On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:09:32 -0700, "alooo" <uh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> "Jim Gysin" <jimgysin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:ainb24h2ft81aec5lhphpoga2b3iqn58nl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:18:55 -0700, "alooo" <uh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jim Gysin" <jimgysin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> >> > There's no reason to believe that they share the same mother,
beyond
> >> > the name. And again, I would be disappointed if the writers led us
to
> >> > believe that Ben's mom died in childbirth, only to admit the next
> >> > season that they basically lied about it. That's a dangerous path,
> >> > and if they lose their credibility, they lose their audience. And
I
> >> > have to assume that they're smart enough to know that.
> >>
> >> In the very same episode in which we were led to believe Ben's mom
died
> >> in
> >> childbirth,
> > You might as well say that we were led to believe that there was a
> > plane crash, or that we were led to believe that Hurley likes food. In
> > other words, I don't think this one was very gray.
>
> I'll admit that my recollection of that episode isn't great. I seem to
> recall her bleeding and maybe passing out and later we learned from
Ben's
> father that she died during childbirth.
Yes, and he accused Ben of "killing" her. Lostpedia also notes that she
died in childbirth.
> I don't remember any doctor
> declaring her dead.
Should that be necessary? I'm okay with feints and an occasional
sleight of hand from Lost, but it would be over the top to let us think
that she's dead all this time (heck, we were *told* that she's dead) and
then say, "Oh, well, Roger didn't know what he was talking about," or
some such thing.
Where I draw the line is in not letting *us* know when someone is lying
or something is off. It's one thing to keep the show's characters in
the dark, but something else entirely to out and out lie to the
audience. For example, Ben lies to people all the time, but we *know*
when he's lying in short order, so it's okay. But to let a lie remain
out there for a year or more in real time... well, I would have a real
problem with that, I guess.
> If I'm correct, then the writers could easily explain
> how she's still alive.
Writers can almost always find a way to resurrect a character, but
that's not the point, IMO. Again, short-term "gotchas" are fine, as
long as we're brought up to speed as soon as the gotcha is identified.
But this one--if true--went on for far too long.
> As for the plane crash and Hurley's eating, we
> witnessed both with our own eyes. It would be much more difficult for
the
> writers to explain those away. However, you might be on to something
with
> Hurley, after all, he did gave away some food this last episode...
>
> >> Ben saw her on the island.
> >
> > And Jack had seen Christian, who was also said to be dead. And Hurley
> > saw Dave, who was said to not exist. So at that time, at least,
> > seeing someone new appear on the island wasn't reason to assume that
> > that person actually still lived, or lived outside of the observer's
> > imagination.
>
> To be clear, I still think Ben's mother, Dave, Goodspeed, Charlie, Eko's
> brother and Taller Walt were visions (though I'm not so sure about
> Christian). I was addressing the notion that the writers need to provide
> certain information in a timely manner and just because one assumption
is
> the logical one to make, it doesn't mean an alternative is impossible.
I definitely agree on the "timely manner" business. A perfect example
would be Shannon's "death" at the hands (?) of Smoky. Before the
episode was even over, we knew that that was just an illusion on Boone's
part. Now if they had written off Shannon for 24 episodes and then
brought her back and said, "Well, we never actually said she was
dead..." that would be too much.
> >> The idea that it was just a vision is
> >> an assumption the viewers made so if it turns out she really was
there,
> >> don't blame the writers for not providing that evidence in a timely
> >> manner.
When they have a character flat out claim that someone else is dead and
that someone else isn't actually dead, then the writers need to ensure
that either (a) we know already that the character is lying; or (b) we
know something that the character does not know, which mitigates the
claim; or (c) the character displays some "tells" or *something* that
would lead us to doubt his or her word on the matter.
I'm unaware of any of the above applying to claims that Emily was dead.
> > I think you're reaching. Even as someone who constantly reminds
> > others to avoid making assumptions, I think you're reaching here.
>
> Yes, I am reaching here because I think there's a little room for it. I
too
> criticize people for making certain assumptions yet I still recognize
that
> quite often assumptions have to be made. But if the story unfolds in a
way
> that logically disproves my assumptions, I have to accept that my
> assumptions were wrong.
Again, if Roger says, "Your mother is dead and you killed her," I don't
think it's an unfair assumption (with the above three caveats) to assume
that Roger is telling the truth, and that Emily is dead. If we have to
start assuming that *no one's* word can be taken at face value, we're
gonna be in robgood's bizarre little world in no time whatsoever.
> > Perhaps, if one assumes that Lost is a typical show. But would you
> > agree that Ben, at least, would know that Locke was his half-brother
> > in that scenario? After all, he pretty much had dossiers on all of
> > the crash survivors and the resources to do even more investigating of
> > anyone he chose to investigate.
>
> I totally agree that if Locke is Ben's half-brother, Ben probably knows.
But
> Ben doesn't tend to give up information until he has to so I wouldn't
think
> it's strange that he hasn't mentioned it yet. In fact, Ben's always had
a
> bit of a fascination toward Locke, which I assume is because he's "the
one"
> but maybe I'm wrong and it's because he's his brother.
I agree that Ben could be holding back some information. In fact, if
there's one thing I can count on, it's probably that Ben is holding back
some information at any given point in time.
> >> Also, we've had indications that both
> >> Ben and Locke were "chosen ones" and it's not unreasonable to think
DNA
> >> might have something to do with that.
> >
> > Walt was/is "special," too, so I don't think it's a hereditary
> > condition.
>
> Walt's never been mentioned as a possible heir to the Island *****
throne so
> I think we're dealing with different kinds of "special" here.
Let's agree to disagree and see who ends up being right!
> >> That all said, I'm not convinced that John and Ben are siblings but I
> >> don't
> >> think it's an outrageous theory.
The theory itself isn't outrageous, but the abuse of the audience and of
script credibility would be extremely outrageous, IMO.
> > Another thing to keep in mind is that the detective Locke hired to
> > check out his mother seemed to do a pretty thorough job, up to and
> > including her stints in psych wards. I would think that it would be
> > on the record if she gave birth to a second child.
>
> Ben supposedly has millions of dollars, access to pass****ts from
multiple
> countries and a fun little time traveling machine. If he wanted to alter
> some records I have no doubt that he could.
That's probably true enough.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
|
