Killer Instinct

on

Okay go ahead. Try to change the things you hate the most about yourself. You can do it!

Unless you were on that whole Oceanic 815 thing. In that case, don’t bother. Because try as you might to escape your demons (by running to the Dominican Republic to do good deeds, by denouncing your homicidal ways, by promising never to trust anyone again, etc.), the Island will always find them, and bring them back to you for a face-to-face meeting.

Don’t believe me? Ask Mr. Sayid Jarrah. Because last night's whirlwind of "He's Our You" offering was so chock-full with mythology-shaking events, self-referential nuance and musical and literary references, I'm gonna go with a scene-by-scene recap, just to make sure we catch everything...

11 Secret Herbs and Spices Short of a Bucket
How long has Sayid been a cold, quiet killer? Quite a while, according to the opening scene. In it, young Sayid offs a clucker as a substitute act of manhood for his weak older brother. This scene served mainly to set up the rest of Sayid’s assassin storyline, but I thought it marked another interesting parallel: Eko. As in Mr. Eko. As a child, Eko killed an unarmed, innocent village elder so his brother Yemi wouldn’t have to. Thus, Eko becomes the killer and Yemi becomes the priest. I wonder if there’s some tie-in here, an implication that murderous anti-heroes like Eko and Sayid were never supposed to become what they did, but that by intervening in fate, they were forced into a lifestyle they hated.


Sayidwich
Once again, Sayid is served a sandwich by the young, wannabe Hostile Ben Linus. And once again, a tome from the Dharma Book Club made a brief appearance. This week’s selection: A Separate Reality by Carlos Castaneda, who was a self-proclaimed shaman (communicator with the spirit world) in South America. In A Separate Reality, Castaneda and his controversial tutor, Don Juan Matus, get wasted on some plant extract (Hello, John Locke’s secret recipe!) in an attempt to, "perceive energy directly as it flows through the universe.”

So good was this book, that young Ben read it twice. Why? Because, unable to intrinsically feel a communion with the Island due to his mere, unimportant mortality, Ben tries to learn it in a book. And like Linus, Castaneda’s teachings and claims were beloved by his devotees, and questioned as madness by his dissenters. Methinks I’ve got a new book to read.

But aside from chicken salad sandwiches and tales of South American Shamanism, Ben asks Sayid about his hostile leader, Richard, and inquires as to whether Sayid is there to recover him. It is here that Sayid sees his opening – his “purpose” as he later describes it – and that steely cold look in his eye is foreboding, to be sure.

Another One Bites the Dust
Next up, another tubby middle eastern man falls victim to the unholy alliance between Sayid and Ben. This is technically a “flashback,” when compared to the Young-Ben-and-Sayid-in-prison scenes. Of course, those prison scenes occur in 1977 while this one occurs in 2005ish. Confused? Don’t be.

Here’s what I think the point of the Sayid and Ben Linus Murder Club flashbacks were all about: foreshadowing a role reversal. In 2005, Ben Linus manipulated Sayid by getting him to murder his enemies with the threat that his friends were in danger. Three years later, Sayid (and Jack, Kate, et al.) travel back in time to 1977, where Sayid meets the younger version of his puppet-master nemesis. But this time, Sayid wants to be the one pulling the strings. The contrasting scenes – where the two men traded off holding all the cards in different eras – were a nice new twist on the old flashback technique. It wasn’t the most exciting storytelling ever (“Oh wow, Sayid killed another guy and Ben’s a dick in a stupid hat. Never saw that coming.”) but I liked the juxtaposition of power plays between the two.

I’ll Bring Home the Turkey if You Bring Home the Bacon
Back to Jim LaFleur and his bacon-burning significant Other, Juliet, playing house in Dharmaville. Apart from the ever-dramatic love rhombus of Juliet, Sawyer, Jack and Kate, there’s a nice point in here made regarding Sayid: what if he tells? Juliet knows that if the Dharma Initiative gets the truth out of Sayid, they’ll find out about LaFleur, herself, Miles and Jin; and the jig will be up. It’s interesting how settled and content the four Left-Behinders have become in their new roles. And interesting how all they wanted when Locke left was for the Oceanic Six to come back. Careful what you wish for.

Before the LaFleur’s can prognosticate about Sayid’s loose tongue, Horace pays a visit. And because Horace is incapable of bearing good news, we learn about the ominous Oldham, the “psychopath” who Horace believes can get the truth out of Sayid. LaFleur’s face said it all, here. Oldham is bad news (and as we learn later, crazy news). Sawyer storms down to the Dharma jail to warn Sayid. But we see quickly during this contentious meeting that Sayid plans to do things his own way, no matter the cost. Oh how history doth repeat itself on this Island.

Hurley is Funny
“They’re together. Like they live together, you know, not as roommates. You know, ‘together,’ like you guys were? I thought it was kinda obvious. I mean, who couldn’t see that coming?”
That’s really all that needs to be said about this scene. Brilliant.


Awkward Family Moment
Welcome back, Uncle Rico! Napoleon Dynamite’s bastard uncle and Ben Linus’ bastard father made a return appearance last night, taunting Sayid with threats of Oldham’s depravity. When young Ben enters with (yet another!) sandwich for Sayid, Roger the Workman goes ballistic, slamming Ben into the prison bars. While child abuse is always sick and disturbing, it was interesting watching Ben (albeit 13-year-old-Ben) squirm. He still hadn’t learned how to emit that façade of toughness.

At this point, I’d like to credit Dharma Blog viewer and Dharma Blog Lost Party regular (he’s devoted) Jeff H. with the joke of the night. After Roger threw the tray of food at the wall, Jeff noted, “Now he’s gonna have to clean that up.” Nice.

Baby Come Back to Me
In the Dominican Republic, we see Ben visiting Sayid with much the same purpose that Locke did: to get Sayid to come back. Of course, Locke shot Sayid straight while Ben manipulated him and dangled the “your friends are in danger” carrot. But what else is new? Nothing ground-breaking here, but we get a little further glimpse of how Sayid got roped back into Ben Linus’ Wild Ride. And while it’s easier to cheer for John Locke than Ben Linus, you have to admit: Ben’s much more persuasive. “You’re a killer, Sayid.” That scathing quote would stick with Sayid, it turns out.

He’s Their Him
Finally, we meet the titular He from last night’s episode when the Dharma gang drags Sayid out into the jungle for his long-awaited encounter with Mr. Oldham (Fun note, Charlie and Liam's band, Drive Shaft, got their start at a bar on Oldham St. in Manchester!). Dude. They were not kidding about what a sick bastard this guy was. I half expected him to tell Sayid that, “It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again,” or maybe to refer to Hurley as, “a great big fat person.” This guy oozed creepiness in a way that makes Ben Linus look like a big, cuddly teddy bear.Second multimedia sidenote. In addition to the book Sayid received in jail, he was privy to Oldham’s choice of music upon arriving: an Ink Spots song called “I Can’t Give You Anything But Love (Baby).” which includes the line, "Dream a while, scheme a while; You're sure to find happiness and I guess; All those things you've always pined for…” Indeed, Sayid’s about to dream a while.

So we learned this fun fact: The Dharma Initiative has truth serum! And it is administered by Mr. Oldham, whose sideways, disheveled countenance and low, drawly, subdued speech pattern perfectly accompany his persona. The truth serum works on Sayid, who spills the beans about his entire story, including the stuff that hasn’t happened yet. Luckily for Sayid, it sounds as crazy to Oldham and Horace as I do when I try to describe this show to the uninitiated. “I’m from the future, and you’re all gonna die!” Yeah sure, whack job. The Dharma folk weren’t buying it, and that bought Sayid a little time.

Women: Can’t Trust ‘em and They Make You Buy ‘em Expensive Scotch
We then cut to the bar, where Sayid is downing the hard stuff like a Shepherd man on a bender. And what’s he drinking? MacCutcheon Scotch, the very same scotch that Charles Widmore uses to explain to Desmond that he’ll never be a great man. And the same scotch that Charlie, Hurley and Desmond get sloppy on before Desmond reveals his precognitive secrets to Charlie on the beach. Must be some good stuff. Especially for $120/glass.

And who should join Sayid at the bar, but his eventual captor Ilana. We know her from the Ajira 316 flight, and here we see how she seduced Sayid. Turns out, she’s a bounty hunter working for the man who Sayid killed in that amazing golf course scene last season. Or so she says. I still think she’s got a more important boss (read: Ben, Hawking or Widmore). She pulls the old “Let’s get naked and – just kidding I’m an assassin” maneuver, and delivers Sayid to Ajira 316, where the appearance of the rest of the Oceanic Six + Ben gives Sayid an even bigger knot in his stomach.

Grease Monkeys
I hate going to the mechanic. I always feel like I’m getting ripped off. But show me the Jiffy Lube where Kate and Juliet are working side by side, and they can replace all the made-up parts they want. I’ll pay whatever they ask. Jackpot.

The Democratic Process
Much like the Others held a trial for Juliet, we see their rivals, the Dharma Initiative, holding a trial for Sayid. After some back and forth about the dangers of their captor, Amy chimes in with a Helen Lovejoy, "Won’t somebody please think of the children,” moment, and the vote is “unanimously” cast to take out Sayid.

I thought this scene was a cool reflection on cultural misunderstandings. The whole thing mirrored Juliet’s Trial by Others, where paranoia carried the day and the culprit was sentenced harshly. Despite Dharma’s seemingly benevolent and just societal norms (“Yes, we are (civilized). We have a rule of law,” said Horace), they’re just as susceptible to the same fearful, paranoid savagery as their barbaric, “Hostile” enemies.


I Found My Special Purpose

Yes, that section heading is a quote from The Jerk. You’re welcome.

But seriously, the more I think about (and watch) the final unfolding of “He’s Our You,” the more I like it. Sayid calmly tells Sawyer to quit interfering and let him carry out his purpose. Soon, we see that his purpose involved using an unmanned, flaming Dharma Van used to create a distraction.

Let’s cut to the good stuff here. Sayid and Ben cut each other a deal. Ben would help free Sayid, if Sayid would take Ben back to the Hostiles. Ben could hold up his end of this deal. But Sayid never intended to.

Freed from the Dharma prison, Sayid and Ben begin their escape back to Hostile territory. But when Jin intervenes, Sayid realizes that the time is now for his master plan. He knocks Jin out to prevent any interference. And then, in the heart-wrenchingly reluctant murder to end all heart-wrenchingly reluctant murders, Sayid pulls the trigger on Benjamin Linus, after telling him, “You were right about me. I am a killer.”


What it All Means
This one is big. The implications here are pretty huge. And I think we’re all probably asking ourselves the same question: if, in 2007, Sayid went back to 1977 and killed 13-year-old Ben Linus, what happens to the Ben who is existing in 2007?

And make no mistake: I think Ben’s dead. I don’t think the writers would drop that bombshell on us and make us wait a week, only to say, “Oh man, just kidding! It’s a puncture wound! Close one, though, right?!” That would anger the masses.

A few thoughts are thumb-wrestling in my suddenly incapable brain.

1. Whatever happened, happened. The Faraday mantra. If we’re to believe this, then either Ben isn’t dead (again, this is unlikely) or the things that Ben does that significantly contribute to the events from 1977-2007 are going to need to be accomplished by someone else. Somebody else will have to Purge Dharma. Someone else will lead the Hostiles to prosperity. Someone else will build the Swan Station. Someone else will bring in a fertility doctor. In this instance, the universe is course-correcting for Ben’s death to ensure that all the necessary things happen to create the future that Fate wants.

OR

2. This changes everything. This is the anti-Faraday mantra. Ben Linus is dead, and the things he does and says and effects from 1977-2007 will cease to exist and transpire. If this is the case, is there an alternate future created by a world in which those actions don’t happen? For instance, if Ben carved his name on a tree in 1980, is there an alternate future now where that tree remains un-carved, because Ben is murdered in 1977? And if so, is that alternate future where Frank and Sun are?

OR

3. Could fate somehow resurrect Ben Linus so that he may do what he needs to do? I think it could – either as a living, breathing person, or... as a ghost. Could this, in some way, explain Christian and Claire? This is my grand theory of the night (forgive me, it’s late and I’m out of MacCutcheon’s Scotch).

If people are killed before they’re supposed to die (“supposed to” according to fate), they are allowed to continue to exist in an in-between state. While in that state, they are required to fulfill and complete the “milestones” of fate’s master plan that they were assigned. So in this example, Christian died in that bender before he did what fate required of him: to get Jack to the Island, to get Michael to redeem himself, to get Locke to turn the wheel, etc. So until Christian completes these assignments, he’s held captive in a not-quite-living-or-dead state.

This would seem to support some very long-held LOST theories about death. Boone, Shannon, Eko and many others only died once they had battled and made peace with their demons. Michael, Jack and (arguably) Locke were not allowed to kill themselves until they went back and dealt with theirs. But maybe, if the Island can’t prevent someone from physically dying (a freak heart attack in Christian’s case, a vicious muder in Young Ben’s), they require those people to continue their existence in a paranormal state, guiding others along fate’s preferred course.


Crazy, I know. Please feel free to pick it apart in the comments, and offer your own two cents. It's late, so I’m not going to pretend to grasp every subtlety and solve every mystery right now. But I’d love to know what you think about my “Ghosts Doing Fate’s Bidding” theory, the “Whatever Happened, Happened” mantra or the “Oh Shit, Sayid Screwed Up Everything,” idea.

Oh, and if it helps… the next two episodes are titled, “Whatever Happened, Happened” and “Dead is Dead.” So have fun with that one.

Namaste.
Charlie

24 Snarky Comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I can't believe that Ben is dead until I see him officially dead. I'm still going with "whatever happened, happened," and, much like Michael, I think "the island won't let him die."

Of course, all that goes out the window if he is dead, which personally would upset me a lot more than if he isn't. I mean, this show has pretty much been preaching "whatever happened, happened," (Faraday and Pierre Chang both have said this, and of course Hawking's "course correction fits this, and Desmond couldn't stop Charlie from dying), so if Ben is dead it would be like Lost saying, "Just kidding, you really can change the past!" That would infuriate me, and make me feel like Lost has just been jerking me around.

We shall see...

Charlie said...

Okay, getting some heat for my Ben theory from several fronts. For the record, I'd be SHOCKED if he's just "dead." I repeat: we have not seen the end of Ben Linus. My main question is, *how* will he exist moving forward? How will fate intervene to keep him active? What state will he be in? Will he retain all his memories from his now significantly-altered childhood?

These are the mysteries we'll have to watch play out over the next few weeks. But I didn't leave last night with a sense of finality for Ben. As we've heard so many times, he's got work to do. And Fate won't let that work go uncompleted.

maggie said...

Charlie, even though you are my constant and my you, I think you’re absolutely, completely, and totally wrong about Ben.

The one adage that has been pounded into our heads over and over again throughout season 5 is "whatever happened, happened.” This means that Ben will grow up to lead the Purge, will toy with our 815 survivors, will bring the O6 back to the Island, and will generally terrify both of us at night when we can’t sleep. Your theory is that Sayid shooting Ben totally breaks that rule and changes the future. So immediately post-episode last night, I sorta agreed with you…that this scene meant that the space-time continuum has torn apart and Hawking’s end of the world scenario was near. But then, I remembered that the rules also says that only special people (Desmond or Faraday) can carry out huge fate-changing events like this. Which led me to wonder…does that mean Sayid is ALSO special?

AHHH! Must! Stop! Thinking!

But then I realized it would only mean these things if Ben was really dead. And even though you pointed out that an upcoming episode is called “Dead is Dead,” Charlie: there's no way that Ben is REALLY dead. I’m serious. Or even if he is, he will totally come back to life next week (think Locke when Ben shot him into the Dharma Grave, or when Locke came back to the island).

Ben can’t die. He has work to do. And even though you postulated that his death will mean someone else has to step up and do the work, I just really disagree. If Faraday was wrong and anyone can change the past…then who’s to say that the survivors won’t prevent the future deaths of Charlie, Boone, & Shannon (a dream come true for you, huh?), prevent the Purge, save the world, and live happily ever after. (Note: I say there is no way in heck this will happen. The writers are too smart…and that would just be too much.)

So on this train of thought. Last night gave us a pretty plausible reason for why Richard/the Others accepted young Dharma Ben as their leader: he survived a deadly gunshot (we can agree that Sayid has great aim, right?), thanks to fate and/or whatever happened, happened. “But the Others don't know that,” you say? Fair enough. All the Others will see is that Ben’s gunshot-survival means he is pretty special…very similar to their feelings about Locke after he foretold his island-arrival 50 years before it really happened. So, what if the Others have picked two wrong leaders thanks to the actions of the time traveling of the survivors?! No freaking wonder they are falling out of favor with the island…

On a different topic, there is another thing I want to bring up…Illana. Okay, she might just be an awesome liar…or unknowing pawn in Ben’s wild schemes. But, for now, I think Ilana really is just an naive bounty hunter (oxymoron, no?), not (1) a former Other, OR (2) an off-Island henchman for Ben (sidenote: I learned the word ‘henchman’ from watching Carmen Sandiego as a kid!). So was it coincidence or fate that Sayid ended up on Ajira 316?

(Crap, I just thought of something. What if Ben paid Illana off, pretending to be the family for one of Sayid's victims? Damn you, Ben.)

Also, I’m starting to worry for Sayid's life since they basically filled in nearly every gap in his storyline…not to mention Sayid seems to think that he just completed his purpose for returning to the Island (“killing” Ben).

Okay, I think that's it.

bret welstead said...

I'll take "Course Correction" for $500, Alex.

Initially, I would agree with Batman, but my reasons are more real-world-related than LOST-mythology-related. Ben has been key to the plot. And his death scene last night was surprisingly low key. True, they led up to it well: Ben's basically responsible for his own death in a number of ways that we should have seen coming. But I think that if he were really dead, they would have built it up more. It would be a mistake for the directors and writers of LOST to let go such a key character in such a lame (IMHO) way. That was my thought, anyway, before reading this blog post.

But now I'm thinking a couple of things. 1) Ghost Ben would be a lot creepier than Living Ben. You might be on to something with the "dead men can walk, and talk, and live in cabins" idea. That way Ben is still in the story, his character still plays a key and devious role in the plot, he still has a means of fulfilling his purpose (if he has one... keep reading), only now he can walk through walls and rattle chains. 2) I'd like to see how the LOST universe course-corrects. Who will step in as Ben's proxy in all of the events of his life? The Purge? His leadership of the Others? His imprisonment and infiltration of the Losties? His adoption of Alex?

But an alternative thought: Ben, especially last season, was passed over and tossed aside by the island. Locke became the new leader of the Others and Ben was banished from the island. His chance had passed, and the island -- or the universe or fate or whatever -- decided to move on. But Ben wasn't ready for that. Hence, he did everything in his power to return the O6 and himself to the island. He's trying to change "what happened." And when he finally gets back to the island, we find him trapped with Locke and the Aijira survivors, powerless to stop Sayid from fulfilling his purpose.

Ben says, "The island is wrong, I belong there." The island's response? Put the pieces in place to kill Ben before he grows up. MAYBE we'll see course-correction in the coming episodes, but MAYBE we just saw the course-correction. Maybe Ben no longer has a purpose, so the island is removing him.

On a side note, this looks a lot like a theological debate between two schools of thought in Christian denominations: Calvinism and Arminianism. How much of what happens in LOST comes from individual choice, and how much is already decided by "fate"?

On another side note, whether intended to parallel the media references in the episode or not, your blog today cracked me up. References to Steve Martin, Napoleon Dynamite, Weezer, Queen, Silence of the Lambs, AND The Simpsons. Awesome.

bret welstead said...

I took a long time to post that last one, and Charlie and Maggie got in there first, but let me reiterate my idea, partly in defense of Charlie and the "dead is dead" theory.

Maybe Ben dying IS the course-correction. Maybe it was supposed to be Locke all along. And maybe now it will be.

Anonymous said...

"Will he retain all his memories from his now significantly-altered childhood?"

I quoted this part of your post because I guess this is where I fundamentally disagree. You see, I don't think that Ben's childhood has been altered at all. Going by what Faraday said, about moving back and forth on the string, our Losties have just moved backward on the string, but to Ben and the Dharma people, well they are just at their place on the string. Sayid shooting Ben didn't change anything, because that's exactly what happened to Ben as a child. Ben is shot as a child, survives, and goes on to survive the purge and become the Ben that we all know and love (or love to hate).

Now obviously, if he's dead then I'm completely wrong, and Faraday will be proven wrong as well. Does any of this make sense? Or am I just confusing everyone?

Charlie said...

Batman - My disagreement is that Ben wasn't originally shot as a child (that we know of). His true journey on the string didn't include getting shot by a time-traveling Iraqi. So it has to change something about him, right?

Anonymous said...

Charlie - Right, and that's what I disagree with. I think he WAS originally shot as a child.

Here's an example. When Locke was born, Richard Alpert was mysteriously standing outside his hospital room. We didn't know why. But later we found out that Locke told Richard when and where he was born. So Richard knew to visit Locke's birth because Locke told him to in the past. That's how it happened.

Another example: Sawyer and Juliet save Horace's wife (can't think of her name right now) from certain death at the hands of the Hostiles. Without them she's dead, doesn't marry Horace, and there is no baby Ethan to grow into creepy older Ethan.

So the Losties time travelling caused Richard to visit Locke as a baby, and also caused Ethan's birth. Their interfering brought about events later that already happened.

So the way I understand it, Ben gets shot as a kid, survives, and grows up to be the leader of the Others. That's exactly how it all happened. Perhaps, as Maggie suggested, Ben surviving the bullet leads Richard to believe that he is to be their leader after all. All I know is, I can't wait to see where this goes the next few weeks.

Charlie said...

Ahhh, very interesting, Batman! I like that theory a lot. It's kinda trippy. They have to go back and ensure that whatever has already happened, happens.

But Bret's theory about Ben Linus being destined to die is interesting, too. I don't know if it works, since we've seen Ben alive well into his 40s. But Maybe HE is the cause of all the bad things that have happened, and to course correct for those things (which weren't supposed to happen), fate sent Sayid back to kill Ben. Sayid and Fate's purpose were one in the same: Stop Benjamin Linus.

Two good theories, guys. Keep 'em coming!

Anonymous said...

I have to admit, I really like Bert's idea of the universe course correcting to eliminate Ben. I like it a lot. Wow, I can't wait to see where they go with this.

Amy Hensley said...

Anybody else think maybe Ben is going "Doc Brown" on us? Back to the Future was about time travel and while Doc said he didn't want to read the letter from Marty because it would upset the facts about the future, he read it anyway, wore the bulletproof vest and survived the gunfire from the terrorists. Could Ben be wearing a bulletproof vest?

bret welstead said...

Amy:

Great Scott!

Anonymous said...

Ethan, Ben and everyone else on the island lived their entire lives without any interaction from 815ers. Right? Maybe Ben was shot by someone else. Maybe Ethan's hot Mom was saved by someone eles. Course correction could include placing 815ers in place of other people. Life goes on the same, but different. Wow, I really hate it when people say that, I'm sorry. But it applies here.

What Lost showed us when Richard watched Locke's birth was an alternate past (well future to Richard) Locke was obviously born without Richard watching, the "first" time.

`A`

Anonymous said...

"What Lost showed us when Richard watched Locke's birth was an alternate past (well future to Richard) Locke was obviously born without Richard watching, the "first" time."

This is what I disagree with. I don't think there is an "alternate" past, or a "first" time. It happened how it happened. Locke was only born once, and Richard was there to see it. Why? Because when Locke grew up he went back to before he was born and told Richard to visit him. It's all the same string, but Locke's actions early in the string affected Richard's actions later. Of course, Locke was only able to affect Richard because he time-travelled; without the time traveling, Locke never sees Richard before he was born, and Richard never visits Locke in the hospital. But all of that is irrelevant because it did happen.

Charlie said...

Batman - I'm with you on this one. I like the idea of there being one timeline, which our characters can intermittently travel to different points within to affect the one, singular timeline.

Anonymous said...

Batman, from your understanding... was Sawyer always posted up in the bushes watching Aaron being born? It happened once... we didn't see the exact seen... but Sawyer was obviously on the island the "first" time. The second time he witnessed the birth.
`A`

Anonymous said...

Yes, that's how I view it, he was always there, it was just a Sawyer from a different time. The "present" Sawyer was bouncing around in time with the rest of the Losties. He happened to bounce to the time of Aaron's birth. The Sawyer from Aaron's birth time was wherever on the island, doing whatever he was doing (was he helping Jack trying to save Boone? I can't remember), and the "present" Sawyer was in the bushes a few feet away. So theoritically he could have walked up to Kate and said hi, but we know that when Claire was giving birth, Sawyer did not say hi. And when given the opportunity, Sawyer in the bushes, the "present" Sawyer, passed.

Locke of course had that the opportunity to visit himself at the hatch, but he too passed, for different reasons.

The point is that however something went down, that's how it happened. That's how the Losties are able to interract with the the Dharma people in the 70s and not technically be changing anything. That's just how it happened. There are no first or second times through, there are no alternate timelines. There is only one string, and you can move forward or backward on it, but you can't create a new string, to borrow Faraday's words.

Sorry if this isn't making any sense, but this what I believe Faraday meant with "whatever happened, happened." Also, when asked if he was going to kill Hitler, Pierre Chang said, "Don't be absurd, there are rules," which I understand to mean that you couldn't go back and kill Hitler if you wanted to, because you can't create an alternate timeline.

I think Lost has established a certain set of time travel rules, and it's quite different from what we've seen in things like "Back to the Future," but if I understand it correctly they are following the shows internal logic. I think Charlie gets what I'm trying to say, maybe he can explain it a little better than I can. I can't even get my co-workers to understand what I'm talking about.

Anonymous said...

Batman- What you're describing sounds more like a (hippie) circle... than a line. I just don't believe that last night when Sayid shot "Biotch Youngster Ben" in the present... that it actually happened in the past. It happened when it happened. Not in the past, past referring to Current Ben's past. I can agree that Ben got shot (one way or another) when he was young. But I think someone else pulled the trigger. Maybe Smokey. He seems kinda gangsta.

`A`

Anonymous said...

It's not a circle, it was young Ben's present. If someone else shot Ben when he was young, then Sawyer shooting him would be an entirely different timeline, a new thread. But Faraday says that you can't make a new thread, if you believe Faraday (which I clearly do).

To the people living in the Dharma Initiative, it's their present, in the 70s. To our time travellers, it's their past. They've gone back on the line. I think at some point they will be "course corrected" and jump back to their time, their actual present which is late 2007/early 2008. My guess is Sun and Lapidus will have something to do with it, maybe Locke, too.

el_kin said...

I agree with Charlie's las post. I think there's only one timeline that is affected by the characters decisions made at ANY point.

Katie said...

I'm on team Batman. As far as we know we've seen the "present" through the eyes of the ocianic 815 crew and traveled through their timeline. Now that their future (post crash/island) has intersected with the dharma/others past we're seeing a different perspective of time and history. Remember that were always tracing the story of the O815ers and everything else has been revealed in relation to their own realtime discovery. Also all the crazy time shifting, possible future changing things are occuring on crazy raising the dead/cancer healing/paralysis fixing/baby and preggo mom killing island. Can't wait for more answers and new questions next week!

bret welstead said...

This is heavy.

See, this is what I'm talking about: is there any room for personal choice in the LOST universe that you're describing? If what you're saying is correct, and maybe it is, then there are no choices that the characters ever have to make: fate and time is totally fixed. Their choices are made. Sayid didn't choose to kill Ben, he just did what fate compelled him to do.

In the Matrix we saw some of this. During the second film Neo asks the Oracle a series of questions about fate, choice, and the reality of either. Later he's antagonized by the "Merrill-Lynchian" and then the Architect along the same lines. And that's a central point of the movie: is there such a thing as choice? Or is it all decided already, and we're "understanding the choices" as the Oracle puts it there? If I'm hearing Batman correctly, he's raising the point that everything is fixed. There is
no alternate timeline, no changes in what happened.

To me, that's not too exciting. What is exciting is the prospect that some events (Dharma initiative, Frenchies, Losties) have happened that are veering the universe off course. As in, if this keeps up we're heading for some sort of cataclysmic paradox that will mean the universe imploding on itself and tomorrow never existing... UNLESS, that is, the Losties can put the pieces together in time to "course-correct" this line of events and get everything back to the way it was.

In that case, Faraday would need to qualify his previous statement of "what happened, happened..." with the addendum of "...and if it didn't happen then POP goes the universe."

I guess time will tell. Or has told.

Justin said...

First time poster...

I don't usually think that far ahead with my theories and just leave that to the rest of you. I do enjoy reading the various theories though. I'm more of a "isolate a single event and analyze it" type of guy.

I tend to agree with Batman that there is only one "string" that the timeline sits on, though it could be possible that a select few people can alter it. The following is assuming that the timeline is intact. Things that happened, happened.

Some thoughts I was think relating to the issue of future Locke possibly being the reason that the past Locke arrived to the island on flight 815...

I don't believe it's possible.

If he was the mitigating factor, it would seem to create a circle of events in which it's not possible to escape from or to enter. If Richard was a factor in Locke going to the island, and Locke was a factor in Richard going to see Locke when he was young, it would seem to create a paradox. How could future Locke meet past Richard if Richard never met past Locke? This either indicates that I'm wrong about there being 1 timeline or it means (and this is what I tend to believe) that Richard (and future Locke) weren't factors in getting Locke on flight 815. But if so, who was and why? Was it the island itself acting in some way? As for the facts, we know that the "driver" who worked for Widmore was the one that encouraged Locke to go on the walkabout in Australia, but who influenced him to do that?

It would seem that the answer could be a couple of things.

1)Fate
2)The Island (this assumes it's sentient or has a will in some way)
3)Other people (who aren't very directly connected to the 815ers and thus don't complicate things) traveling back and influencing things.

The first two are the cleanest solutions of course. Deus Ex Machina solutions always are though.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this and figure out some sort of time travely theory of how Locke (and everyone else for that matter) could have been made to crash on the island without going against the things I believe about influencing the timeline.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on this.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Ben was reading Carlos Castenada... some say his writings tell the hitherto-unknown secrets of shamanic practices in an exotic world... most academics agree that his field-notes didn't back up his finished works, that what he wrote contradicted anthropological evidence, that he fabricated everything he wrote.