe that the story being told is part of a greater whole. If you believe that there’s a payoff to come, whether a metaphorical payoff (it was all about Bush’s America!) or a plot based one (I knew that Dharma Shark was behind it all along!), then you can go along with the show’s ride, because all of the little oddities add up. If you believe that it’s all a bunch of crap being thrown at the wall, then you’re not going to agree.

However, I think the “nothing ever happens” argument is long since out the window. Season four moved like lightning. Outside of just doing a summary of the story, I’m not sure how they could have moved faster.

SN: I’m willing to watch, say, a disconnected movie to see if it all comes together in the end. But to follow a show for 5 years with blind faith? Fuck that. Admit it: it doesn’t make any sense. Its like continuing the fight in Nam just because its gone on so long. Just cut your losses already.

E: But I don’t see how that’s any different than playing a video game or reading a comic book for a while and giving it the benefit of the doubt that it will come together in some sort of satisfying way. We aren’t people who think the show is philosophy or RELIGION, it’s entertainment, and damn good at it. If you guys STUCK with the show as much as we had, you’d see that it does begin to make sense of some of the things people were like “guh?” about before.

Plus, Brian K. Vaughan is guiding the ship, people! DO YOU HAVE NO FAITH IN GOD?!!??!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!?!?

LD: I’ll take a different tact and say that it’s not as though the show never concludes its arcs in miniature. It solves little mysteries and gives us great character arcs, but the bigger stuff remains out on the horizon. Yeah, there is stuff that doesn’t make sense, I’ll grant you that. Maybe it never will.

At the same time, when the show pays off, it fucking PAYS OFF. There was a moment last season where a love story between two characters finally reached its climax that was probably the best moment of character work I’ve ever seen on network television. Plus, pretty much everything that Ben Linus has ever been involved in is great.

Grimbil: I can’t take it on blind faith that things will somehow magically resolve themselves and everything will be answered. There is NO WAY the writers thought shit up so far in advance. Admit it, they’re making the shit up as they go along, which means that when it finally comes to end the show, things will NOT wrap up neatly. I predict some JR isn’t really dead / BS dream sequence when the writers finally throw their hands up in despair and bail on the show. Did you not learn your lesson from X-Files? They didn’t expect it to be so successful and suddenly realized they had to make up some crazy ass shit to keep people watching. It’s off the deep end.

E: They’ve said from the start it had a five season story arc. With the writer’s strike and shortened seasons, it’s staying to that, and to date, i think the only major change they’ve had to make along the way was with Eko’s character b/c the actor didn’t want to play the role anymore, right?

LD: But, they have an end date. Even if they we’re making it up, they’ve got Vaughan (who is the best at this), Grillo-Marxuach, Cuse, and Lindelof all working on it. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them get David Fury back in the long run. These guys can tie things together even if they were making it up at one point. There’s no trudging forward forever like you had to deal with on the X-Files.

There were a few other changes (Ana Lucia, the curly haired girl, and the two new characters who didn’t take), but that’s something you’ll always have, even if there is a plan.

I think if there’s any knock against lost, it’s that it’s pretentious and sometimes clumsily so. Christian Shepherd! Jeremy Bentham! John Locke! Jacob loves you!

N8: I love the explanation: if you had watched it for as long as we had, you would like it! For your convenience, I have pasted a portion of the Wikipedia introduction to cognitive dissonance below:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one’s behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1]social psychology Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories.

Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, having watched years of a senselessly meandering show and confronting the reality that the show is meaningless and meandering, an individual may reduce cognitive dissonance by altering their attitude (since past behavior is difficult to alter) concerning the quality of the program.

I would also add that my criticism of Lost is not only that nothing happens but also that very little happens in the present tense. The narrative is so fragmented with flash backs and flash forwards that it’s hard to know when and if anyone is actually confronting a strange abandoned alien concrete tube. I’m not sure why you’d care about the alien tube, since you spend more time in a flash back of your rough childhood and multi-layered pre-crash history with all of the people who happened to survive with you on the island, but as a viewer, I tend to be better entertained by shows that make sense. Anyone can think outside the box and come up with weird deus ex machinas (enter the motor boat pirates!) to move a story along, but I admit that if all of Lost is coming together into some brilliant bow, I was not willing to stick it out that long.

To be fair, I’m reluctant to criticize a show when I have not seen every episode. But what I did see was not a world where I had reason to believe the hand of a godly writer was operating. It was a dark chaotic Nietszchian world that seemed ruled primarily by the gravity of ratings stunts designed to keep people who had stuck with it through the first season and into the second distracted enough to keep from noticing that the Emperor doesn’t have any clothes.

LD: Your cognitive dissonance argument is meaningless. It assumes a motivation that’s not there. It basically amounts to “Surely, since I don’t enjoy lost, the millions of people who make it one of the highest-rated shows on television and among the best selling season DVD sets are secret masochists!”

The more entertaining part of your argument is attempting to assume that our greater knowledge of the show somehow makes us less qualified to discuss it. I mean, appeal to authority is a weak argument tactic in matters of opinion, but I don’t think that implies that an appeal to utter lack of authority is therefore legitimized. Other examples of this debating style:

“Yes, I realize you’ve spent the last decade of your career researching superstring theory. That’s why I, who haven’t studied it, am more capable of telling you that it’s garbage.”

“All your knowledge of the antebellum interstate trade has biased your opinions on the causes of the civil war. As someone who fast forwarded through Gettysburg, allow me to tell you the real story.”

You’re the chief in the cop movie who says “You’re too close to this one!” and demands that the officer hand in his badge. Not coincidentally, that chief is always wrong.

I have no idea what the alien tube and motor boat pirates are, so I’m assuming you just created examples? Not trying to be snarky, but I can’t rebut them from the text of the show itself.

It’s funny that you should mention the flashbacks and flash-forwards as hurting the narrative of the show, since I think that’s the wrong perspective from which to look at them. What’s happening on the island has been revealed to be no more important than what happened before the crash or what happens after. Instead of prelude and prologue, we’re viewing three points in time in the same story. Initially, the flashbacks primarily served to flesh out characters about whom we knew very little. But, over time they’ve become much richer, and in the last season or so, they’ve become integral to the plot.

Finally, I find your claim that Lost is a Nietzschean world kind of hard to swallow.

To begin with, the primary philosophical question behind Lost is that of fate versus free will, and idea so starkly opposed to Nietzsche’s philosophy that it brings the entire accusation into question.

There’s also the fact that Christianity plays a significant role on the show. Take for instance, that the leader of the “good guys” is named Shepherd. Or that the false priest, Mr. Eko, was killed by the island moments after refusing to atone for his sins. Or the concept of Aaron, the messianic baby. Christianity runs deep in Lost and it’s not superficial. There has been the suggestion that the hand of God is at play in the show (though there are opposing viewpoints as well). I think that’s pretty flagrantly non-Nietzschean.

Still, the best refutation of the point is that the show consistently rewards characters who demonstrate slave morality and punishes the ubermenschen who exhibit a will to power. Desmond was willing to sacrifice his life to win the woman he loved, DID sacrifice his life for the safety of strangers by condemning himself to an eternity in the hatch (from which he was spared), and routinely risked himself to save Charlie’s life. As a result, he was reunited with Penny. By contract Ben Linus and Widmore are constantly seeking power, and their lives are nothing but trauma. Ben lost his connection to his god, lost his followers, lost his daughter, and ultimately lost the island, the last thing he loved. Widmore’s daughter has directly turned against him and he can’t sleep without being drunk on whiskey due to his nightmares.

Lost is about fate versus free will. Lost is about the fact that we have to learn from our mistakes or we will suffer. It’s an heir to the dualities and “nothing ever ends” questions raised by Watchmen. It’s an heir to the magical realism movement. There’s a lot of meat on the show’s bones. If it doesn’t appeal to you, that’s all well and good. But, it’s not just crap being thrown at the wall.

Grimbil: I just threw up a little in my mouth.

N8: Likewise. But I will credit LD with the line-by-line argumentation. First, I watched the show in the first season. I do not claim absolute lack of knowledge, although I would make allowance for those of you who have seen much more of the show. You know it better. But, I don’t believe that having only seen 7 hours worth of episodes instead of 60 makes me utterly unqualified to discuss the merits of the elements of the show. I discuss 90 minute movies all the time. And if I leave a horrible one after 60, I think my thoughts on the first 60 are probably useful to others as a warning.

Second, I don’t want to side-track us with cognitive dissonance. I was being snarky to throw that into the mix. But for the sake of clarity that I didn’t provide before, I think you misunderstand the theory, which is that people experience unpleasant tension when they notice that their behavior and attitudes are inconsistent, making adjustments to one or the other to alleviate the tension. Cognitive dissonance does not prove that Lost is a bad show, but it may explain why people who have watched it for years defend it with such passion, because the behavior of watching a show for years and not thinking the show is very good would create dissonance. Because this argument is not related to the merits of the show itself but only a side comment about the passion with which Lost defenders defend their show, I apologize for side-tracking us.

Third, the reference to Nietschze was a suggestion that the world lack authorial design. The author is dead was the suggestion I was attempting to make because I simply saw no evidence of a grand design or the hand of an authorial god, to refer back to the metaphor I was trying (badly) to play with. The show felt forced from the beginning, drawing on devices such as the flash-back to fill so much of the episode that nothing actually occurred in the present a lot of the time. To me, that wasn’t terribly entertaining.

Fourth, to move the discussion to what I think may be more related to the core of my lack of interest in sticking with the show: I was not entertained by it. Why? For a start, it had serious plausibility issues. Granted, for a show like Gilligan’s Island, a coconut radio can be camp, and it’s lack of realism isn’t relevant. But Lost expects you to care about the characters and believe in the world it creates but then — it seemed to me — manipulates that world in a manner which seemed arbitrary rather than elegant to me. No one example captures that fully, so I am reluctant to use one, because I think it’s the sum of the whole.

However, are there polar bears on this island in addition to several groups of stranded folks and an underground 1980s station built by free-thinking scientists? Maybe the point is this: you seem to love that this show is transparently symbolic, naming its characters Jack and Rousseau and staging battles between forces of faith and science, etc. To me, that seemed forced. It wasn’t a bad survival story when that was the story, but when it morphed into this other Twin Peaks pop-intellectualized hodgepodge, I jumped ship, so to speak.

E: My brain hurts.

Lawzt iz zo awezum. ZOMG! SMOAK MAWNZTURR!

[ed. note: We’re all worried about E’s attention span. It’s very short.]

Y: For the affirmative, isn’t it a problem that there are some things left from the first season, or early on, that are still totally unexplained (smoke monster, the statue/foot thing)? Aside from the surprisingly in-depth discussion of the big-picture view of the show, isn’t there some concern that some of these things will go completely unexplained. I think Grimbil draws an extremely apt comparison with the X-Files. I loved the X-Files, but eventually had to stop watching it, because the large, overall plot was never explained or propelled forward in any significant way. Thoughts on that?

E: I never watched the X-Files. So I can’t really comment on that comparison. Plus, Grimbil is stupid.

The way the show has gone lately, it required a significant amount of character development, which the show spent the better part of two and a half seasons doing and is now moving in the direction of explaining things like SPOILER!!!!!! time on the island, the activities of the Dharma Initiative, and Penny and Desmond’s importance to the overall story. For those who only watched the first two seasons saying nothing happened, well…of course nothing happened, we had to understand who these people were before getting into the why’s of the secrets. If we didn’t know shit about Desmond, would “The Constant” have been such an effective episode? If we didn’t have the FULL tragic backstory of Locke, would it have mattered about Bentham’s fate? Same with Claire, and Jack’s father, and Hugo and the numbers. I mean, there’s a lot of complaint that it doesn’t go anywhere, but it’s just doing it in a very slow, deliberate way. And there’s a subjective argument to be made about how well it’s doing that.

I have full faith that the smoke monster, the numbers, etc…will all be explained. Will they be satisfying? Honestly, I doubt it. But they’re definitely pushing towards some kind of resolution.

LD: The numbers have been explained, actually.

As for Season one’s mysteries, let’s take a look at what we have:
The smoke monster (which we understand to a degree now, what we lack is a creation story and a means for its creation)
The others (explained)
What caused the plane to crash (explained)
The Black Rock (mostly explained)
Rousseau (explained)
The Polar Bears (explained)
The Hatch (explained)
The Plane (explained)
What happened to Rose’s husband (explained)
What’s up with Walt (unexplained, but clearly a focal point of the upcoming season)
Why Christian’s casket was empty (partially unexplained, but an explanation has been alluded to)
and the big one…Adam and Eve (at this point, probably the endgame)

And N8, it’s not the flagrant symbolism that I like. I actually think it’s the show’s weakest point. It’s that, in spite of that, the show remains intelligent and does great work with the characters.

E hit the nail on the head by talking about Locke: Forget the fact that the island healed him. That’s window dressing. We’ve seen how his abandonment and inadequacy issues have shaped his life to date. How the trials he’s faced in life have led to a series of bad decisions that shaped the character on the show. We’ve seen firsthand how he simultaneously needs a father figure and wants to be seen as a father figure. And now we know that, once again, he’s going to be found wanting when the chips are down. That’s heartbreaking. If he was just the grizzled old survivalist we knew in the beginning of season one, he’d be an archetype. Now it’s safe to say that there’s nobody quite like him on TV.

I think the suspension of disbelief argument you’re making is a tough one to see through to any conclusion, though that doesn’t render it invalid. Like, I said earlier, though Lost has some sci-fi, it’s essentially a work of magical realism. Just like a small village in 100 Years of Solitude has flying carpets, ghosts and prophets, Lost’s island is filled with magic. Whether or not it resonates with you isn’t something to be measured qualitatively. I’m reminded of your post on vampire chick lit. I find those conceits inherently uninteresting, but that’s not to say I don’t recognize that there’s something there. It’s just that it’s not something that fascinates me. I could sit here and shit all over Wagner’s operas for not engaging me, but that doesn’t mean they’re not brilliant.

Y: Well, you make an interesting point, but how do you know that it’s magical realism? The show seems to convey a sense that it is all based on science, and/or personal delusions. If magical realism is explaining away these questions, then where does the value lie? There’s a problem…solved by magic! (Also, while there is some explanation for things on the island, the list of unanswered questions is very, very long in my opinion. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but I think that this point could support the negative’s argument). And for the negative, do you think that there is necessarily a need for the plot to progress quickly given the serial nature of the show? It seems to be driven on just a little bit of explanation each week. Why should a show punish patience?

LD: As far as the magical realism point goes, I can’t say 100% that it’s magic, but I think all the indicators are there. Science has a hard time explaining an invisible man who can attack you (Jacob), how to reincarnate the dead (Christian), how to be immortal (Richard Alpert), or how to teleport an entire damn island without creating an enormous Tsunami (teleporting the island without creating an enormous tsunami). While I grant you that they could come up with some B.S. science to support this (I mean, we’ve all enjoyed shows with faster than light travel, right?) it’s still just magic. The world these characters live is more extreme than our own, and those extremes are used to examine the characters.

I know there are a lot of mysteries still out there, my point is that they’re rolling mysteries. We’ve solved a huge number of them, and there are more outstanding. But, it’s not as though the questions raised during season one are still the most pressing on the show. I mean, how many times did we see the monster in season 4. Maybe twice? I can only recall one time, and that was when it was under Ben’s control.

N8: I think we’re getting close to something. Magical realism cannot be a cover to arbitrary plot solutions. To pick up on a thread here, it’s much more important to my evaluation/enjoyment of a show for it to provide interesting/plausible/novel explanations to its mysteries than to simply provide some explanation for that. When an explanation doesn’t grow organically out of what’s come before, it’s not really that interesting to most people. Imagine a mystery novel of twelve people on a train, the lights go out, and one of them has a knife in his chest. After hundreds of pages of red herrings and theories for who among the 11 did it, if you find out in the last chapter that it was a fucking time-traveling alien, you’re going to be pissed. Or at least I would be, because a mystery isn’t just about a solution — it’s about how you get there. I also think I have a slightly different understanding or concept (not necessarily more right than yours) of what magical realism is. But I think that’s a side-track, and I’m guilty of too many already. (I touched on how fiction can get at the real, which is related in some ways to magical realism, though distinct, I think, in my World War Z post).

Y: [I should mention that at this point, Season 4 had been overly spoiled for me (Penny and Desmond get together? The smoke monster is back and controlled by Ben? Ben and Widmore have a contract? THEY MOVED THE ISLAND???). But I figured that might happen going into this. I should also clarify that given what I’ve seen so far, moving the island does not seem to be that crazy of an idea. I was just surprised that it goes there.]

N8: See, just from reading this, I feel like Lost is silly (which maybe isn’t fair). Moved the island? Are you fucking serious? Is the island a giant turtle? Is the island made of cotton candy? That would be magical, but not realism… What I fail to see N8, is how you draw the conclusion that we’ve got a time-traveling space alien here. In fact, it seems to me that we got all our time-traveling space aliens out long ago, and now we’re dealing with their ramifications on the characters caught in their path.

The monster is largely irrelevant. The polar bears haven’t been seen in years. The hatches are mostly useless. We’ve got four factions: Ben Linus, the Others, Widmore, and the Castaways. Ben and Widmore are fighting to see who possesses the island, we’re unsure about what exactly the others want (but they’re a breand new faction without Ben), and the Castaways, who just want to be free of everyone else. The “mysteries” are just the MacGuffin.

LD: But, that’s just it…all you’re seeing is the 10,000 foot explanation, without the specifics. I’ll admit that I found the moving of the island to be a bit absurd, but given what we know about the island, it’s not particularly implausible.

N8: Here is where I will freely admit I don’t know whether that’s true or not. I jumped from the show when it presented and seemed likely to continue to present time-traveling space aliens to spice things up. If they are mostly in the show’s past, maybe it has improved. I suppose I am just explaining that I decided not to stick with a show that seemed subjectively to be headed in that direction. There were probably other reasons it didn’t grab me during the first season, but I think that’s a big one.

LD: Agreed. And it’ll seem less crazy after season 4 (which is worth if for more than the broad stroke spoilers you’ve gotten).

N8: Sure. Moving the island – by itself – isn’t implausible. But you have to add that to LD’s list of implausible items, in my view. Polar bears AND moving islands AND weird scientist cults building hatches AND the others AND… that’s where the show falls apart for me. Testing my ability to accept what it throws at the viewer.

E: Guys is it so unbelievable that in season 3, Ludacris guest stars and is all like “MOVE BITCH! GET OUT THE WAY! GET OUT THE WAY, BITCH, GET OUT THE WAY!” thereby unlocking the island’s secret password to awaken the luck dragon to move the island to the other side of the ocean? You act like this is all MAGIC and shit. This is science.

[ed. note: See?]

I don’t get why it’s so hard to buy. It’s a mythology that isn’t established in history, but it’s the same mythology as vampires or futuristic robots or whatever.

LD: The polar bears were brought by the Dharma Initiative. That’s just the text of the show.

The weird scientist cult is a bunch of smart hippies from the university of Michigan who wanted to study the energy that the island puts out.

I don’t find either of those implausible

N8: The “energy”? You mean the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the heartbeat of the giant turtle? [ed. note: Bonus Discworld reference!]
I’m not saying that you can’t offer an explanation for any aspect of a fictional story. But you don’t agree that the more aspects of a show that require explanation, the harder it is for the fantasy to cohere? Nothing implausible about bring a polar bear to the island, agreed. So why does the show put it in there? What precisely did the smart hippies want to do with it? Where did they get their funding for a multi-million dollar project on a remote island?

I’m sure all of these things can be explained. I could explain a story that starts with a sex-ed conversation between LD and a talking goat, three aliens, and a waffle iron, but if it takes me 60 episodes to get to that explanation, while my readers/viewers spend most of their time wondering WTF while I keep throwing new random oddities in there to explain when I run out of the ones I started with, then I feel like it’s more of a trick than anything else. I’m not entertained merely by resolution; it’s got to be interesting along the way. You guys seem to find it interesting, but I think you can see why someone else wouldn’t. LD: We’re not the ones arguing in makes it “bad” that is does. And yes, we can explain the multi-million dollar funding really easily. In fact, it was given in the same episode in which the introduced the group of scientists.

The issue here is that you’re begging for explanations from entertainment you don’t like, whereas you don’t ask the same of entertainment you do like.

Take a Tauren. Are their joints TRULY built to handle the stresses of bipedal movement? You don’t know, and therefore, the World of Warcraft is total bullshit! Also, their spinal column doesn’t allow for a full horizontal axis of cranial movement, yet the game doesn’t penalize you for that. I mean, what the hell, is anyone even paying attention? Oh, and some characters can just cast magic while other can’t! Why is that? It’s never explained, so I can hardly interest myself in the story of the game when there are so many holes.

E: This is becoming too geeky for me. A guy who wrote to an anime magazine to correct their mistake.

N8: I think one obvious difference is that Lost doesn’t abandon most of the rules of reality. It expects you to keep all of your assumptions about who the world operates but then seems to violate those assumptions and create “explanations.” Obviously there’s no “realism” in a video game or chess or checkers. But they don’t ask for it. Lost does ask for it but lacks the “realism” part you need for magical realism, laughing at you all the while. But that’s just me.

LD: I’m curious as to what you see magical realism to be. We’re working from very different places, I think.

N8: It’s a term that comes out of Latin American lit, including Gabriel Marcia-Marquez whom you mentioned, in which the world is primarily realistic but has overtones or moments of unreality. I’m not an expert, so let’s use the definition of Franz Rom, who I just learned introduced the term and defined it as a work that “is anchored in everyday reality, but has overtones of fantasy or wonder.” Wikipedia also says this about it, which is relevant to our discussion: Roh used this term to describe painting which signaled a return to realism after expressionism’s extravagances which sought to redesign objects to reveal the spirits of those objects.

I often think of Pan’s Labyrinth in this context. There is a very stark backdrop of realism and the protagonist retreats into magical moments between moments of realism. Lost is not of this ilk, from what I have seen of it. There is a backdrop of realism with tortured attempts at explanation. It is significant that a magical realist is usually using magic or fantasy to illuminate or expand upon the sensual feeling or drama of the story and it often seems to have a psychological element (e.g. it only happens to one person or through the retelling of one person).

That hearkens back to the original use of the term by Rom to describe visual art, where the spirit within was captured — and even made more real, I might say — by magic. Lost offers explanations that are supposed to float in the real world for most of these mysteries, as you have already articulated. That’s not magical realism. It’s realism. It’s just arguably poorly constructed narrative realism.

SN: The giant turtle thing was already done (well) in Golden Axe, for the record. Also ,the show Lost is retarded. The plot line of “I’m stuck on an island and random shit happens and some of it is explained and some isn’t” doesn’t work for me. And for the record, even Tom Hanks as a FedEx employee stranded alone got off his island in 4 years.

E: Um, alone? What about Wilson?

LD: Amateur…the Lost people were only there like 6 months.

N8: Some of there were there for 16 years, thought, right? Tom Hanks kicks their asses. I hope he shows up in season 5 to fight the Others.

E: You’re thinking of that Gilligan’s island episode.

SN: Whatever, the point being the show is 5 years old. Wilson was the shit. Word is, he became king of the sea after falling off the raft

Y: We’re getting off topic. Is there anything more to be said?

SN: Were gonna need a bigger boa. [1 minute later]

Were gonna need a bigger boat.

E: I liked the thought of needing a bigger boa.

SN: Maybe a bigger python.


[and as always, we end here, with a whimper, and with no conclusion]

Filed under: All,TV

Comments

2 Responses to “Screw it, I’m posting the whole thing: Lost Debate [television]”
  1. N8 says:

    Discussions like this one make me wonder how any of us are still employed. Also can’t help be think that anonymity saves lives here. Some of you LOST fans are rabid. Thanks for editing, Y.

  2. e-roc says:

    I can’t watch LOST. It makes me nauseous.

Leave a Reply