Pages

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Lost: What to Make of Jacob and non-Locke

For all you Losties, what do you make of the identity of Jacob and the non-Locke, the “Man in Black”?  I’m thinking there’s a Yin/Yang thing going here, but the writers are (in)famous for misdirection.

Doc Jensen:

Consider again the scene in ''Lighthouse'' in which Jack picked up The Annotated Alice. ''I used to read this to you when you were little,'' Jack said, waxing nostalgic. ''You always wanted to hear about Kitty and Snowdrop, they were Alice's...'' But Jack never finished his sentence because his angry adolescent huffed out on him. This was a really conspicuous choice, and I remember thinking that I should really follow up on it and investigate what Lost had decided to leave unsaid.

What Jack wasn't allowed to say was that Kitty and Snowdrop were Alice's kittens. And if David had stuck around and engaged his father in literary exegesis about the book, they may have together noted the following detail, which should blow up any self-respecting crazy Lost theorist's brain:

One kitten is black, and one kitten is white. One is bad; one is good. Kitty's the black one; Snowdrop's the white one. Kitty's the bad one; Snowdrop, the good one. Think: black and white rocks in The Caves; think: the black and white stones in The Cave of Names; think: Man in Black and Jacob; think: John Locke's backgammon story. ''Two players. One black. One white.''

Perhaps in the story of Lost, Jacob is…taking the raw material of castaway lives and desires and redeeming it with shape, purpose, and future. Or at least, he is trying to. After all, these characters do have free will, and they can choose to use it to produce a quality of life that's beyond salvaging.

As they say, stay tuned…

No comments: