The 'Lost' Hour: Season 5 -- Episode 16:'The Incident, Parts 1 and 2'
Thursday, May 14, 2009; 3:00 PM
"Lost" bloggers Liz Kelly and Jen Chaney attempt to get to the bottom of time travel, love quadrangles and all things related to the ABC's cult favorite every Thursday at 3 p.m. ET. Liz and Jen, both obsessive "Lost" fans, have been writing their weekly dueling analysis of the show since 2006. When not debating the merits of Sawyer's hotness, Liz Kelly writes the Celebritology blog and Jen Chaney acts as movies editrix and DVD columnist for washingtonpost.com.
For episode analysis, discussion transcripts and more, visit washingtonpost.com's Lost Central.
Jen Chaney: Liz and I are running on fumes after a busy week, but we are always energized by talking to you fine people. (We also were very happy to meet some of you at last night's happy hour.)
Personally, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around much of what we saw last night. Liz, you more with it than I am right now?
Liz Kelly: Probably not. But let's get started anyway. This chat has a way of bringing things back into focus for me.
Happy Hour: I didn't know Lost Happy Hour was going to be so official. I'm mad at myself for not going. Will you do another one next season?
Jen Chaney: What did you think we were going to do, stand on the street drinking Ripple out of paper bags, going "Man, Hurley rules"?
Joking, joking. We may do another event in the future, perhaps even before next season. People seemed to have a good time. (I have to give a shout-out to Dave -- I think it was Dave, but forgive me if I got your name wrong -- who was really funny and, in a genius move, wrote "Not Penny's Boat" on his hand.)
We definitely hope you join us next time.
Liz Kelly: Well if Dave gets a shout out, so do these folks:
-- The guy who took 90 minutes to painstakingly recreate Jack's tattoo on his arm.
-- The three GW students who arrived dressed as Kate, Charlotte and John Locke.
That is the kind of dedication we're looking for, my friends.
Liz Kelly: Here's a video from last night's happy hour. Good stuff.
Jen Chaney: Dang, I missed the tattoo guy. I wore a Drive Shaft T-shirt. Does that count for anything?
Rockville, Md.: This is just a "yay me!" post. I posted last week about wondering whether Widmore made a comment about Ellie's condition. I was really excited to find out that she was pregnant and that I wasn't imagining things! I wonder if she and Richard stayed underground which protected them from the effects of the bomb.
Jen Chaney: Well, yay you!
Good point. Richard's motivation for taking Ellie away also may have been to protect her unborn Lil Daniel. Althought cold-cocking a pregnant lady was sort of a harsh way to go about it. But that Ellie's stubborn, so maybe he had no other option.
Columbia, Md.: How was Juliet not killed by that fall?
Liz Kelly: She's on the island. Maybe her fall was somewhat broken or slowed down by some of the scaffolding on her way down so she never had one huge aorta-exploding impact?
Jen Chaney: Suspension of disbelief saved her. That, and a dose of poetic license.
2010: I really enjoyed the episode tonight, but literally almost cried when those numbers flashed up on the screen - a stark reminder of exactly how long of a wait there is until "Lost is back again"...and I'm a dude.
I have nothing else to add, other than to say that I don't believe that Jacob caused Nadia to get hit by the car as much as he saved Sayid from getting hit by said car.
Liz Kelly: Many commenters in the blog echoed that opinion. That Jacob saved Sayid from the same fate in order to ensure he'd be around to fulfill his destiny.
And it is indeed a long wait until next season. Jen and I are working on a plan to keep us all occupied in the intervening months. Stay tuned for details.
Alexandria, Va.: So I never thought it would come back into play, but after last night's (awesome) finale, I was thinking about that Gary Troupe book, "Bad Twin." Is this new Locke our old Locke's bad twin?
Jen Chaney: Oh, man. Count me as another person who thought that would never come back into play. Thanks for bringing that up.
Wow, Liz, this also reminds me of that whole tangent we went on a while back(I think) about dual identities and that Stephen King novel that touches on that subject. Having two Lockes in the picture makes that much more relevant again.
Liz Kelly: It sure does -- that was "The Talisman." We may need to pull out our notes before the beginning of season six.
"It only ends once. Anything before that is just progress." : Thanks for all of your speculation, ladies!
I think that line is HUGE. I think that means that all of these time loops and cycles and moves are gambits in a bigger game being played out by those two men, be they God and Lucifer, or Jacob and Esau or Horus and Set or whomever.
That leads to my question: Jacob could have chosen a kinder answer to Ben's monologue, which seemed to come directly from young-and-neglected Ben's desire to be loved and appreciated. It seemed like he answered to deliberately goad him. And once Ben had stabbed him, he told un-Locke that "they" were on their way, which seemed to imply that this was not the end that un-Locke had hoped.
So: Do you think Jacob WANTED Ben to kill him?
Liz Kelly: I think you may be on to something there. The impression I got of the relationship between Jacob and No. 2 (the other man on the beach at the opening of the show) was that it ws Ben vs. Widmore write large. That these two are the ultimate warlords in the "coming war" mentioned by Widmore early in the season.
A commenter also pointed out that it may actually be No. 2, and not Jacob, who is pulling the strings on the ghost of Christian Shephard. Which would make sense. It now seems it was in No. 2's interest to get Locke off of the island -- where he somehow became an integral part of No. 2's loophole.
The revelation that No. 2 has somehow stolen Locke's identity really put last week's scene where Locke sends Richard back to talk to time-flashing Locke (and give him the compass, etc.) in a whole new light. It wasn't John controlling his own destiny -- it was No. 2 ensuring his machinations would get Locke off the island and into play.
Jen Chaney: Ooh, good point about that scene from last week.
Also, this all takes us back to season one. It's easy to forget this, but when "Lost" first began, it was very unclear whether Locke was a good guy or a bad guy. There was something mysterious about him. Michael didn't trust him, Jack didn't trust him and at one point everyone thought he killed Boone. (Which, indirectly, he did.)
So I see this as a the ambiguity about Locke bubbling up again and playing itself out in an even bigger way.
Frank - the candidate?: I thought that part was interesting. Perhaps Jacob has similar powers to the other guy in being able to inhabit a body, and Frank is going to find himself a host for the recently "deceased" Jacob.
Jen Chaney: Yeah, I meant to touch on that candidate comment and it slipped my mind. I like your theory.
I am not convinced that the Jacob we saw last night is the one and only incarnation of the guy/entity/God/uninvited wedding guest that may exist.
Liz Kelly: Good point re: candidate.
And Jen's right -- LindeCuse were (was?) way too cagey about us finally seeing Jacob in the finale when we talked to them on Monday. It was as if they were saying we'd see some entity that answered to the name of Jacob, but that we shouldn't get too attached to that image.
U St: I'm curious as to why there is so much love for Rose and Bernard. Even with her comments last night, they have never seemed to add much to the show, yet some people always comment about how mad they are because they are rarely seen. You could pretty easily remove them without changing much/anything in the story. Why do people like them so much?
Jen Chaney: I can only speak for myself on this one. And so I will.
You're right, they are peripheral characters. But I have always had a soft spot for them because I was moved by their story from seasons one and two. In season one, Rose was so convinced her husband was still alive somewhere and her faith bolstered other people around her, including Charlie and Jack. When she and Bernard finally found each other in season two, it was pretty emotional. The Giacchino music helped.
Liz Kelly: They're a touchstone. Something reliably good in a show that often upends what we thought was solid fact. Same thing with Vincent -- he doesn't add much to the show, but I sure am happy when I see that guy come bounding through the jungle.
Saint Paul, Minn.: I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Miles's theory that Jack is actually causing what he seeks to prevent. Comments on that?
Jen Chaney: Another thing we meant to get to in our late night (early morning?) analysis exchange, but forgot. (Things get foggy around 1 a.m.)
I think Miles's theory is possible. But again, it comes back to what I said in this morning's post, that we still don't have a clear answer on whether the past, and therefore the future, can be altered.
Miles was suggesting that Jack may be going to all this trouble for an outcome that won't result in any significant differences. Sadly, we won't know until next January whether Miles is right on this.
Liz Kelly: I'd just like to say that for me the fogginess didn't actually set in until around 2 a.m.
Cambridge, Mass.: Since JJ Abrams's "Star Trek" came out last week, I'll take a moment to point out that the scene in which Nadia died was reminscent of the classic scene in "The City on the Edge of Forever" in which Edith Keeler has to be allowed to be killed by an oncoming car as Kirk stands helplessly nearby. Why did she have to die? To reset a universe thrown out of whack by time travel...
Jen Chaney: Kudos for that reference, Cambridge.
Hulu: Does Hulu have every Lost episode ever or do I still need to track down DVDs for the first few seasons? I need to rewatch everything to somehow get a clue.
washingtonpost.com: They're coming soon to Hulu. I believe they're all on ABC.com: Lost but can't verify because ABC.com wants to install its player on my work computer...
Liz Kelly: I'm not sure they're all on ABC, but I don't have time to check right now. Anyone have time to take a peek and report back?
Had a great time: Hi Liz and Jen, thanks so much for hosting last night. I had a great time, even though I had to leave early. I'm bummed I missed video time, but had to let the dog out. It was great to meet you and swap theories with other fans.
As far as the finale, I was soooooooo happy to see Vincent, Rose and Bernard and felt like their story kind of got wrapped up. I know Carlton and Damon have said that they're probably not going to wrap up Libby's story despite the pleas of fans. Are there any other stories that need to be tied up (other than the Shadow of the Statue people, of course)?
I'm still shedding a tear for Juliet, too.
Thanks again! Emily/eet7e (black dress with pink top)
Liz Kelly: I remember meeting you, Emily. Thanks much for coming out last night.
The one storyline I keep coming back to -- or wishing LindeCuse would come back to -- is shadowy Dharma founder Alvar Hanso. I'd just like some definitive closure there since he loomed so large at one point.
And although we learned last night that Richard is eternally young because "Jacob made [him] this way," I'd like a fuller explanation. I'm hoping we'll get a Richard-centric episode next year since he seems to be almost cast as a keeper of Jacob's safety. He kind of reminds me of the old knights Indiana Jones finds guarding the holy grail -- sworn to protect Jacob at all costs and always serve as the go-between.
Jen Chaney: Yes, thanks so much for coming last night!
To your question about dropped storylines, I doubt they will do this, but I wish they would close a few loops on Walt. I know Malcolm David Kelley got older and developed a hankering for Tysons Anytizers and what-not.
But his "specialness" was a key element in season one and I wish we could explore that more and understand what it was about. I also sincerely hope that Charlie makes at least one other cameo appearance.
Kansas City, KS: So is Ben the loophole? Maybe Ben is the only person that could kill Jacob, which would explain why Jacob has avoided Ben his whole life? And if the guy on the beach with Jacob could pretend to be Locke (I prefer UnLocke over BJL), maybe he pretended to be Ben's daughter too to manipulate Ben?
Also, I think the fact that the episode ended with with "Lost" written in black letters on white foreground (opposite of what it normally is) is a hint that the bomb did change the future and next season will take place in an alternate universe.
washingtonpost.com: Can I say that I thought BJL made an excellent argument for why Ben would want to kill Jacob?
Liz Kelly: Hmm, UnLocke is pretty darn good. We'll have to think about this.
But I wouldn't assume Jacob is actually dead. Or that Jacob didn't know that this would happen and had to happen.
Jen Chaney: I also like NotLocke, another moniker people are using. (Added bonus: sounds like Matlock!)
I think this pretending thing could get a little dangerous, though. Once you start that, who's to say when anyone is actually him/herself and not just a body inhabited by someone else?
Good call on the Lost font at the end. That struck me, too. Gave me the chills a little bit.
Most of the seasons are on ABC.com: And they'll hit Hulu soon. My suggestion, however, is to track down all the seasons in their DVD boxes and buy them if you can. They're too good not to. And I don't normally buy many movies.
Liz Kelly: There we go. Thanks for following-up.
Where is lil Ben?: Correct me if I've forgotten or missed something, but have we seen lil Ben since Richard took him into the temple? Did he ever return to the Dharmas, or is he still with the Others? If he didn't survive last night's explosion, that means no big Ben. Right?
Liz Kelly: He's still with the Hostiles, right? I'm assuming he's in a tent with them. Widmore did tell lil' Ben he would have to return to Dharma-ville, but I don't think we saw that happen.
Jen Chaney: Yeah, my assumption is that Lil Ben is with the Hostiles.
I was thinking about that whole Lil Ben thing late last night, too. If -- as a couple of you have suggested -- Ben is the loophole Jacob and Bad Locke were referring to, that might make sense. He was shot by someone from the future (a variable) and he has a foot in both the Hostile/Dharma worlds and he was positioned as a leader on the island but doesn't seem to be a true Chosen One.
Liz Kelly: Or is he a true Chosen One? When we found out that Locke was in fact Bizarro World Locke last night, I started thinking again that maybe Ben was the true leader after all. Or, if not the leader, destined for some form of island greatness.
Jacob -- Ben's god -- is testing him. And his final "What about you" was another test. Did anyone else notice the tears in Jacob's eyes when he said that? Ben must go through losing everything, even his sense of self and sanity, to get to... what? We don't know.
? for Liz: Did you find Muppet Baby version of Kate - "Katie" - as annoying as adult Kate? Perfectly cast. She has the same smug look.
Jen Chaney: She did look like a scrappy little thing, didn't she? Well cast.
I wasn't annoyed by little Kate as much as I was by her choice of lunchbox to steal. New Kids? Really?
Liz Kelly: Thanks for answering, Liz!
As for me, Jen, I also think she looked just like her older self, right down to the outsized attitude.
And the lunchbox is just further proof that the woman is a dolt.
Jen Chaney: Oops! Sorry. I saw Muppet Baby and didn't even look at the part that said ? for Liz.
Muppet babies always distract me.
DC: Was it just me or did Bernard give Juliet a very weird (maybe hateful) look after she declined tea and turned to leave?
If so, is Bernard overly sensitive about his tea, or is it something else?
Liz Kelly: What I took from that scene was that Juliet was struck by the juxtaposition of how out of control her own life was at that point -- returning to the island to stop Jack from killing everyone only to find out that Sawyer still carried a major torch for Kate -- and the civility and comforting stability of Bernard's offer. An offer she could only refuse.
Jen Chaney: As for Bernard, I thought he sensed that Juliet was conflicted or struggling emotionally.
He and Rose seemed to have reached some sort of zen state, so maybe he could pick up on her negative energy.
(Wow, I feel like I should been on a yoga mat when I wrote that last sentence.)
Dead is Dead: Poor, pathetic Locke. It seems like both Jacob and the other man have been pulling his strings.
Richard said that he kept checking, but he never thought Locke was special.
Not-Locke was the one who told Richard to tend to injured-timejumping-Locke, and prompted him to realize he had to die. Christian said he had to bring them back.
Does this ultimately mean that Locke never was special?
Liz Kelly: Sadly, I think it does. But he will always be special to me.
To Watch Past Seasons of Lost: Set your DVR to record all reruns of Lost. Two to three come on in the middle of each night on SciFi/WB. You will have the four prior seasons in a couple of months.
Liz Kelly: Or there's always Netflix. Or inviting your friends over for dramatic readings of the scripts.
Towson, Md.: Give Sun a break -- one of her questions, about the foot (Was it always like that?) did offer Ben the opportunity to lie ("Its been like that since I came here") and Sun to announce, "I don't believe you" which suggests...what does she know??
Jen Chaney: Hey, I like Sun. I just think she got the short shrift as far as dialogue is concerned.
Her foot questions were valid. The "What's he like?" question re: Jacob was the one that bugged me. "What's he like? Think he'd one to go to happy hour at Ruby Tuesday's next Thursday?" It just sounded weird.
I thought Sun said she didn't believe him mainly because he's Ben. And as he himself put it last night, Ben lies. That's what he does.
Jen Chaney: I meant to say "think he'd *want* to go to happy hour." Lack of sleep, people. Lack of sleep.
Liz Kelly: Wait -- we're going to Ruby Tuesday's now? I thought we were headed straight to the "Night at the Museum" premiere after this chat.
Jen Chaney: Oh, you know what I meant.
NotLocke/BJL : I prefer Anti-Locke.
Liz Kelly: We may need to put this to a vote before next season. I don't want to be referring to the guy with eight different nicknames.
Rockville, MD: I am struck by the fact that all 5 season enders have dealt w/Locke being in a box: Season 1 (Locke peering into the hatch), Season 2 (Locke in the hatch as it explodes), Season 3 (Locke in the coffin), Season 4 (Locke in the coffin), Season 5 (Locke in the box carried by Ilana et al.). What could this mean? If "Man 2" is trapped in his own box (the cabin, the island), perhaps he has been trying all along to get untrapped, and Locke represents his path to freedom?
Jen Chaney: Nice call on all the box parallelism. It's also worth noting that Locke worked at a box factory. And that his catch phrase is: "Don't tell me what I can't do!" which has to be the rallying cry of boxed-in people everywhere.
What it means, I am not sure. Maybe his spirit is boxed in and can't be free until he passes on to another plane, which -- presumably, being dead and all -- he has already done?
White light: It just occurred to me that the blinding light at the end of the episode may not have been the exploding hydrogen bomb; it could very well have been another time shift for some of the Losties, perhaps caused by the exploding bomb.
Jen Chaney: Ooh, good call. I think we need to trade some theories on this.
I immediately thought bomb exploded and then, "Hey, that's like the opposite of the last 'Sopranos' episode."
Liz Kelly: And I like the earlier poster's point about this being the exact opposite of "Lost's" previous white on black color scheme.
Yep, they're all on ABC...: You can watch all the past episodes on ABC - it's how I make it through work on non-Thursdays (when I don't have you ladies to get me through - as we told you last night, Liz, law firm work = BORING)
Liz Kelly: Think of it this way: at least you're doing something somewhat productive with your time and getting paid for your trouble (as you pointed out last night).
Jen Chaney: Multi-"Lost-tasking. I like it.
Alexandria, Va.: I'm thinking the "loop-hole" is the hole in the ash around the cabin. BJL found it, and was able to escape from his imprisonment.
When Locke first visited the cabin, it was BJL who said "Help Me."
And it was Hurley who left a hole in the circle when he later visited the cabin, unwittingly unleashing BJL back into the world.
Jen Chaney: Oh, that is excellent.
I particularly like this since I said all along that the dude in the rocking chair is Locke. I hope at least one of my cockamamie theories turns out to be correct.
Liz Kelly: I REALLY like this, too.
I would hug you if I could.
Anchorage: I'm not sure the conclusion that Jacob "caused Nadia's death" is accurate. He wasn't driving the car that mowed her down. Might it be instead that he saved Sayid?
Jen Chaney: That's a good point. I thought there was something more sinister there because Jacob did not seem to react when Nadia was hit. He just stood there, expressionless.
But maybe that just signifies that he expected that to happen. And as you said, he was holding Sayid back from being in the middle of the street when that car came.
Gallery Place: So, is the statue the Egyptian god Sobek? It looked like the statue had a crocodile head and, if that's the case, then it would make the statue Sobek. This description of Sobek from Wikipedia sounds familiar:
"Sobek's ambiguous nature led some Egyptians to believe that he was a repairer of evil that had been done, rather than a force for good in itself, for example, going to Duat to restore damage done to the dead as a result of their form of death. He was also said to call on suitable gods and goddesses required for protecting people in situation, effectively having a more distant role, nudging things along, rather than taking an active part."
Sounds a bit like Jacob, no?
Liz Kelly: It does. Theorists seem to be torn between thinking the statue represents either Sobek or Anubis, the god charged with leading souls to the underworld.
"Miles was suggesting that Jack may be going to all this trouble for an outcome that won't result in any significant differences": Actually, I understood Miles to be suggesting "maybe Jack thinks he's preventing the Incident, except that detonating the H-bomb at the Swan IS the incident." It's the idea that "altering" the events isn't altering anything...that this version of 1977 always played out that way. The same way that Jack thought not saving gunshot-victim li'l Ben would cause Ben to die and maybe alter things, but it led to the same results of pushing Ben into a future with the Others and love/trust issues.
Jen Chaney: I think we're saying the same thing, just using different language. If the H-bomb is the Incident then, as I suggested, it won't change anything. The past will have played out the way it always did.
Forgive me if I was less than clear on that, but I think we're on the same page.
K Street: Submitting early again ... bloody meetings!
I'll be quick. The unknown man at the beginning is Esau. Remember, Esau was the elder of Isaac & Rebekah's twin sons (Jacob came out holding onto Esau's ankle).
Isaac sends Esau out hunting, and while he's gone, Jacob and Rebekah conspire to fool Isaac into giving Jacob the inheritance destined for Esau. (Jacob dresses all hairy, because Esau was the hairy one.)
Esau goes out hunting, comes up empty handed, starving. Jacob convinces him to sell his birthright for some yummy stew.
Esau's pissed. Tries to kill Jacob. Rebekah intervenes.
This just came through my head with the opening sequence. Not sure if that actually makes Ben into Esau, or what (and is Juliet perhaps Rebekah, pulling the pin on Jughead to intervene?)
That may make zero sense, but...
Liz Kelly: I have no idea about the validity of any of this, but it sounds good.
Jen Chaney: Yeah, a few of you have mentioned Esau. Which means we need to do a little studying up on the subject, I think.
Cincinnati: Warning: Ramblings ahead!
My brother went to see Carlton Cuse speak last week at Ohio State. Apparently someone there asked a question that's been bugging me since last season:
When Desmond shared his vision with Charlie that ultimately sent him down to the Looking Glass to die, he very specifically said "I saw Claire and her baby getting on a helicopter." And we all know that not only did Claire not get on any helicopters, but her baby got on a helicopter with Sun. So what's up with that? Was Des intentionally lying? Was he given a false vision just to manipulate Charlie? Was Charlie's sacrifice for naught? Did the writers just make a mistake?
Anyway, apparently Mr. Cuse just said it was a good question to be asking, suggesting we might be revisiting that moment at some point. Can I get a HURRAY?
Seeing Charlie's DS ring (yay! Called it as soon as we saw that overturned cradle!) reminded me. I really hoped we'd get a glimpse of Claire in the season finale, but Rose and Bernard and Vincent made up for my disappointment.
Liz Kelly: I'm not going to wade into the rest of your comment, but did want to point out that maybe we've seen the last of Rose and Bernard. They made sure to tell us they are retired. I had to wonder if that was LindeCuse's way of retiring them from future episodes.
Jen Chaney: Claire is another storyline that I think they need to resolve, and presumably will next season.
I wonder if they all end up on the island again but do get rescued and this time, Claire gets to go with Aaron. Maybe the vision Desmond had was of an alternate timeline we have yet to see play out?
The Statue: Ok, the statue is cool in and of itself. But to then have it blown to smithereens (I'm guessing it's gonna be shown on the ocean floor next season...) with only the foot left means something. What?
Liz Kelly: Ummm... that 90 percent of the body is superfluous and we should all start worshipping our feet?
Jen Chaney: I suspect it means something, too, but am not sure what either. Readers, jump in here -- with both feet! HA! Oh lord, I need a nap -- and see if you can suss out this one.
Milwaukee: What I took from the Rose/Bernard scene is that Rose thinks Juliet is pregnant. Possible?
Jen Chaney: Woah. Okay, I totally missed this.
Liz Kelly: Same. Really?
Post this!: I have a theory about Eliose and time. When we first encountered Eliose, she was telling us that you can't change what happened, and that the universe will course correct if you try.
The 1977 Eliose seems to think you can change what happens, so she helps Jack detonate Jughead. The H-bomb going off is the reason the Others can't give birth on the island anymore (radiation), and the reason that the Swan people wear radiation suits.
The reason Eliose is so upset about having to send Daniel to the island is because she knows she is going to shoot him and she knows she can't stop it because she tried and failed and that is why she becomes the time lady.
She also leaves the island to try to raise him off of the island so his future will be different, but realizes that this is impossible, and that is why she tells him to go. Make sense? In other words, she caused everything to happen by trying to change it.
Jen Chaney: This makes sense. Although I would argue, in true Eloise fashion, that she didn't cause these things to happen. They would happen that way no matter what she did.
But this explanation is solid and well articulated, so thank you.
Bizarro Lost?: So if we're sticking to the alternate lost universe theory next year, are we going to start calling it Un-Lost? Anti-Lost? Found?
Jen Chaney: Found is good. Maybe they'll change the name of the show just to mess with our minds.
Why the tension?: Why is it necessary to create some type of romance tension between Jack/Kate/Sawyer/Juliet? For Jack & Kate, you knew that wasn't going to work out. Kate can't really settle down since she refuses to make any compromises. As for Sawyer and Juliet, are you supposed to believe that Sawyer's feelings for Kate are still supposedly strong even though he has been in what seems to be a pretty exclusive romantic relationship with Juliet for 3 years? That, plus thinking that Juliet would be that insecure about it. I thought the way they handled that situation made sense if you believed the tension. However, I would have been more impressed with Sawyer if he had pushed Kate away while still yelling/crying for Juliet.
Liz Kelly: As Jen said in the analysis, a return to the triangle is a return to one of the early central conflicts of the show. And I do think it works.
Jack wants Kate, but feels he's hurt her beyond redemption.
Sawyer doesn't want to want Kate, but does anyway. And if she'd never returned to the island he probably would have been content with Juliet.
Kate isn't sure who she wants. She's Guenevere to their King Arthur and Lancelot.
And I do think the romantic tension adds a much-needed counter balance to the more fantastical storyline.
Jen Chaney: I also think that triangle gets at this same destiny vs. free will question. From Kate's perspective, at least in the first season, Jack represented the hero, the good man, the kind of guy that would make Kate a better person. Sawyer was the darker side of her nature.
So the question for Kate was, should I be with Jack and change myself, or be with Sawyer and stay who I am?
Kaneohe, Hawaii: Could you do another chat soon. Sort of a "once the dust settles and we've all had a chance to think about things" chat?
washingtonpost.com: If you will have us all out to Hawaii to do it from there?
Liz Kelly: I think that's a great idea, actually.
Well, both yours and Paul's.
Re: Locke: I just wanted to say that I am really sad that the real Locke seems to still be dead. He wasn't the brightest character in the show, but he sure had a lot of faith. I'm sad he's gone.
Liz Kelly: Well, he's gone in a sense. I'm sure Terry O'Quinn will continue as Bizarro John or AntiLocke or whatever we decide to call him.
Will be hard for us, but probably a pretty cool acting challenge for Terry.
Like the Ash Theory!: Don't forget, the opposite of black is white. Making a circle of white salt keeps evil things OUT as opposed to the black ash keeping him in. Good information to know if a demon or witch or evil Egyptian God is after you.
Liz Kelly: Good thing we have a resident Wiccan advisor here.
Jen Chaney: I have evil Egyptian gods chasing me every day. Thank God I can now put a stop to this.
Seriously, thanks for pointing this out.
Liz Kelly: Okay, thanks everyone for joining us today and throughout the season. As I mentioned above, Jen and I are working on a way to keep this conversation going throughout the hiatus. We'll share the details when we have them.
Jen Chaney: We can tell you that we will be chatting at this same time next week, when hopefully we'll have more info about that continuing conversation and our brains will be less fried.
(That was a bomb possibly exploding.)
See you next week.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.