Here's Why I'm Not Approaching The 'Lost' Finale With A List Of Demands

Chardee MacDennis

Very good article about the answers some people want

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/05/20/127009457/here-s-why-i-m-not-approaching-the-lost-finale-with-a-list-of-demands?sc=nl&cc=msb-20100520 wrote:

Back when I wrote about the marvelously daunting task that had been taken on by the producers of Lost — who had spun such a complex story with so many mysteries that it was literally not possible that they could resolve all of them — one of the things I was dreading was the inevitable outbreak of lists of all the things that had never been resolved. It was clear from the beginning that those who specialize in being perpetually unsatisfied with absolutely everything would find the end of Lost to be their 32-ounce porterhouse steak; it would be a feast of "Well, that was a disappointment," and "Well, there's six years of my life I'll never get back," and "Well, that certainly made sense, NOT."

That's why it's been depressing to read things like the io9 list of 50 Questions Lost Really Does Have To Answer. Now, I like io9 a lot (they are not the perpetually unsatisfied, to be clear), and I know that they come from a purer geek place (in the good way) than I do. But on this list, you will find things like:

What was with those Egyptian symbols that appeared in the Hatch when the countdown went past 108 minutes? That didn't seem like the Dharma Initiative's style.

And:

It seems like everyone who was a passenger on Oceanic 815 has numerous connections that they don't even know about. Like Jack and Claire being half-siblings, and Sawyer's ex-girlfriend helping Kate confront her mom. What caused this excessive degree of synchronicity?

These are exactly the questions I don't care about and I don't need answers to. The Egyptian symbols? Whatever. Maybe there's a meaningful reason, but maybe there isn't.

Here's one of the things about mysteries: not everything is a clue. If you went to the headquarters of a company and you were trying to solve a murder, you would find a few things related to the murder, but you would also find lots of isolated, noteworthy things that aren't related to the murder. That's because the building exists outside the murder occurring. The building wasn't built just to house the murder.

To me, some of the trick of Lost has been that some things are important and some things aren't. Not everything they dropped in there is a key element to the ultimate solution of the mystery. And that doesn't bother me at all, because that's part of constructing a convincing universe. It would be utterly phony to portray a Dharma Initiative that managed to exist for years as a functioning business/community/conspiracy with a large population of participants, but left behind nothing that wasn't directly related to Oceanic 815 and its journey.

Does this approach allow the people who write the show a little bit of wiggle room, and allow them to get out of things that might originally have been envisioned as meaningful, but now just turn out to be blind alleys? Of course. But it also respects the fact that when you solve a real mystery, there are blind alleys. There are things that don't mean anything. Haven't you ever watched Law & Order?

And then there's the "synchronicity" question. How would that synchronicity possibly be explained in a way that would be satisfying? Isn't it clear by now that in the presence of whatever that power source on the island is, things kinda happen? Isn't that what makes it a power source? Isn't that what makes it relevant? Why would it be helpful, or enjoyable, or a better story, if you had a technical explanation of exactly how that power operates to pull people to each other?

There comes a point where you are asking for the midichlorians, is what I'm saying.

If you weren't ready for some things to be inconsistent with the world you know — if you weren't ready for the idea that synchronicity might just be — then I cannot understand how you stayed on board after they introduced a sentient monster made from smoke. Yes, they eventually explained "who" the smoke monster is, but does that qualify as an explanation? "He can turn himself into smoke that can grab things and kill people." So we're done now? That's an adequate explanation? Why isn't the next question, "Why can he transform himself into smoke?"

Does the way I'm approaching this show require the acceptance of unanswered questions? Of course. But so does every other story.

What would draw Rhett Butler to Scarlett O'Hara when she's so spoiled and insufferable?

How exactly did Jay Gatsby's psyche work?

How likely is it, really, that Ahab would have found Moby Dick?

Why was Cinderella's stepmother so mean?

Every story builds in elements that are unknowable. Every story constructs a world in which certain truths exist without explanation. Not to get too sweeping-orchestral-theme-music about it, but truly, this is the frailty of the human condition, isn't it? Do you consistently understand why your boss or your spouse or your ex or your parents behave as they do? Of course not; you can gain understanding, but at some point, your universe contains mysteries.

And that's the sense in which Lost works allegorically, for me. I'm interested in bafflement and struggle and confusion about what's the right thing to do. I'm interested in sacrifice and loss. I'm interested in devotion and loyalty and pondering other ways things might have worked out. All those elements of the storytelling work fine as a sort of grander mythology, because obstacles exist, whether or not I understand why or how those obstacles got there. As long as those obstacles are demonstrated to be there, and as long as they stand between a character I care about and an comprehensible goal, I really don't have to have the details.

To use another analogy, I get Sisyphus — I understand the point of that story — without knowing exactly how high the mountain was or exactly how heavy the rock was, and without a better explanation for his plight than "the gods made him do it." If I can posit that all-powerful gods exist as the backdrop of a story, I can posit a pool of light.

That's why the most important thing to me, by far, is the human beings who are involved in this story. My heavens, if they could have spent the last season wrapping up explanations for things like the Egyptian symbols or demonstrating how all this is affecting the people in the story, I am enormously glad they are spending so much of it on character.

I don't know exactly why drinking a cup of water would make Jack be like Jacob, but I have been watching Jack for six seasons, and his resignation to that fate — and his awe at his own transformation — was adequately affecting anyway, because it's Jack, and I get Jack.

Similarly: how, exactly, the bomb did or did not bring about changes in the timeline was far less important to me than the changes in Sawyer after Juliet died. Or "died," or half-died, or partially died, or died in one version of events, I do not care, because to Sawyer, she died, and it was a character story.

I certainly hope that people who have enjoyed this show for six seasons aren't going to retroactively decide that all their time was wasted because the finale didn't satisfy them by answering an adequate number of questions. It was interesting that Damon Lindelof happened upon the same metaphor in an interview yesterday that I once used to describe showrunners myself: they are driving the bus, and you've got to give them the benefit of the doubt and at least give them a shot at showing you where they've been going all this time.

And that's how I'm heading into Sunday's finale. I'm leaning back in my seat, I'm relaxing, and I'm assuming that I'm in good hands, because I have been so far.

Overature

good read, i want to know what the numbers mean, 4 8 etc

jimbling

Yep, good read and is the same as my approach to the show over the last while.
I defend lost in a lot of posts not because I think the writers have done everything right, or because I think its the best show ever!! no, I do it because I want other people to just enjoy it for what it is.

Overature wrote: »

good read, i want to know what the numbers mean, 4 8 etc

Well, technically you already do.
4 = John Locke
8 = Reyes
etc

Overature

jimbling wrote: »

Yep, good read and is the same as my approach to the show over the last while.
I defend lost in a lot of posts not because I think the writers have done everything right, or because I think its the best show ever!! no, I do it because I want other people to just enjoy it for what it is.



Well, technically you already do.
4 = John Locke
8 = Reyes
etc

are they the number of people on the list for who is to be a candidate for looking after the island?

smcgiff

Seems to me this is the submission of an early defence for not looking like a fool for following a series for six years that promised a fantastic reveal but turned out to be an emperor with no clothes.

I really loved the first series, but rapidly lost interest once the second series started.

The followers of the series used to ponder every nuance of the series amongst themselves around the water cooler, and deserve not to have been lead up the garden path.

I'll still tune in for the final double episode, and maybe just maybe I'll find out I should have kept with it.

randomchild

smcgiff wrote: »

Seems to me this is the submission of an early defence for not looking like a fool for following a series for six years that promised a fantastic reveal but turned out to be an emperor with no clothes.

I really loved the first series, but rapidly lost interest once the second series started.

The followers of the series used to ponder every nuance of the series amongst themselves around the water cooler, and deserve not to have been lead up the garden path.

I'll still tune in for the final double episode, and maybe just maybe I'll find out I should have kept with it.

I enjoyed the show for the enticing plot, great characters and awesome dialogue. If I wanted a load of clues/questions that lead to al tied into an ultimate great truth I would have read a taut murder mystery. I thing if people would stop getting disappointed over what Lost is not and embrace it for what it is, and they might actually start liking the show instead of waiting around to post about how smart you were for ceasing to follow it upon its conclusion/ how it never lived up to what they thought it was going to be.

Mr.Nice Guy

Very poor article imo.

Basically it's saying even though they had plenty of time to resolve core mysteries and either didn't bother doing so, or made a hash of it with rushed and sloppy explanations, it's no big deal. Well I don't accept that. However some people will just defend them regardless and I have come to accept that.

smcgiff

randomchild wrote: »

I thing if people would stop getting disappointed over what Lost is not and embrace it for what it is, and they might actually start liking the show instead of waiting around to post about how smart you were for ceasing to follow it upon its conclusion/ how it never lived up to what they thought it was going to be.

Jaysus give over it's only a tv series, and not the holy of holies beyond criticism - Unless it has a decent ending it'll be forgotten about in a few years time.

rgmartin91

randomchild wrote: »

I enjoyed the show for the enticing plot, great characters and awesome dialogue. If I wanted a load of clues/questions that lead to al tied into an ultimate great truth I would have read a taut murder mystery.

If you wanted an enticing plot, great characters and awesome dialogue you should have watched The Wire. Lost had an enticing plot, some great characters but the dialogue was pretty poor I thought.

What separated Lost from all of the other castaway stories was all the mystery that surrounded it - the polar bears, smoke thing etc. Things that don't make sense. So people are entitled to answers because that is the main reason why people started watching it.

sceptre

rgmartin91 wrote: »

What separated Lost from all of the other castaway stories was all the mystery that surrounded it - the polar bears, smoke thing etc. Things that don't make sense. So people are entitled to answers because that is the main reason why people started watching it.

*Calling David Lynch to a mystery mopup in aisle 4! David Lynch, aisle 4*

"Entitled" is a bit demanding. I haven't watched the show since season 1 but might pick it up again at some point. It's one thing to make a mental note in a popcorn flick that an early point made of a dead zone for mobile phones is going to be important in the final resolution, it's another to require all little clues and/or red herrings in what sold itself as a sophisticated series be wrapped up. I obviously mentioned David Lynch deliberately and yes, that's a nod to Twin Peaks. Using one of the cutaway props in the early seasons of Lost, Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman has virtually no resolution at all, basically comes full circle and has an answer of sorts to the reason why it does so but has no resolution of the smaller points but I wouldn't say the book is any the lesser for that. Sometimes to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive - or the joy is in the journey. You're not going to get everything wrapped up in a neat little package I suspect. An ontological or bootstrap paradox might be the neatest finish, although that'll satisfy virtually no-one.

Liber8or

If people broke down, interpretated, disseminated and analysed every bit of the Bible (just like they do with LOST), I wonder what type of world we would live in right now...

smcgiff

Liber8or wrote: »

If people broke down, interpretated, disseminated and analysed every bit of the Bible (just like they do with LOST), I wonder what type of world we would live in right now...

A secular one?!?

Mr.Nice Guy

sceptre wrote: »

*Calling David Lynch to a mystery mopup in aisle 4! David Lynch, aisle 4*

"Entitled" is a bit demanding. I haven't watched the show since season 1 but might pick it up again at some point. It's one thing to make a mental note in a popcorn flick that an early point made of a dead zone for mobile phones is going to be important in the final resolution, it's another to require all little clues and/or red herrings in what sold itself as a sophisticated series be wrapped up. I obviously mentioned David Lynch deliberately and yes, that's a nod to Twin Peaks. Using one of the cutaway props in the early seasons of Lost, Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman has virtually no resolution at all, basically comes full circle and has an answer of sorts to the reason why it does so but has no resolution of the smaller points but I wouldn't say the book is any the lesser for that. Sometimes to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive - or the joy is in the journey. You're not going to get everything wrapped up in a neat little package I suspect. An ontological or bootstrap paradox might be the neatest finish, although that'll satisfy virtually no-one.

I take your point but a key difference here is the writers of Lost provided an ongoing commentary on their own series and were often posing questions via podcasts, interviews etc. In my opinion they are partly to blame for the huge expectations on their shoulders.

dudeitshurley

Did Jimbling write this article?!

I'm just going to pick 1 piece out of it to illustrate my feelings in the whole piece:


"And then there's the "synchronicity" question. How would that synchronicity possibly be explained in a way that would be satisfying? Isn't it clear by now that in the presence of whatever that power source on the island is, things kinda happen? Isn't that what makes it a power source? Isn't that what makes it relevant? Why would it be helpful, or enjoyable, or a better story, if you had a technical explanation of exactly how that power operates to pull people to each other?"


The "synchronicity" he/she talks about relates to how all the main characters, especially in s1, have overlapping/interconnectivity in their pasts. How on earth can you imply a "power source" introduced 3 episodes from the conclusion of a 6-season show is somehow responsbile for "pulling people to each other" off-island in their past? It makes no coherent sense on any level.

When Jacob has his bonfire chat about candidates, i was hoping for reasoning that made this specific group of people we've grown to care about special. That they had all touched each others lives directly or indirectly in the past and were always destined to be the 'candidates' to come to the island. Instead we're given an unfulfilling spiel about how their lives weren't exactly peachy and he didn't pluck them from happy home to come to the island. Well, great!!

For me, it's not about answering mysteries or demanding explanations. It's not about even about various characters on the journey whose story is unfulfilling. It's pretty simple: when you frame a show with major plotpoints as the spine of the show, all i want is coherence. So when they spend seasons building things like Dharma, like the importance of not being able to have children on the island, like events that cause people to travel through time and neatly back again - all i want is a coherent telling of these tales to the conclusion.

The Finale itself may go a considerable way in doing so. But i doubt it. Why? Because the path they have taken is to set it up as an action-based, Flocke v Jack duel. For the life of me i can't see how Dharma can be addressed now, it's a dead duck. The how, when, why of Time Travel. Dead Duck. The concept of having babies on the island, and what makes them special, seemingly a Dead Duck. More to the point attempting to discuss these themes in the Finale will be very out of sync with the narrative unfolding.

In Across The Sea, when the pregnant woman came marching up the beach to give birth i really got my hopes up that it would be symbolic. That because Jacob was born on the Island and became Protector, that somehow Aaron would share a similar significance. In 1 swoop it would have given resolution and credence to a storyline that was given such high importance. Again, i just fail to see how they can address such a theme in the finale.

It's frustrating. When all is said and done, brilliant show, but what we are left with is not so much a coherent, magical story but an incoherent, magical collection of loosely-related stories, each of which have a strong start and middle and basically an unsatisfying end. The End itself on sunday night may well be satisfying, i know it will be a brilliant piece of television but in totality it's going to resemble a glued-together broken vase, not as pretty as you once thought it was.

EKRIUQ

To me they just copped out with the answers and just made the show more interesting by putting all these mysteries in that they had no intentention of sloving.

smcgiff

EKRIUQ wrote: »

To me they just copped out with the answers and just made the show more interesting by putting all these mysteries in that they had no intentention of sloving.

Bear in mind also they tacked on a number of series because of how popular the first series was and the alarm bells should start ringing.

gustavo

smcgiff wrote: »

Bear in mind also they tacked on a number of series because of how popular the first series was and the alarm bells should start ringing.

Well that's just not true

smcgiff

gustavo wrote: »

Well that's just not true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(TV_series)

'Together, Abrams and Lindelof also created a series "bible", and conceived and detailed the major mythological ideas and plot points for an ideal four to five season run for the show'

After series one characters from the series talked about the length of the series going from an expected four series to the then expected 7 series. It finally ended up at 6. That's still two more than originally envisaged, and a lot more mysteries required to keep it going.