Our Adventures: Lost – “Lighthouse”

Well, yet another week of Lost, and still more questions. I really feel like the season’s getting to a point where at least one major question needs to be satisfied to keep up with all the new ones that are coming at us every week. If the promo for next week’s episode is to be believed, then maybe we’ll finally get an answer or two then. But as for this episode, not a whole lot really happened.
The meat of it centered around Jack and his multi-dimensional adventures. In the tangent universe (is this show going to go all Donnie Darko on us?) he’s still divorced from his wife(did not catch the picture of her, though, is it still the same woman?), but apparently has a teenage son named David (Biblical significance?) who can play a mean Chopin. His son seems to hate him just as much as he hated his father, but at the end they reconcile because Jack doesn’t put the pressure on his boy that his father put on him. And as tangent-universe Dogen says, these kids are really too young to have so much pressure on them.
The only other information of significance that I can gather from this sub-plot is the scene where Jack sees the scar from when he had his appendix removed and when he asks his mother when that happened, she says that he was a little boy. As we all know, Jack had his appendix removed on the Island by Juliet. So this just seems to solidify that the tangent-universe is a very different place where our losties’ lives have played out differently. Perhaps Jacob’s lack of influence is the reason behind this.
This brings me to my next point. The whole “lighthouse that we never saw” deal certainly implies that Jacob has influenced or guided the losties’ lives for a very long time. This interference is quite central to the show’s theme of free will vs. destiny. So far, destiny seems to be winning out.
But anyways, the lighthouse. First of all, I’m really interested to see what would have shown up in the mirror at 108 degrees. I can hardly believe that number is coincidentally related to Desmond’s button-pushing schedule. But since Jack freaked out when he saw his name at 23 degrees (was his the only name marked down, or were his fellow candidates matched with their corresponding numbers?), the mirror is now all smashed up. Sorry, Widmore (just a hunch), but it looks like you’ll have to find another way back. And before we leave the topic of the mirror, I’d just like to note that I saw Sawyer’s church and what I assume to be Dogen’s childhood home (because of the traditional Japanese architecture), but perhaps it was the fishing hut of Jin’s youth.
I’d also like to note that Jacob kind of dissed Hurley when he said something along the lines of, “You can’t just get in the back of everybody’s cab and tell them what to do.” Mr. Reyes is certainly important, but seems to be no more than a messenger for Jacob at this point. The true leader, the guy who “has what it takes,” has to come to his own conclusions on what to do (ha, Jacob supporting free will!) by staring at the ocean for a while.
As for the other half of the episode, Claire’s infected and thinks the dingo Others took her baby. She makes dolls out of animal skulls and hides and rocks them to sleep in a crib. She kills dudes with axes. And she’s friends with Focke, who I’m assuming she doesn’t perceive in the same way that we do. If she’s been friends with him for more than a week (that was the approximate time-line of Season 5) then Locke’s body has to be new to her. She didn’t seem alarmed by it, so I’m going to go out on a limb and say that her infect makes her see him differently. One thing I am interested in is whether she knows that Christian and Focke are the same entity (at least that’s what I think…maybe they’re not?). She distinctly referred to them as two different people. So that’s something to follow.
And this is where things get interesting (this being next week, lol). Focke, Claire, and lying Jin are on their way to the Temple that Jacob left for dead. Hopefully they’ll see Kate on the way and we’ll get a sweet cat-fight when she stupidly admits everything that Jin covered for. Whether she’s recruited or not remains to be seen. Someone that I’m guessing will be recruited is Sayid. Everybody join the infected club! Then again, when everybody on Rousseau’s team was infected they all killed each other…Anyways! I do not envy the folks chilling at the Temple right now. And seeing as how I’ve come to greatly enjoy Dogen’s company in his short time on the show, I hope everything works out for him. I think it will.
So this is where we stand a quarter of the way through the season. Focke, Claire, and Sawyer appear to be the definite enemies of Jacob, Hugo, and Jack at this point. Widmore has yet to find the Island and Ben (along with Illana, Lepidus, and Sun) hasn’t gotten off the beach and into the action yet. Kate’s wondering in the jungle looking for Claire. Miles is doing his thing in the Temple (oh, no!). Desmond, Penny, Eloise, and all the kids are still largely unaccounted for. In the coming war that’s been mentioned throughout the past couple seasons, I get the feeling every major character’s going to be matched up with a nemesis, and if I were a betting man, I’d go back to Season 1 to find that nemesis.
Jack and Sawyer was the original source of confrontation for the series, something that all the Locke business of the middle seasons could make one forget. That pairing’s pretty clear to me. Kate and Claire have also been intertwined since the beginning, although in less confrontational and more “help me give birth” ways. Jin hated on Michael a bit back in the day, but that was just because of his possessive feelings towards Sun. Their relationship was a source of great conflict early on. Could destiny be lining them up against each other? Everybody else, their pairings are a little more unclear. But I do believe sides will have to be taken in the coming war.
As for my going theories, they were pretty absent from this week’s episode, or at least they were hidden. Maybe bleeding universe and redemption theory will show up next week. Until next time…
Author: Cody22 Comments to Our Adventures: Lost – “Lighthouse”
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Subscribe to our podcast!
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009

I’d also like to say that the metaphor of the “infection” is something worth discussing at some point. In a show like this, it has to mean something more than the literal sense. My fist hypothesis would be that it represents sin, just because that seems like a logical analogy, but there isn’t a whole lot of evidence to back that up.
Sure, Sayid was a torturer, but what did Claire do (unless you want to get old-fashioned and pull the child out of wed-lock card)? And although we don’t know much about Rousseau’s team, they didn’t seem inherently evil. Anybody else have theories?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I do believe that Jacob was watching out for all of them throughout their lives, helping to prepare them for what he wanted them to become…like him…total biblical analogy to what God wants and does for us. It’s nice that there’s this whole Team Flocke/Team Jacob thing fleshing out, that we’re starting to see the two armies build up, like the battle of Armageddon (and similarly like Stephen King’s “The Stand”).
Flocke must be quite a force to be reckoned with, if Jacob wanted to get Hurley and Jack out of there…does that mean he doesn’t care about anybody else, that one of those two are the best candidates? Or maybe the other candidate is Sun, because as of now, she is safe…and what if Jin joins Team Flocke, and Sun joins Team Jacob (which seems to be the way things are moving a little), before they meet? Deep conflict right there. Or maybe Jin is just trying to escape from Claire/Friend because he knows they are evil.
It probably is Widmore who is “108″, so does that make him the ultimate of the other six candidates, since their six numbers add up to 108? Is it Widmore, or could it be Aaron, Desmond (see you in anothuh life broth-uh), Penny, Walt?
Finally, I think that Hurley is still in the running for candidacy, but Jacob wanted to make sure that Jack was in the boat too. That is all.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I so desperately want Desmond and Walt to be important in the grand scheme of things, but I feel like they’re probably going to be brushed under the carpet with one or two episodes.
And while I appreciate the conflict that comes with the clear cut sides, I really hope the series doesn’t end in such a (forgive the pun) black and white way. It would just be boring for a shown that’s known for its twists to end with “Jacob good, Focke (seriously, it’s about time for a real name now) bad.”
And on a more philosophical point, I don’t like the idea of people planning out my life for me from the shadows. Everything Jacob’s done is a total violation of those people’s lives and the lives around them. And for what? Because he says he’s good? Going on the Season 5 finale, this all seems to be some big game between Jacob and Esau, and Jacob’s fixing the results through his off-Island interactions. Granted, Esau tried to “fix” things too when he killed Jacob, but I’ve seen nothing to believe that Jacob is any better than Esau.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack seeing his appendix scar seemed like “bleeding universe” theory evidence to me. Considering, in the tangent universe, he had his appendix removed when he was a child, I doubt that scar would be there, or at least it wouldn’t be that prominent. More wounds carrying over from one universe to the other, it seems.
I think your redemption theory might have been in play here too. There’s just something about Jack reconciling with his son that feels like redemption to me. There’s something else I wanna say here about Jack redeeming his father, but I don’t know how to articulate it.
“was his the only name marked down, or were his fellow candidates matched with their corresponding numbers?”
They were all there.
“ha, Jacob supporting free will!”
Jacob’s been supporting free will since we met him. On multiple occasions he’s made sure to tell people that they have a choice. Like, right before Ben stabbed him multiple times in the chest.
“Sorry, Widmore (just a hunch), but it looks like you’ll have to find another way back.”
Yeah, I immediately thought of Widmore too when Jacob said somebody needed help getting to the island.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I suppose bleeding universe counts, as the scar was pretty prominent, but I don’t really consider the tangent-universe in my redemption theory. My theory states that the losties must redeem themselves on-Island in order to attain the second chance (and better life) of the tangent-universe.
Why the hell did Jack freak out about his name and nobody else’s then?
Just because somebody says you have a choice doesn’t mean you really do. And I love how Jacob told Ben he had a choice right before provoking the hell out of him. He told Hugo he didn’t have to do anything he didn’t want to right before touching him and giving him the guitar case. The mirror in the lighthouse quite clearly shows that he’s been watching these people all their lives. He manipulated Sawyer as a child (and in a morally questionable way at that).
Jacob wants people to believe they have free will, but he’s been manipulating them and pulling strings for so long that it’s an illusion. It’s like Chaos Theory; things appear random or disordered because the results are so unpredictable, but in reality (according to the theory), if you knew the initial conditions and how they’ve interacted on subsequent iterations, you could map out the results into infinity. Jacob altered those initial conditions so he could fix the final outcome. If the losties really had a choice, then Jack would have a kid, Kate would be innocent, Locke would be happily married, and so on.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Here’s who number 108 was on the dial:
http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Wallace
I don’t know why Jack only freaked out about his name, because most of the others from the cliffside cave in “The Substitute” were on there, as well as some that we didn’t see in that cave. Maybe he’s just self-centered like that. These two articles are my sources:
http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lighthouse_%28episode%29 (specifically the General Trivia section)
http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lighthouse
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wallace = Walt? Or Marcellus Wallace, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I still don’t believe that Jacob is for destiny, and that he’s forcing these people to live the life he wants them to. I believe that he has been watching them to guide them, but letting them have a choice.
It’s like a father who guides his son in life, but does not force. He helps his son make good decisions, he is there to encourage his son. The father would warn of bad choices, but he is not forcing his son to do anything. That’s exactly what Jacob is doing. That is why there are still 5 candidates…because anyone of them can still choose how to live their life, and only one of them will be chosen to replace Jacob.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I hate when the things I’m learning in school apply to my entertainment. What you just described is very much how free will works in Process Philosophy, which I’m taking a class on, and it’s really starting to annoy me.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yeah, the implications of Chaos Theory on free-will didn’t sit well with me at first, but by the end of the course I wrote a paper that discussed how things seemingly out of our control really are in our control if we recognize it. You’ll have to trust that it was a good paper, as I don’t feel like explaining things now.
And if your annoyance stems more from education applying to entertainment in general, and not that specific free-will topic, then I guess I sort of get that. It’s sometimes fun to look for mythic hero cycles in my entertainment, but most of the time, I’d rather just enjoy the characters and not their archetypes. Damn you, school!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’ll most likely be right in the end, but I just feel like that’s boring fiction. It’s too predictable and safe. I’d be more entertained if Jacob was just as petty as everyone else and that he was just motivated to one-up Esau.
Also, I loved when Focke had his talk with Richard about Jacob never telling him why the Others had to complete his tasks. Sure, Focke’s trying to manipulate everyone, but he certainly made Jacob look like a jerk there. That’s always been one of my main issues with religion–Abraham’s supposed to kill his own son because God says so? We aren’t children and we shouldn’t obey anyone without question.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t mean to turn this into a religious discussion, but since we’re sort of on the topic I thought I’d bring this up and get opinions on it.
I was recently reading Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five and there’s this part in there where a character is talking about how the New Testament’s message could have been more effective. He thought that Jesus shouldn’t have been the son of God. Jesus would still preach his messages of peace and love, but he’d preach them as an insignificant, down-trodden bum. Then when he was crucified (because that wasn’t a special treatment for the son of God, it happened to a lot of people), that’s when the Heavens would open and God would ADOPT this worthless bum as his son and give him all the powers that come with being the son of God.
This character’s issue with Christ’s story as it is told is that he thinks it implies that it is okay to crucify and mistreat some people. He believes that the reader’s knowledge of Jesus’ divine status makes them think, “Oh, they picked the wrong guy to crucify,” which would imply that there are “right” guys to crucify.
I don’t know if I agree with that sentiment (idk, maybe I do), but it’s certainly a very interesting insight. I’ve often wondered to myself why Jesus has to be divine. Can’t we follow the message of peace and love preached by a simple man?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This is really an irrelevant quibble with a text that a lot of classical theism is based upon, and we all already know that classic theism is complete BS as a philosophy.
I mean, I suppose if you want a bit more serious answer, I can provide one. Soren Kierkegaard thought that it was absolutely absurd that a being such as God would ever manifest himself in human form. Being a devout Christian himself, he said that it was necessary to take a leap of faith in order to believe the inherent paradoxes found in Christian dogma.
A selection from the entry about Kierkegaard from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Was that supposed to be a response to my query about the effectiveness of the Christ story? Because it sounded like a lot of unnecessary words to say, “Reason can’t enter the equation; you either have faith or you don’t.”
And keep in mind that there are some devout believers on this board, so try not to call classical theism “complete BS as a philosophy,” which doesn’t make sense to me anyways, as the philosophies found in classical religions make plenty of sense, considering they’re philosophies on how to live life, not scientific explanations on how the world works (at least from my perspective).
But regardless of all that, I was more interested in your opinions on the narrative/mythological effectiveness of Christ’ story as it is vs. Vonnegut’s thoughts. Now I must go eat.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“And keep in mind that there are some devout believers on this board, so try not to call classical theism ‘complete BS as a philosophy,’…”
I absolutely refuse to censor myself in this way. However, I may amend my statement to be more precise, instead saying that classical theism is complete BS as an ontology, epistemology, and ethics. If you’d like to continue the discussion, I can produce valid reasons for these claims. Also, I doubt there’s anybody that actually subscribes wholly to classical theism in the sense that it is normally meant, as it is not really a very coherent world view.
“… I was more interested in your opinions on the narrative/mythological effectiveness of Christ’ story as it is vs. Vonnegut’s thoughts.”
I suppose in a narrative sense it would end up having the same effect, with the added bonus of saying “crucifixion is bad,” but I don’t really see why that’s necessary. There really was a “right” type of person to crucify when the Christ story was written. Just because 2000 years later we don’t find that idea to be as palatable doesn’t mean the story is “bad” or “wrong” or should be changed.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re using too many big words for me, so don’t bother producing your valid reasons. Just because we go to college doesn’t mean we have to talk like we have a stick up our ass.
As for the narrative merits of Vonnegut’s view, I think you missed the point. The crucifixion is irrelevant, simply a means to an end, so “crucifixion is bad” is not the added bonus. The bonus is in saying that God didn’t plan out the whole story with his inside man, but rather witnessed a truly admirable human being acting as divinely as a human can, and so decided to adopt him as his son.
That way, the story’s never about power (which really, when Jesus talks about the meek inheriting the world, that’s what it’s all about) and who’s the right or wrong person to attack, but about the teachings of Christ. Once again, I don’t wholly subscribe to this line of thought, but I find it to be a very interesting insight.
And please, could you elaborate on there being a “right” person to crucify 2000 years ago? Of course there’s always a right person to attack from a power perspective, changing or sustaining the balance, but from a moral perspective, from the perspective of Christ’s very own teachings, no, there is never a right person to crucify, then or now.
And Allyn, could you please jump in at some point so this doesn’t just become a big pissing match between Ryan and myself. And if somebody could wrap my ramblings back into Lost, that would be great.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“You’re using too many big words for me, so don’t bother producing your valid reasons.”
This is why I can’t talk to “you people” about these things anymore.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Remember, my friend, we should all strive to be more like Michio Kaku and explain things in terms that the common man can understand. We should also strive to have such a soothing voice and such smooth hair.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Michio Kaku is pretty damn awesome. I think that’s something we can all agree on.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
For some reason it’s not letting me reply to you, but yes, I think we all can agree on Mr. Kaku’s magnitude of awesomeness. But don’t go jumping to the conclusion that this conversation’s over yet! We only need a few more posts to break the IB record. So…Focke clearly believes that classical theism is complete BS and Jacob doesn’t. See, while Jacob was being a nancy boy and weaving his thread, Esau was being a man and debating philosophies to himself. This helped him reach his conclusion.
But because Esau ceased to believe in the philosophy of the Island and the moral bounds attached to it, he decided it’d be alright to fuck Marcellus Wallace like a bitch. Wallace didn’t like this. And, well, I’ll let you imagine where things went from there!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yeah, there’s a maximum limit of 10 replies for some reason.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That’s interesting. Don’t you think 23rd poster?
Like or Dislike:
0
0