"LOST: Across the Sea"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"Across the Sea"

There is both much to say and not much that can be said about this episode. This episode is very central to the show's core mythology as we now understand it. It is the first episode in the series not to feature new footage of any of the Oceanic survivors. And to be quite frank, it could have done without replaying the Adam and Eve sequence from Season 1 ("House of the Rising Sun").

Every question leads to another question.

We now know the root of the Island's mysterious powers, even if we are at a loss to explain its rules. The light inside the Island apparently shares a little piece of itself with every person in the world, so if it goes out, it goes out everywhere. The question is: does each "pocket" of light or energy on the Island have different powers, or had the Dharma Initiative and others just used them in different ways.

If the pockets have different powers and each person has some of the Island's light inside them, then perhaps each person has different "special" abilities. Otherwise, perhaps anyone is capable of seeing dead people or surviving extreme electromagnetism under the right conditions. It isn't clear why the young Man in Black could see the ghost of Claudia, but young Jacob could not. It is also unclear how young Jacob had been sighted by both Sawyer and Desmond approximately 2000 years after he grew into a man—and many days after his death.

Then everyone will follow your rules.

When Jacob pushes his brother into the light, it is the most significant event the series has revealed so far. The Man in Black's "fate worse than death" is to become the Smoke Monster. However, we don't really know what that entails. The light seems to have gone out after the Monster clears the cave, yet if it seems not to have gone out everywhere. If this event is connected to the statements Widmore has made about what would happen if the Man in Black got off the Island, then presumably Jacob's job went from protecting the light to keeping his brother on the Island. Effectively, he changed the rules.

Yet their common past seems to echo throughout the history of the Island. The story of a distressed or sudden birth—where the mother is insistent on the baby's name—is a theme shared by Locke, Ben, and Aaron. The theme of mothers dying violently is prevalent in the Island's history. While the Man in Black killed his foster mother, she killed Jacob's and his biological mother. Ben's mother died in child birth, and the Others under his leadership suffered a plague of pregnant women dying. It is possible that the writers intended to imply that each child is causing his mother's death, much the way that the Man in Black did.

I made it so you can't kill each other.

Currently, the conflicted relationship between Widmore and Ben is a microcosm of the one between Jacob and the Man in Black, I believe, respectively. The two mortal men seem to be locked into the same rules of engagement as the twins. The method or magic by which the woman made that rule is unknown, as is the reason it also applies to the two mortal men.

This concept has always reminded me of the Mark of Cain from the Bible, where God made it so that no one would harm him. Biblical Jacob had a similar protection from God. Though, in neither case was the protection extended to the sibling—Cain having already killed Abel, and Jacob being in hiding from Esau. It is interesting to note that the biblical archetypes (and not the roles of good and evil) are a potential role reversal. Whereas biblical Jacob was encouraged by his mother to be dishonest (he was her favorite), wrestled with an angel (Samael, an angel of death), and went to live among other people, where he built a well; LOST Jacob cannot lie, is not his "mother's" favorite, and yet lives with her in the jungle. It is the Man in Black who wrestles with demons and goes to live with other people where he builds many wells.

Jacob doesn't know how to lie.

The Man in Black's ability to be dishonest seems to be a point of pride for his mother. Even though she vehemently criticizes men and their corrupt ways, she is a murderer and a liar herself. It is the ghost of the twins' biological mother who eventually reveals the truth. Strangely, she reveals it to the young Man in Black, who was told he was special by his "mother." Perhaps being told he was special is what triggered this special ability to see the dead, or perhaps something about his corruptness allows him to see.

Yet again, the ghosts may well be manipulators controlled by a third party whose agenda has yet to be revealed.

FEATURED MEDIA: Preorder the final season!

A Story is a Cypher

Give your audience all the secrets of your story, but give it to them in code. Then treat the remainder of your tale as that code's key. The earlier you give this information, the more concise you have to be, and the more central the symbols you use are.

LOST is coming to a close. Only one episode left before the series finale. The show has demonstrated this formula since the pilot episode, and we are only now beginning to understand the significance of symbols from Season 1. I will go more in depth in my weekly LOST post tomorrow.

This approach requires a firm understanding of the world in which your story is told. It doesn't have to have the same rules as the real world, but it has to have and follow its own rules. Moreover, the audience has to get the sense that what is happening (strange as it may be) is happening according to unknown rules. This is difficult to do without revealing secrets. The creator has to demonstrate the patterns of truth and the story's integrity to that truth by using symbols and "microcosms."

The audience is ready to suspend its disbelief when it agrees to partake of your story, but that suspension is limited to the introductory parts. After that, the audience's trust is won by keeping the promises made early on. It is better, I think, not to ask your audience to suspend its disbelief, but to give a story upon which to rest its belief.

The creators ultimately need to know where they stand on deep human issues (issues of nature and nurture, good and evil). Without this understanding, it is impossible to create integrity within the story. Without that integrity, it is impossible to create the stability necessary for a rabid überfanbase. So a fair foundation of humanity is essential to a megahit.

The symbols and microcosms must be anchored in philosophy, even if its not explicit. In fact, the philosophical discussion should wait until the resolution phase of your story. A tangible code—one which resonates with people—will compel the search for answers, developing loyalty. The answers must then be worthy, or the audience will feel betrayed.

FEATURED MEDIA: LOST - The groundbreaking epic about life and purpose, and more specifically, getting lost on the path.

Bells and Whistles

My wife and I are planning to restore a 1965 MGB, hence my previous post. For those of you who are in the dark about this particular vehicle, as I was, let me explain the project. MG (which stands for Morris Garages) manufactured several models of small british sports cars. Like many higher end automobiles, MGs are known only by model number (or in this case model letter). The MGB followed the MGA and so on.

What's interesting about the '65 MGB is that we're told it tends to increase in value (appreciate) faster than later cars in its class. Also, the parts for restoration are surprisingly inexpensive, and more importantly, available. Contrast this with the late 30s - early 40s Bentley, which was also in the shop. The Bentley, which is a notoriously expensive, hand built automobile to begin with is apparently very difficult and expensive to find parts for.

The MGB is both more rare and more distinguished than an old Camaro or Mustang (granted those are muscle cars), but a relatively simple and inexpensive undertaking for a beginner (or someone who wants an innovative way to own a car outright without saving up $8000 in the bank). A classic car (especially a sports car) is a good place, in my understanding, to put your money. By all means, do your research!

The lessons that can be learned from a tangible investment like this are numerous, and most of the principles apply to more intangible ventures like building a business. Also, not much is under the hood of those old cars that isn't in our current cars... that is to say, not much is under the hood of those old cars, period. One wonders what all the modern complexity is for, except giving the mechanics at the dealership "job security."

By and large, many of the additions to automobiles since the fifties have been about style and comfort—the "modern conveniences." These things aren't bad, but they served customers in a boom-time when those customers had money to spend on such things. Media continued to hype the status of these luxuries far beyond the boom cycle, to the point that we're really unaware of what "barebones" means. It's a problem because, economically, we as a culture don't know how to scale back except to cut the money we "spend" on investments.

Oops. A true investment (something that gives you more money later) is the last thing you want to stop putting money into, and the first place you ought to start when you carve out anything extra. A classic car—one that's actually an investment—is both a fun and utilitarian solution in tough times.

Why buy junk, when you can buy an classic?

FEATURED MEDIA: The World's Fastest Indian - Based on the true story of Burt Munro, a New Zealander whose dream is to race his restored and modified 1920 Indian Scout motorcycle on the salt flats of Utah.

The DIY Factory

Have you ever stopped to think that 66-75% of the cost of a car comes from the labor? I never have! But here's another question: what if you learned how to build a car from scratch? How much could you save?

Obviously, most people couldn't even fit that into their brains. A car is just too complicated. That may be true, but a car is also a logical system, with logical step-by-step manuals. We've all built Legos. Maybe you're just too busy to learn, which is fair. However, not having the time is a matter of re-examining the situation.

Few things are better bonding projects than rebuilding a classic car, and even fewer amount to good investments. Yes, modern cars are complicated with their computers and bells and whistles, but cars that constitute classics are not that tough. The biggest drawback is money and perhaps the availability of parts, but both problems can be normally addressed by simply delaying the finish date. If it's a classic, it isn't depreciating like that brand new sedan—so what's the rush?

I refer you to the scene from LOST where Hurley is a kid helping his dad fix up an old Camaro. It's a milestone in Hurley's life where the unfinished car represents an incomplete relationship with his dad, who leaves the car and his young son with the message, "You make your own luck." Years later, the car remains unfinished, but Hurley never sold it. Fathers have this sort of bond with their sons, for better or worse.

That brings me to my usual connection with media and marketing. We're sold on buying the newest, most expensive, right now, on credit. But that is not intelligent. I don't mean to judge, but it's not. We have all done it, plan to do it, even think it's a great idea because a car is an investment. Largely though, they're not. What that debt hustle does is keeps people employed doing the labor (the 66-75%) so they can afford the debt they should have been educated against in the first place.

With the auto industry in its current slump, we're all largely aware that it isn't even keeping people employed. So what if we started preserving history by doing the labor ourselves—what Oliver DeMille calls mini-factories. Smaller DIY projects like this are not only going mainstream, they're essential to this country's economy righting itself. If you're looking to change your economic future, forget the big factory and join the DIY factory—you might save 66-75%.

FEATURED MEDIA
LOST - The groundbreaking epic series that spans a whole range of human issue from the petty to heart-breaking. An odyssey of fate, faith, and sci
The Coming Aristocracy - A phenomenal book about the current class-based economic system in America, how it's failing, and what individuals can do about it.

"LOST: The Candidate"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"The Candidate"

What a powerful episode this was! We discover that "The Candidate" was a trick title. This episode does not reveal who the final candidate to replace Jacob is (I think it's clearly Jack), though it does eliminate three other candidates.

The title refers to Locke in the flash-sideways being a candidate for an experimental spinal surgery. This becomes the center for discussion of this episode's main theme, "letting go." Locke refuses the surgery because he cannot forgive himself for turning his father into a vegetable.

It is interesting that Jack is now the man of faith in both timelines. Each timeline invokes Locke's former belief. Jack says, "I wish you believed me," as Locke wheels away after refusing the surgery. In the Island timeline, Jack tells the Man in Black that it was John Locke who told him not to leave the Island.

They attempt to defy the Man in Black by getting on the sub without him, and inadvertently fall into his trap. In a reversal of his usual style of reactionary leadership, Jack implores Sawyer to leave the bomb alone. He reasons that the Man in Black needs them dead, but is "not allowed" to kill them himself. By messing with the bomb, Sawyer takes on the responsibility for killing them.

It was, however, Sayid's idea to pull the wires. Understanding that Sawyer's actions have placed them in jeopardy, Sayid carries the bomb as far away from them as he can. He reveals his goodness by sacrificing himself for them.

The explosion gives them an escape route, but injures Sawyer and pins Sun behind some rubble. Unwilling to let go of his wife but unable to free her, Jin drowns with Sun—their hands clasped to the end.

And at last, the story confirms that the Man in Black is the greater evil between him and Widmore. Despite his callous attitude, Widmore is attempting to protect them—a plan which only fails because Sayid apparently does not feel the pain of the sonic fence and was therefore able to shut the power down.

The quality of character demonstrated by the candidates seems to be the only thing capable of foiling the Man in Black's plans. Ultimately, the candidate who replaces Jacob will be the one who stands on principles (no pun intended) and refuses to be corrupted.

FEATURED MEDIA: Preorder the final season!

April '10: The Month in Posts

I have decided to narrow this month down to three posts that are particularly diverse, yet seem to resonate with one another. The plan is certainly coming together, I hope everyone is beginning to see where we can go in the future. Enjoy.

Failed Marketing - April 16, 2010

What I propose is an additional "sophistication" rating. For example, if a person dislikes "R" rated content, but is dissatisfied with the lack of intellectual challenge in "PG-13" movies, that person should be able to select "PG-13" content with an "25+" story. By contrast, if a person has a high tolerance for "R" content, but isn't looking for a challenge, he should be able to select a movie with a "13-17" story. (read more)

A Storyteller's Promise - April 24, 2010

It seems to me that every story comes with a promise. This promise is threefold. First, the promise is to conclude the story. Second, the promise is to balance the equation. Third, the promise is that the ending is worth the time spent listening. This is a sort of unwritten law which governs our reading, listening, and viewing experiences—a natural law, perhaps. (read more)

Based on a False Story - April 25, 2010

You could argue that doctors, lawyers, and cops are a part of our contemporary life, and therefore a part of the culture thereof. This is a fair argument, but allow me to ask: how often do you associate with these professions? Unless you work in one of those three fields, have a medical condition, or are a criminal, you likely don't enter that world. So why the media coverage, and at what cost? (read more)

Thank You For Smoking

I was at the bar last night (gasp!) because I've been craving hot wings. Brady's Bar in Traverse City, MI has the best wings I've ever had. It's a little place which caters to a more laid-back older crowd, what with its hunting and fishing themed decor. It's a great place to meet and socialize because the music is always low, it's rarely crowded, and there's never a cover.

Michigan recently passed a law banning smoking from all public buildings (including bars). The law even bans smoking on patios and requires that bar owners attempt to restrict smoking in the parking lot. It was by complete coincidence that we where there on May 1st, the day the law went into effect. I'm not a smoker, though many of my friends are. I am however, an advocate of freedom.

To me, the choice to smoke or not to smoke should be in the hands of the individual—a freedom that is increasingly under fire by activist groups—or at least in the hands of the bar owners. There are many, many smokeless bars all throughout the state already. (Most restaurants that have a bar have been smoke free for at least a decade.) We all know that smoking poses health risks, and that second hand smoke is no exception.

However, second hand smoke is as much of a choice as is first hand smoke. Despite what the media says, second hand smoke is not as bad as first hand smoke for at least two reasons. One, the smoker's lungs absorb many of the harmful chemicals, therefore reducing a lit cigarette's toxins by a certain degree. Second, the smoker has a regular habit and is exposed to smoke more regularly than a non-smoker in a bar.

The most upsetting thing about this experience was the group of middle-aged women from the local hospital who where apparently doing a pub-crawl to hand out "I [heart] MI smoke free air" stickers. I refused a sticker due mostly to their hypocrisy. Excessive smoking may kill more people annually than drinking, but alcohol destroys more families, kills more young people (who would otherwise quit as they get older), and damages more property than smoking.

What we need is more innovative education about both smoking and alcohol. What we need is more tact. The anti-smoking mantras are just white noise to people, or worse, they're outright irritating and oppressive. Don't we learn anything from history? I appreciate their cause, and applaud them for standing up for their principles—but where were they before they had the state on their side? Not in the bar, that's for sure... it's too smokey.

FEATURED MEDIA: Thank You for Smoking - Nick Naylor is a tobacco lobbyist, whose job it is to fight off anti-smoking policies and other threats to business. However, despite what most people think, this movie is not about smoking. That's just the platform. This movie is about personal choice, and the ability to argue your point. It is a must-see for any free thinker, and a movie that should be recommended to and discussed with "closed-minded" people.