The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - Older Than Tablets, Man: The Biblical Appeal of LOST
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
|
08:26 am
[Link] |
Older Than Tablets, Man: The Biblical Appeal of LOST
The ending to LOST was a big ol' raised middle finger to those of us who wanted explanations. And it's kind of interesting how people responded to that, because it showcases a narrative schism that's as literally old as humanity.
Now, I'm not going to get into spoilers here - but if you've never watched LOST, here's a spoiler-free metaphor that explains what it's like for those of us who want explanations:
Let's say the first two seasons of How I Met Your Mother come out, revolving around Ted's fevered quest to meet his soulmate (and eventually, the mother of the two children he's relating this story to). He meets Robin, the girl you think will be his wife, and falls in love. They date.
Then, somewhere around the beginning of the third season, and though there are a couple of muttered reasons, the "Ted's children" thread is quietly dropped and never brought up again. That turns out to be a good thing because Ted dies, and Robin's now become a CIA agent hunting for his killer.
It's not quite like that, but it's close. Now, Season Three of How I Met Your Mother is still an exciting show - because Robin's now a black leather-clad ninja who slaughters terrorists in an attempt to revenge her beloved husband Ted. But all that excitement only comes at the cost of scrapping much of the logic that's really gone before.
Thing is, that's not going to bother some people.
Some folks are going to react to the character's emotions, regardless of where they come from. What's important to them is that they feel for Robin in this moment. Is the she-assassin Robin sympathetic as she stalks the streets of Mumbai? Do people look at the tears in her eyes and realize she doesn't want to kill innocents, but she can't let anything stand between her and Ted's killers?
That emotional moment is truth to them. And they will reach for that no matter what. And do you know what proof I have of this?
The Bible.
I recently read Robert Crumb's straight-faced cartoonization of the Book of Genesis - and I'd forgotten just how much of Genesis makes no fucking sense. You'd think that Crumb, so notoriously counter-culture, would go out of his way to lampoon the Bible...
But all he really has to do is tell it in the manner it's on the page, and you realize that the book of Genesis is rife with things that really are completely inexplicable. Why are there two origin stories, both with contradicting details? Who the hell are the Nephilim? Why is Noah so incensed at being seen naked when he's drunk that he's willing to curse generations - and why did he curse Canaan? Why do they go out of their way to mention Nimrod? And really, Joseph and Jacob and Abraham's motivations are often mysterious, aren't they?
Despite all this, generation after generation have loved the Bible. People have taken great solace in the trials and tribulations of Noah and Joseph and Sarah. Does it really matter whether there's great continuity between all of Abraham's adventures when each nugget of story can serve as a single-serving inspiration? Sure, maybe the parts don't go together, but... that doesn't matter. What matters is that individual moment of truth in each part of the character's tale.
And make no mistake: it's a lot easier to have really exciting character moments when you're untethered from continuity in all but the loosest fashion. Did 24 ever make any sense? Hell no, but at the end of every episode there's a plot twist you didn't see coming and a betrayal you couldn't have seen coming because really, there's no basis for it. But it surprises you, and gives a good opportunity for Jack to either rage out or break down in unexpected ways.
The weird thing is, however, that though I'd spent a year studying the Old Testament in college thanks to a great English lit track, I'd still forgotten how utterly non-sequential and hard to follow Genesis was. In my mind, I'd remembered it as being a much smoother story - the years had let me leave out the bits I couldn't quite make sense of, apply motivations that didn't actually exist, and in general massage it into a much more consistent tale.
Which is the fascinating bit. LOST? Lacks cohesion as a story. And Genesis makes lacks cohesion as a story. But I know I'll be besieged by people who will say, "Oh no! It makes total sense!" and begin to spout all sorts of elaborate theories that knit everything together. Why? Because those who need a coherent narrative will do an interesting trick when presented with chaos; they will start to form their own theories, scrutinizing the canon closely and grabbing for things from outside the story that's actually told (like historical evidence and set gossip) to try to knit together something that does make sense. But they forget there's a big difference between "can be explained" and "is actually explained within the context of the story."
They'll rationalize and rationalize until the opaque areas become not only obvious to them, but self-evident - because for them, that emotional core really lacks something without an underlying framework. And when they're presented with what's obviously a very emotional story without that framework, they will build one.
So is the ending of LOST good? It doesn't really matter. The characters had an ending that was full of emotions, regardless of whether those emotions made sense in the context of what we'd been told before. And like cryptic narratives throughout history, some people will respond to that deep emotion, others will go nuts trying to make enough sense of it all to find a foundation for that core... And others, who really want all of the pieces to fit together without spackle and hammering, will feel deeply disappointed because they were told how wonderful this is and they want it to be wonderful and yet somehow it doesn't stand up.
Yet people will love this regardless. They will love it, this I know, because the Bible tells me so.
|
|
| | As someone who hasn't seen LOST (and is surrounded by colleagues who verged on obsessive about it this week) I like your metaphor.
Most people I know are confused, but are all willing to 'let it sink in'. Which says to me that most of them will do exactly as you suggested - and make it fit in their own minds as best as they can then declare that of course it makes sense.
I may watch it one day. For now, I'm rather glad I skipped this particular phenomenon first time around - I'm not sure I could stand the constant uncertainty. It's not a brave decision - it's greed.
They are including a disk in the Season Finale Box Set that will provide the answers people have been asking for.
Not giving the answers was a gimmick to spur sales of the box set. Hi, found you via friendsfriends. :D
Yet people will love this regardless. They will love it, this I know, because the Bible tells me so.
this part made me really laugh out loud. hee! also this is a cool post! | From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: | May 25th, 2010 01:31 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Interesting, and I think appropriate analogy. So the question is, does it raise Lost apologists to the level of biblical scholars, or lower the latter to the level of people desperate to insist that their favorite TV show makes sense?
-Alex
…except that the Bible isn't written, so much as collected. It's not entirely coherent, because it's a collection of older oral traditions. Hence the Hebrew AND Babylonian creation narratives. Some scholars see three Creation stories. (Adam and Eve, God makes the world in seven days, God says let there be light).
If you're trying to insinuate that LOST (which I have not seen) is a director-less, cobbled-together after the fact, collection of several writers, I guess you're spot-on, though. ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/2866866/711176) | | From: | ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1) theferrett |
|---|
| Date: | May 25th, 2010 01:58 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | Re: Which WOULD work | (Link) |
|
And again, you're bringing history into it to explain a story. The mechanisms behind a story don't matter; what matters is what's on the page (or screen).
In this case, the tales that both LOST and the Bible are telling are often fragmented, with bits that are forgotten or actively baffling... And yet that lack of internal logic doesn't bother people. In that sense, what the hell does it matter whether one's an oral tradition and one's created by a small committee? If it didn't resonate, it didn't resonate. ...and thanks to that last line, I will have Dead Milkmen's I Dream Of Jesus stuck in my head for the rest of the day. I was just starting my second senior year when mom brought Jesus home in a bottle...
(Also, I love your icon.) ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/107860898/1279911) | | From: | kilbia |
|---|
| Date: | May 25th, 2010 02:02 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Ha, I was going to make a statement here, but now without source material at hand, I can't remember if Discordianism addresses this phenomenon, or if I've decided that's what those particular paragraphs mean. (I don't know how relevant "The Law of Fives" is to this conversation.)
Anyway, I was mostly curious as to how far into this essay you were when you came up with the closing line. It was literally the last edit before I posted. (Originally, it was a quote from Frederick Douglass, but this worked better.) Then, somewhere around the beginning of the third season, and though there are a couple of muttered reasons, the "Ted's children" thread is quietly dropped and never brought up again. That turns out to be a good thing because Ted dies, and Robin's now become a CIA agent hunting for his killer
I realize you don't like Lost and feel cheated by the ending, but this is complete bullshit. Please explain where they silently dropped the central conceit of the show (you know, a bunch of people trying to survive on a crazy-ass island). No, it's not. You've forgotten how a large and central conceit of the show was that the Others were mysteriously kidnapping children and experimenting on expectant mothers, because this was an island where no one could have babies. This was the entire reason the Others had snuck in, somehow developed a profile that actually contained information they could not have possibly gotten just by talking to their fellow castmates, and engineered a large-scale campaign to dress as filthy hobos.
Yet that disappeared. So what WERE the Others doing? Well, as it turns out, their whole motivation changes right around Season Three to become, well, something about protecting the Island. Or maybe not.
In other words, the entire premise of the bad guys quietly gets dropped and is replaced with something else, and yet you never really question it. THAT, my friend, is the bullshit. ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/8700085/654814) | | From: | jeffreyab |
|---|
| Date: | May 25th, 2010 02:15 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | The New How I Met Your Mother | (Link) |
|
Robin's now a black leather-clad ninja who slaughters terrorists in an attempt to revenge her beloved husband Ted.
So can we make this happen?
She was raised by a perfectionist domineering father and is good with a gun and smokes cigars! | | From: | theferrett |
|---|
| Date: | May 25th, 2010 02:18 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | Re: The New How I Met Your Mother | (Link) |
|
Actually, one of the questions I raised in the initial draft of the essay (but dropped) is that nobody would question why Robin was working for the CIA when she's a Canadian citizen, if the emotional resonance was strong enough. "Why do you find it so easy to believe in Lost"
"IT'S NEVER BEEN EASY!"
I just think it sucks that 24 ended perfectly and nobody is talking about it because of the whole Lost thing. I didn't watch Lost, but I'm with you on the 24 ending. It was immensely satisfying. i'm one of those people who has obsessed on Lost theories since season 1, was horribly incensed by the finale, and have been rabidly declaiming that i want the last six years of my life back.
i'm not sure i disagree with your take on it, from a literary sense. i'm a writer and a lit major, and so i think i may be approaching it from a similar perspective, and your comparison to Genesis is appropriate.
what angered me was not that they left questions unanswered - they HAD to, in my estimation, or the show would have lost its charm (pun intended). it was the fact that it's obvious the writers spent years throwing everything including the kitchen sink into this show, and then instead of remaining true to what seemed like the internal logic of the narrative, they went all "Touched By An Angel" and "Magic Glowy Light with Rainbows and Unicorns" at the very bitter end...which was bound to upset those of us with some investment in science, numbers, and theory.
it wasn't just that they went all Genesis on us. it was a little like they walked into a Harvard physics class and told the students "it's all about Jesus!"
i'm willing to entertain the notion that those of us with our rabid pseudo-scientific leanings were just seeing what we wanted to see and ignoring all other plot avenues. i'm also willing to bet that if it had been *OMG ALIENS!* instead of *OMG GLOWING POOL!* that my subsection of Lost fanatics might not have been so PO'd. so it might just be a matter of preference.
for me, it's not how they tied up the show, which is what most of the debate seems to center around. it was the fact that the writers wrote themselves into a corner and then took an easy cop-out that had next to nothing to do with the suspense they spent 6 years building. the magic fix-all is a no-no in writing, and makes your readers feel cheated and betrayed. | From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: | May 25th, 2010 03:52 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | Its all about... | (Link) |
|
Its Taft, again.
The show had Jack, man of Science Vs. Locke, man of faith arguing over what the island was all about. In the end, the island was about faith, not science. Thus there were little to no "science" answers in the end so its natural that fans who wanted it to be about science are unhappy with the ending. ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/54695841/731978) | | | I think you'll enjoy this very much... | (Link) |
|
http://nplusonemag.com/treasure-island"In the first season, a number of storylines revolve around a locked hatch, which someone discovers in the jungle some distance inland from the cast’s beachside camp. A character named John Locke becomes obsessed with getting it open, and spends long nights looking helplessly at its tiny, darkened window. Near the season’s end, with everything falling to pieces (kidnappings, explosions, death), Locke runs to the hatch and pounds on it, screaming in existential anguish. And a light comes on. The first time I saw this scene, I literally got goosebumps all over my body. Its effect is magical. A few seasons later, we learn that this literal and metaphorical illumination was actually meaningless; the character who turned on the light explains that he was just going for a bathroom break. But this does nothing to diminish the moment. The important thing is that something happened. The important thing is that a light went on. While this is going on, Lost also dismantles (or at least ignores) the boundaries separating serial television’s well-established collection of genres. A typical episode may begin with an emergency medical procedure, like E.R. in a jungle hut. But then someone will discover a bomb, or a computer station, or a plane in a tree, and lead Jack and his still-recovering patient on a police-style chase. Then someone will be interrogated and tortured, à la 24, until a creature made of thick smoke bursts out of the ground and interrupts everything. Then, flashing variously forward and backward, we spend time with the Korean mob or African drug-runners. Then everybody time-travels, gets sick in the process, and needs Jack to put the gun down and become a doctor again. By now, even casual television viewers are more or less familiar with the sets of possible plot twists that belong to each particular genre, but Lost keeps things suspenseful by trading one set of narrative rules for another five or six times per episode. Lost provides the delirious feeling of watching serial television swallow itself whole." But realize the article also talks about Joyce Carol Oates, Balzac, The Sopranos, and Dickens... Related amusing thing from the comments on a Jesus and Mo strip:
Of the Bible: "Originally he was multiple gods… as you probably know Elohim is plural. Then he was one angry god. Now he’s a three-in-one nice god who’s going to send you to hell if you don’t believe in him (is that really an improvement, though?)."
To which someone replied: "are you sure that’s not part of the storyline from Lost?" Well, the thing is, the Bible has a lot of extra stuff that makes several of these things make sense, but it's been declared uncanonical. The Nephilim for instance--did you know that they are also the reason for the Flood? There's this whole awesome extra story about who they were and what they did and how they corrupted humanity (that whole "turning away from God" that Noah's neighbors are accused of) and made God angry enough that he flooded the Earth--it used to be right after the initial mention of them and lead up till the beginning of the Noah story, and now it's cut out, and everyone just ignores them. Which is too bad.
The Bible: screwed up by bad editing. ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/117335233/891766) | | From: | anoel |
|---|
| Date: | May 26th, 2010 04:09 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
So much WORD to this I can't even say. I am definitely one of those others who just became disappointed no matter how wonderful everyone claims it is. And brilliant HIMYM analogy, works perfectly. |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/openid-profile.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
