New Lost Theory

Stuxnet

This theory comes from InfiniteJest a poster on the fuselage linear board, I think its very good, has some flaws but wanted to share,


OK: the REAL genre is known as Metafiction. In short, it is a genre in which the characters in, say a novel, become gradually self-aware that they, themselves are in fact only characters in a novel. That they do not "exist" in the sense that human beings do. All the "characters" on the show are just that: characters. We, the viewers, have a natural assumption that they are "people". And fleshing them out via backstories re-inforces this for the writers (clever bunch). Now the writers need help to pull this off. One, they really need Locke. We already know Locke has become more "self-aware" because he stood up and walked right away. That defies logic, and he knew this right away. And Locke spends a few solitary days in deep thought about it. Locke (and now Desmond) is ahead of the learning curve: he tells others "Boone was a sacrifice the island demanded" and he tells Charlie re: Eko "the island took him". Locke is more self-conciously aware of what it actually is (the so-called island). The writers need him, to bridge the gap between what they all (the characters) THINK they are, and what they all ACTUALLY are. They also need Jack, because he is the exact opposite, and is the stand-in for us, the viewers. Jack is a character of science, not "faith", and thus demands proof. So do we, the viewers. So when LOST gets to this "Big Reveal", it will be Jack's understanding of who and what he actually really is. That is going to be the big reveal they are (slowly) building up to. I could give you about 20 emails full of examples.
Here's one very clear one: the shop woman tells Desmond he must "play his part", (notice the wording, his "part") well yes he does, he is a character and if he doesn't, then the "plot" will need re-adjusting. She knows what his part is, but Desmond doesn't. Yet as the episode goes on, he shows signs he, too, is now becoming more self-conciously "aware" of his place, that he can't alter anything because he is un-alterable. He is not his own "creator"; the writers are. He is at the mercy of whatever "fate" his "part" is meant to play. And so is Charlie, and Desmond in effect tells him that.
Each character projects something of themselves into the woods: of their own pasts. Yet they never share this with the other characters. Hmmm. Locke sees the "boogeyman/monster", but doesn't tell the others he has, or what it even looks like. Hmmm. Why? (In fact, they make a point of showing us Locke and not the "monster" as it bears down on him, we know he sees it, but they didn't show us what he sees.) All the inter-connected things, numbers, characters passing in and out of each other's back stories...this makes total sense, because they are ALL characters of the same story! Obviously if you have 10 characters, say in a play, they have to all inter-connect. You can't bring in a cast of thousands and make them all fit. Plus it would be cheating the genre concept. All genres have built in "rules" (say the genre of a Western: it must have guns, horses, dirt, a saloon, and so forth). So does Metafiction.
Now let's go on to assumptions: this is the writer's best friend and they have milked us crazy with them. Who said it was an island? The writers never did! We ASSUME it is, because we assume the genre. It's a plane crash/castaways/survival genre! Ummm...no. That's what we assume it is. What it LOOKS like. In fact the very first shot of the very first episode is what? Jack...opening his eyes. It is Jack, becoming AWARE. When every character--and it is a running motif--is shown opening their eyes, it is because they are becoming more aware of something. Think of what happens to each right after they do so.
This is why the writers do it so often. They are showing us the characters and how they need to become more "self-aware" or to be really blunt: they need to open their eyes and SEE, learn.
The writers have gone soooo far out of the way to hit us over the head that this is NOT an "island": polar bears?
Not once...but twice so far. An invisible (usually) noisy scary "monster" in the dark woods? The "magical garden of make believe" where characters see things from their past simply pop up (Jack's dead father; Ethan after Charlie kills him; Hurley's friend from the loony bin; Kate's black horse, etc.) ??? Does any of that fit what an island is? No. But it sure LOOKS like one. We assume it's one. But the writers have shown us tons of reasons why it isn't one. We just assume what we see. Not what we are actually being told. They haven't been cheating, they have told us plenty (albeit cleverly and subtlely) all along. But we prefer to believe what we see, what we assume.
Why is it nobody can escape from the island? When the group were on the raft, they got "lost", weren't getting anywhere. And in fact ended up where? Right back where they started. When Desmond flees on his boat, where does he end up? Right back where he started.
Where do you think Michael and Walt are? In Fiji, telling the authorities to come and rescue the crash survivors? LOL Come on! They will be back because they, too, can go "nowhere". There is nowhere to go! That's why Ben let them go. It's a PLOT. Not as in a conspiracy "plot"; but a plot of a STORY. And they are characters trapped within it. Why do you think Ben let's them leave?
Because he knows they will get nowhere at all. Why do you think Ben insists they (the so-called "Others") are "the good guys"? Well, in a strange way...they are!
Because they are the already self-aware. (Jack meanwhile is having the hardest time of all dealing with this, he screams every episode now).
They didn't "kidnap" children. (And we have been told now that they never harmed them anyway, not as we first assumed they did). They took them from the less aware and more dangerous characters. Who, in case you have kept track--have attacked one another, tortured one another (Sayid/Sawyer), and even have shot one another (Michael/Anna Lucia-Shannon/Libby). The reason The Others seem condescending or "mysterious" to the characters is they are the already self-aware and they realize they are dealing with characters that aren't. And it's not like you can just walk up to, say, Jack and say "guess what? you're a character" and he'll buy that or even be able to come to grips with what that means. Or any of them, perhaps sans Locke, anyway; and whenever Locke does say something remotely self-aware, they roll their eyes at him and think he's gone native or is loony, anyway. I could go on, give tons more examples. But in a nutshell...what the shopwoman tells Desmond is spot on. It's the first time a character on LOST directly tells another one who or what they may actually be. Now they do this very, very cleverly. It's subtle. But it's all there. It's the show's characters who are "Lost"...unaware. That's the great inside-joke.
Lastly...in order to pull this off, they will inevitably have to SHOW us (and Jack) something. It will have to be explicitly clear what we are seeing. Jack will need the "proof", so will we. It could be a variety of things. For example, I almost thought at end of season 1, they would show the rafters actually run out of ocean...literally hit a barrier in which there simply was no more water. It will have to be something akin to this. To break what is known as the "fourth wall", to show us that limitations exist and that no character can mistake or escape it.
Now you will probably say "hmm..interesting" but not quite believe me. That's OK. But do this: try watching LOST as if I am right, and then see what a difference it makes to so many questions as they arise. Suddenly...it fits. Example: Cindy and the children simply appearing to "watch" Jack. Well...they are also characters. This is akin to a Greek chorus in Shakespearean plays. Who watch, comment perhaps. It's not that they "exist" that is unsettling to Jack, it is that he has no idea WHY they are there. They are there, because they are part of the story. As Jack himself is. The "one who walks among us but is not one of us". That's accurate. Because he isn't a person. He SEEMS to be one, we assume he is. He ACTS as one might. But he really isn't. He's a character unaware of it. And this, btw, is the explanation for how a character can exist in both past and present, and yet not be able to alter anything about themself. It's not time travel.
It's because he's already been scripted. He can't alter that. No character ever can. Not their past nor their present.





Thanks. It's the only theory that fits. Ask any Q's that you think blow the theory out, and I can explain why it doesn't...because I have watched carefully and the writers have been extremely careful not to "cheat". I've tried myself to find ways in which this theory fails, and I couldn't come up with anything that blows it. Or anything the writers have done to make it clear it ISN'T what I think is going on. They have never shut any door to this possibility.
There is another running trope (which is a familiar and repeated symbol, theme, or motif) and it's about identity. Which plays perfectly, again, into the metafiction world. Think about this: only ONE character makes a consistent point of referring to the other characters by their correct name.
Locke. He has almost always called Hurley "Hugo" and always calls "Sawyer" James. This is another tipoff Locke is ahead of the game. The shifting of identities is extremely common on LOST: Ben is Henry Gale, who is not Henry Gale, but an "Other" as Rousseau insists, but is taken in as Henry Gale, only to be found out to not be Henry Gale, but an "Other", and then ultimately as Ben Linus.
Sawyer is Sawyer until the manifest shows there was no Sawyer, in which case he is then James Ford, although all the characters still call him Sawyer anyway (except Locke). Hurley introduces himself as Hurley, but in flashback he is Hugo Reyes, but still remains Hurley in the "present", but is also Hugo, to Locke. Although the rest still refer to him as Hurley.
A few other inside jokes: Anna Lucia cutting Sayid free from the tree, saying "go ahead, I'm dead already". (Which as it turns out, she certainly was). Sun speaking Korean until she doesn't just speak Korean, but English too. When the writers give Hurley a hatch fantasy, it's of Jin, who is speaking not Korean, but English(!).
So after all this: are these "people" or actually characters just being written ? Because if they are people, they shouldn't be doing or knowing such stuff.
Jack's last name being Shephard, which, by definition, is a leader of a flock. Dr. Marvin Candle...what does a candle do? It illuminates, sheds light. And so did the films he intros. Jack's father being named Christian, which would make Jack "the prodigal son" in that arena. (Of course Claire is his half-sister; that's a gimme, it interconnects the concept tighter if she is). And the Bosch thing now with Charlie (his middle name thing)--people miss the point, it isn't the artist Bosch himself, it's HOW Bosch showed his work: he used a triptych, which is (ta da!) a work consisting of three painted or carved panels that are hinged together, in short--interconnected, to make the "story" of the painted work. Just like episodes of LOST are doing. In fact even referring to the "other characters" as "Others" is a joke, because they are others...of...what, precisely? The beach characters simply don't know. Why is it the characters make a point of never even discussing or even NAMING the "monster"? (They don't even call it "the monster"! We, the viewers, do) They just say things like "if you hear anything Kate, RUN!" or "the island took him" instead of discussing the actual "monster". Don't you find this odd? It's almost as if they are trying to act like it doesn't exist and if they don't name or dicuss it, it won't reappear. They certainly do not share info about it.
These are delicious inside jokes. Very clever writers.
I can see why some posters are very upset or think the show has wandered off point or has ignored things. This is going to be a very slow build. It has to be, otherwise nobody will buy/understand it. I still imagine a good portion of the viewers will feel cheated at the reveal anyway. But if you appreciate really clever and challenging TV, then this is the show to be watching.




Lastly...P.S. many years ago this was tried on the BBC, not quite the same way, and only upon one character...the show was called "The Prisoner", starring Patrick McGoohan, right after he left "Secret Agent Man", which was a network TV show. It had identity tropes galore (who is # 1? McGoohan was # 5...the inhabitants were numbered, and there was a new # 2 almost every episode, sometimes the same # 2 would come back in later shows too). It had an assumed "island" setting. There was a "monster" as well..a giant white bubble thingy that would pop up from the water and smother escapees. And so on. I bet you anything the writers of LOST have watched "The Prisoner". Ask them in a post sometime LOL...see if they try and duck the question!

And as for that strange room Carl was in, forced to watch that film. That's also been used before, twice that I can recall. Once, very famously in a well known film, "A Clockwork Orange". As a behavioral adjustment technique to "cure" Malcolm McDowell of his violence. The other is a cult film, and a fav of mine, called "The Parallax View" with Warren Beatty; in which he undergoes the same viewing "test" in an effort to fake sociopathic tendencies to infiltrate the Parallax Corporation (who are behind numerous assasinations and seek such men out). They also make him sit, eyes open, and watch a film with messages and hidden words, etc.

PiE

If the "big reveal" turned out to be the writers saying "lol lads, all this strange stuff happened because.. well that's just the way we wrote it!" there'd be mass lynchings.

Horsecrap imo.

Sinfonia

So it's a show about writing a show...

I'm not saying that's wrong, but I really hope it is

Anima

Clever but nah.

cooker3

Nah, no way would they do that. The writers would have to assume new identities to avoid the lynching if they tried that.

JTMan

This is one of the most plausible theories that I have read. It is very hard to disprove anyway. Pure genius

darrenh

its possible but dont think its gonna happen. what a crap ending. dont think ABC would be to happy either.

L31mr0d

eh... how was the prisoner like this theory of lost? did the prisoner end with the "the prisoner" realising he was a character in a storyline?

and what about the people in the Artic who supposedly picked up the EM explosion?

Bull crap imo, think the OP of this theory is off his rocker.

Agamemnon

A smart theory but I don't think a mass-market tv show would dare to go with that explanation. The writers would be strung up from a tree like Charlie.

somuj

Impossible.

How in the hell can a fictional character created from someones mind become self aware.

Where excatly does their conscious thought take place? How can words on a page postulate?

Stuxnet

somuj wrote:

Impossible.

How in the hell can a fictional character created from someones mind become self aware.

Where excatly does their conscious thought take place? How can words on a page postulate?

well its been done before, Will Ferrell's new movie Stranger Than Fiction is just exactly about this, a guy wakes up one day only to discover he's actually a character in a book being written...I didn't like the film but the idea was very good !!
What if your life really WAS a book? MENTAL !!

oleras

very interesting..............i can see the end now, camera pans up, the island goes from a real picture to an illustrated one on the front of a book which the title is of course "lost". But who is the author ?
And with regard to not getting away with it, who remembers the last scene from St.Elsewhere ? best ending to a series i have ever seen !

somuj

If the characters had become self aware. I.E in control of their thoughts and actions. Would that not mean that the writers had "lost" control of them.

They now would be controling the writers. The writers would now have to pen their thoughts and actions.

Ben decides to walk to the beach. The writers hand mysterioulsy starts writing "Ben decides to walk to the beach".


I don't buy it.

Miguel_Sanchez

Isn't this a bit of a hard theory to disprove because anything you bring up can just be discredited by saying 'Ah but it's all just a story' or 'They're all just characters'.

Nah I don't think this will be the big reveal.

mickot

Flann O"Brien used this device and spookily one of Flann O'Brien/Myles naGopaleens's books was featured in a previous episode of Lost when a character was reading, I think "The Third Policeman" or it could have been "The Dalkey Archive".
In Eamon Morrissey's stage play "The Brother", based on the works of Flann O'Brien, he used this very same scenario !! - he was a character from the books and was always saying things like "You'll never guess what he(the author - Flann/Myles) has written me doing now!" - and then he would act it out!
I saw it on stage and have a very old VCR of the stage play and the whole thing is based on the fact that the characters know that they are "written" and can do nothing about it and therefore have to go through with the most incredible situations!
The Brother says that no good will come of watchin Lost and it will all end it tears!

-micko

monkeyfudge

L31mr0d wrote:

eh... how was the prisoner like this theory of lost? did the prisoner end with the "the prisoner" realising he was a character in a storyline?

Nope not at all. The ending of the Prisoner seemed to imply that

Patrick McGoohan's character was Number 1 and this was a commentary on how we are all prisoners of ourselves.

Also... it was an ITV show... not a BBC one.... This is very clear as there are spots for ad breaks.... Just goes to show how much research this guy did.

Gavin W

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

Isn't this a bit of a hard theory to disprove because anything you bring up can just be discredited by saying 'Ah but it's all just a story' or 'They're all just characters'.

Exactly. You could apply this theory to any work of fiction and it would be impossible to discredit. Any errors or inconsistencies or strangeness within the story could be cited as "proof" that the theory is correct.

I agree with the comments about how the writers would get lynched if they did this. That would certainly be one way of emulating 'The Prisoner'. After that show's surreal and inconclusive final episode Patrick McGoohan kept getting attacked in the street!:D

ZiabR

Very interesting read tbh but if it turns out to be in anyway true, i will flip :P

mckibben

not sure if it's going to be revealed as the truth but it's a good one. Reminds me of the movie "the others" in which dead ghosty characters are gradually persuaded that they're dead.

trishw78

It's been kinda done before.

Wasn't 'St. Elsewhere' the imagination of 9 year old boy.

Deliverance

I liked this theory, and if it is handled well it would be a good ending. I thought of the Will Ferrell movie before I read the Will Ferell reply. Has anyone seen 'adaptation' with Nic cage playing twin brother writers? A great movie which did the whole thing really well.

The only problem with this theory as I see it is that 'adaptation' did it fantastically well in 2 hrs give or take. If lost is using this same formula then they will indeed be lynched as it has already been done and it will only highlight that they have just regurgitated a great idea to appeal to a mass public and gain revenue by anothers ideas. But hey why should they care anyway money has been made. Saying that could they be sued for intellectual property rights on a storyline.
Just a thought.
Ps I think that bobbyc should write for lost he might actually save them from disgrace, great well thought out and all inclusive post!

Jesus Wept

this is akin to


IT WAS ALL A DREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


give me a feckin break!

BopNiblets

Not just any old dream, the whole show is MY dream, I dreamt it a few years ago and JJ Abrams and Lindelof harvested it from my brain with their mind-harvesting machine...

I think I'll sue them or something.

Seriously though, that would be a pretty disappointing ending.

lady_j

hmm one of the more interesting theories Ive heard. It's almost a bit too simple for me, its a method that has been used in several programmes/films recently so Im not sure they'd get away with it. (adaptation, stranger than fiction, the truman show also tapped into those ideas).

Also like an american network will let that happen, i imagine its going to be incredibly disappointing. There has been so much speculation that the theories are probably more inventive than what is planned.

I get the real sense watching that lost shouldnt have been this long. Three seasons probably would have been enough, a lot of this season seems like filler because the writers have been told to extend the plot for a few more seasons

Diarmsquid

I've been watching it with this theory in mind, and a lot of things seem to fit in.
I'd be dissapointed if it were true though

badgerbadger

how can a fictional character become self aware
the writer is making the character self aware
so the character thinks its self aware but the writer has full control of the character

ZiabR

badgerbadger wrote:

how can a fictional character become self aware
the writer is making the character self aware
so the character thinks its self aware but the writer has full control of the character

Yeah i don't think this theory to be true either.

yawnstretch

Here's how you portray a character becoming self-aware:



Location - the Island on the main beach

Dramatic lighting effect occurs and character (Locke for example) looks into camera as effect dies away.

"Eh Terry what are you doing?"

"CUT!!!"

Show scene from a different angle to include the camera that Locke was originally staring into as well as boom operators and various production staff

Locke: "I was right..."

starts walking off set as director and production staff get confused ask where he's going etc.

Locke: "where am I - who are you people!?"

Cut back to the Island
Locke has just vanished in front of Jack's and the other's eyes. General confusion

- This can go on for some time with characters going about the island talking about it being worried etc.

Cut back to "Real Life"

Locke arguing with a man

"You say you're my agent - but why the hell cant you get me in touch with the creator of the show?" (Rubs his face with confusion realising one of his recent wounds or scars is just makeup )

"Terry - you're starting to freak me out now, you know JJ's busy all week doing the new Trek movie" his voice fades out as Locke starts walking away from himand off set

Back on the Island
Characters in confusion, white noise - environment is beginning to destabilize - things appearing/disappearing. Dead characters returning/night to day effects, characters start to fade away some start screaming - with some looking into the camera occasionally.

Everything goes black

5 seconds of darkness later a rapid montage of Locke on various live tv shows across america - meeting the writers, shouting and fighting on the Larry King show etc. Flashes of newspaper and internet articles with headlines claiming the actor has lost it/publicity stunt/thinks he's a fictional person/his wife calling for a divorce/

At this point the actual program just stops abruptly with NOT TO BE AIRED notices and disclaimers appearing over the credits. ABC goes along with the Lost ending publicity by continuing the stories about Lost being cancelled due to actor contract problems.