You are three men of sin, whom Destiny,
That hath to instrument this lower world
And what is in't, the never-surfeited sea
Hath caused to belch up you; and on this island
Where man doth not inhabit; you 'mongst men
Being most unfit to live. I have made you mad;
And even with such-like valour men hang and drown
Their proper selves.
The Tempest. Act iii. Sc. 3
As some of you know I view life and culture through a Lacanian lens. (Take
this as a warning or an invitation to read further!) There are so many
rich psychoanalytical angles to Lost that it took me awhile to decide
where to start. There are important facets to Lacanian theory often glossed
over in applications to film or popular culture, and I didn't want to
add yet another glib appropriation to that indistinguished legacy. So
I decided to detail the situation of individual characters, so that I
can touch on whatever aspects of the legacy that I deem relevant to the
character's particular narrative. In the course of each sketch, I'll try
to give a crude outline of those concepts that I feel bear on the issues
at hand. The connecting thread (and point de capiton) is desire, identifying
what ignites desire in each castaway, and thus tracing the circuit of
desire from pre-crash to post-island.
Jack and the "Law of the Father"
In the beginning we are born and we know nothing of the world. Or rather,
the world knows nothing of us, for we are continuous with it. Eventually
we sense that our caregiver is responsible for our happiness, and that
we are not only dependent but, in some deeply traumatic sense, apart from
her as well. We are driven to eat, to touch, but our need for love seems
to supercede even our drive, as we by degrees attempt to manipulate mother
so as to desire us always, to want to meet our needs, to want us to meet
her needs. If this continues, we never separate from mother, a situation
that may lead to perversion or, worse, psychosis. But for most of us the
"father," or someone serving the same structural role, intervenes.
The father is, yes, our rival, but much more. He says "no" to
us in several ways: no, we are not the only object in our mother's life,
no, we cannot have everything we want (our mother's undivided attention),
no, there are many things we must wait for, bargain for, fight for. The
father is the lawgiver, the father introduces the idea of morality: right
from wrong, good from bad, socially acceptable from gauche. We admire
and hate our father simultaneously.
But our dual competition/apprentice with the father introduces us to the
Symbolic realm, the life of society, governed by codes, signs and procedures.
Where once we were undifferentiated from the universe, the ecstasy of
the Real, we learned to see ourselves as some imaginary whole in the mirror,
or reflected in the Gaze of another. We identified with Her, or with It,
that person who, full-blown (like Athena from Zeus's head) emerged in
our mother's eyes. Little did we know that we were anything but "complete"
and unified, but were instead but a palimpset on which the directives
of faceless others wrote, constructing us in absentia, as it were.
For the Symbolic is the realm of language, of the Law, of society. In
order to interact with others we enter the sea of language and we suffer
immediate alienation. We can never fully express who "we" are,
what we "feel," or "think": something always slips
between the cracks. But that "something" that remains unsaid,
unexpressed in words, propels us forward, into the next discursive situation,
the next attempt to express the inexpressible. Father is our guide, father
lays down the boundaries. You can have your mother just "so":
as a son, not as a husband. You can go into the world and find a wife,
and become a father yourself. You can control the world through language
and action, but you will never control me, I am forever outside of language.
The mother's desire for the father creates a rift in the mother-child
unity that allows the child to breathe freely, as it were. Through language
the child can mediate the desire of the other (mother), thus language
is identified with the role of the father, who, in siphoning off some
of the mother's desire, allows the child to emerge as a fully-formed subject.
Very well then; I have described normal human development in the Western
world. But what happens when the proper, the authoritative, law-giving
father gives way to the obscene father, the father who flouts the law,
through polygamy, criminal behavior, excessive jouissance: taking pleasure
beyond the lawful and the socially sanctioned? Rather than inspiring the
son to take whatever he desires, the "obscene" father ofteh
has a chiling effect: he engenders hesitation, fear, impotence in the
son, namely shame. What was once "thou shall not!" has become
"thou shall, or else!," and the only means the child has to
differentiate himself-to emerge as a subject-from the father's hegemonic
gaze is through refusal to submit to lawlessness. This, then, is the child's
desire, the desire to say "no, I will not disobey!"
All Jack ever wanted was his father's approval, but all Jack ever received
was a "yes you are my son, but . . ." Yet Christian Shepherd
was an obscene father. He may not have bedded many women, but he flouted
the laws of society in a way that mocked all a "father" should
be. How could Jack admire and follow the obscene father, much less love
him? Jack confuses his desire with the "greater good" of the
law, the law of saving lives and earning parental approval. He has long
since lost touch with what Jack wants, thus with who Jack IS. Even in
death the obscene father haunts Jack as the "dead" law that
paradoxically never dies. As Jack tries desperately to save one life after
another, to find food, shelter and water for the lostaways, to mediate
differences and establish the voice of law on the island, he is but a
mouthpiece for the "other," for the voice beyond the grave (What
Would Christian Do?). How will Jack find his desire? Is Kate, the women
he can never know, the antidote to the desire he doesn't know? Or is she
just another mirror for his confusion? No, Kate is the obscene other who
enjoys in place of Jack, as a substitute who realizes the desire that
Jack cannot admit. "There is no woman" because the woman of
man's desire is trapped by that desire. But Kate, as the woman of Jack's
desire can represent it for him, while he is off "saving the world"
(or at least the island). As long as Kate remains outside the law (that
is, as long as she remains a cipher, unknowable, unable to be defined
by words) Jack's desire will "live" outside of him. If Kate
were to wrest her own subjectivity from Jack's fantasy; that is, if she
were to assert herself as a fully-consicous, moral subject, Jack would
have to face and take responsibility for his own desire. Jack would finally
emerge as his own man.
drabauer
This is great. I loved reading this.
Comments:
I am not familiar with Lacan. I had to google the name even to acquire
a point of reference. Once I did I let the process go because an attempt
to sleep was imperative (but ended in total failure) and I wanted to comment
more from my point of view first to see if I could muster any connection
between what you have proposed and what I personally know or have learned.
Your initial presentation of who the child is and who the child will become
reminds me of existentialist perception of self. If I remember that correctly,
we are not identifiable except through the eyes of others: Being-for-Others
(Etre pour autrui). Whereas we struggle to identify ourselves on our own
terms and try to push away what you call the world of symbolism: Being
for itself (Etre pour soi). And you are right that alienation ensues.
Also in terms of the developing child, you state that he is dependent
on the mother but also separate. And you state that there is a continuousness
between the child and the world and that the world is conscious of the
child. Reminds me of one of my favorite existentialist ideas: When you
die the world leaves you. So perhaps when you are born the world comes
to you. Always willing to digress, I ask is this what is happening to
the new baby on LOST? And as for Boone and the other casualties are they
somewhere void of definition?
Before progressing to the Jack scenario more directly, I also see (but
dont automatically like) some Freudian undertones. As I stated I dont
know Lacan at all. Maybe Freud influenced him (assuming gender), maybe
not. But as you put it, the mother and father are presented in an archetypal
descriptions (so maybe that's Jung?---I tend to mix up the early players)
which invariably repeat themselves in every familial setting. And as you
are leading to, if the parents, and particularly the father, are sound
and fulfilling of their roles, then relative harmony follows in the child's
development. However, if there is toxicity (just from the father?) then
developmental and emotional derailment occurs.
As for Jack:
People love him or hate him. I like and respect him. I wrote somewhere
else that Boone was a younger Jack. Well, could it be that Jack is an
older Boone? Didnt Jack make early mistakes and rally (better than Boone
did with his own) to correct them. What if Jack did not have the father
that he did? Would he have developed a hyper-resiliency and an ability
to function well in certain crises? But there was a price to pay? Jack
excels in medical crisis but how about the human sphere? For awhile I
thought his interactions with Kate were sound---if she did something he
didnt like he blew her off. But even earlier than reading this post, I
was rethinking that. I wrote somewhere that I dont see Kate being the
object of anybody's point of view. Is that what Jack wants from her? For
her to be the object of his point of view? If so, good luck. Eventhough
they are clearly fond of each other, Kate, at least wants a different
definition and is willing to shell out the emotional dollars to do so.
Jack, I perceive, is not at that point. If he couldnt save Boone, at least
he will avenge his death by confronting Locke. And he will provide medical
attention to the baby, claire, everybody. Now in terms of this society,
Jack is needed in this way, but where is his release from total responsibility?
Locke, in White Rabbit, helped Jack on his journey so that Jack could
emerge as the leader. Perhaps it is Sun he should listen to where she
says: Enough... Get some air ... You cant save him ... ---and then that
hard cold stare where the route of amputation was being planned out. Is
Sun standing in for Jack's mother? Certainly it is not Jack's father,
who in his drunken megalomania would have slammed the lid on Boone's leg
without two seconds of honest thought. Or is Sun representing the fullness
of humanity? Strive to save the life but be humble and know when it is
time to give someone back to the earth.
Well, that went on awhile ...
Jack is trapped in his perceived role and identity. From a practical point
of view, he needs to train others in medicine so that he can take a walk
occasionally and explore the beauty of nature. Also, but according to
your text he cant, he just needs to tell Kate that he likes her. Meanwhile,
she will hang out with a strange fellow who has some quirky habits but
who will at least drink with her as perhaps not a equal in the masculine
frame of reference but as someone to respect. Jack still wants a marriage
partner, not a human being. He also needs to find that dead father of
his, bury him with ethan, and place tons of cave rock over the collective
grave. And then respect him for who he was, hate him for who he was, and
go talk to Sawyer if Jack wants to hear his father's last words said,
perhaps, in a moment of inspired lucidity.
boonian androphile
I agree with you Dr. I as long as some fans might loses interest in Kate
once we find out she is a normal person with reasonable motives for the
things that she does. This is the first time I have been introduced to
the idea that a mans desire for a woman is a place holder for his free
self. I will patiently wait for the other character analysis.
Whenever I get into a complex thought I ask myself Is the human condition
this complex? I don't know, deep down inside I have always felt like Einstein,
there must be a simple universal equation, philosophy, that keeps our
world glued together. I have my own personal view on why it is this way,
but I like the secular nature of this board, and I won't disturb that
aspect.
Gambit980
Thanks guys, for reading all of that. Some comments:
BA: yes, Lacan viewed his work as "rehabilitating" Freud from
those who simplified and didn't quite get where Freud was coming from,
because he didn't have time to get there. I kind of reading Freud against
himself, against the grain, to develop what was only implied. In a very
simplified sense, to see certain emotional states as structural relations
conditioned by language, with a much more refined notion of what the phallis
and the Oedipal relation actually mean. Quite opposed, though, to Jung,
if I understand correctly, who's better known notions would err on the
side of the Imaginary I think.
Gambit. You are exactly right, that's a great way to put it "a mans
desire for a woman is a place holder for his free self." (I love
how you have a way of concisely summing up points other people make, including
me!) Of course that is but one instance of desire in general, and I don't
know if I'd say 'free self,' but that's only because I'd have to define
the word 'free.' And I know what you mean about the complexity of it,
but it makes sense if you also think of psychoanalysis as approaching
some of the questions broached by modern philosophy (Kant's Critique of
Reason, et al). And I find Lacan explains a lot of the apparently irrational
behavior we witness on the larger political and social canvas. But enough
of this; back to Lost. In the above, I was just trying to probe beneath
the surface of what I think most would agree are Jack's main issues: his
relation to his father, to women, and to his own role on the island and,
by extension, the world.
drabauer
As one of the guys who responded, you're welcome.
Thanks for the clarification on Freud & Jung.
Also I reread Gambit's phrase, the one you quoted. It really does have
a lovely flow.
And now that you have introduced Lacan to me, I will have to do a little
reading.
boonian androphile
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Jack ever wanted was his father's approval, but all Jack ever received
was a "yes you are my son, but . . ." Yet Christian Shepherd
was an obscence father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Jack is seen not as his own person but as an extension of the father
"yes you are my son", I think can explain why Jack seems to
operate in the world like a pinball. It's like he goes through his head,
this is what my father would do, therefore I will do the opposite or something
else. So he makes his decisions always in reaction. First he has to rebel
and bounce away from the POV of his father. Now his father is dead, but
the mechanisms and patterns are still in place.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kate is the obscene other who enjoys in place of Jack, as a substitute
who realizes the desire that Jack cannot admit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps Kate functions as a female version of Jack's shadow.
If Jack spends his life reacting against his father, it's nature's paradox
he will become exactly that he is reacting against so strongly.
I don't think Kate is anything like Jack's father, but I think her vagueness allows Jack to project onto her. Her mystery is the appeal, just like his own self is a mystery to him. She also has a mercurial aspect to her. You think you have her figured out but she's like mercury - mirrors inner emotions, slips away into dark crevices of the island.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Kate were to wrest her own subjectivity from Jack's fantasy; that is,
if she were to assert herself as a fully-consicous, moral subject, Jack
would have to face and take responsibility for his own desire. Jack would
finally emerge as his own man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think she'll do this. Because if Jack is his own man,
she will be demystified and the attraction will be over, and any power
she has over him. But it would be great though. I wish he could break
away from all his shackles, and be a better leader that's not driven by
his baggage.
sawyerhasbestlines
Re: Jack and the "Law of the Father"
This is very interesting Drabauer!
I'd never heard of Jacques Lacan, so I felt it imperative
to learn something about the man before commenting on your post. What
I came away with was this quote. "It is up to you to be Lacanians.
As far as I am concerned, I am a Freudian."
Thinking about this quote and your truism, that a male child
competes with the father for the mother's love and attention. You can
imagine the leaps my mind took. But, like you, I wanted to comment on
things we know and can speculate with some certainty, rather than conjecture.
And this is where I have the problem. Being a male child who
has never had a "session" (which maybe the problem), I remember
this life you so visualized. And accept the premise that we develop this
love/hate relationship with our father's because they are the ones who
say no. The ones who take time and love away from the mother's. I can
definitely raise my hand in agreement, looking back on this time with
40-year old eyes.
But I went back over some of the dialog between Jack and his
father, and found Christian Shepherd "Symbolically", a pretty
good father. In White Rabbit, he tells Jack the story of loosing a boy
on the operating table. "I was able to wash my hands and come home
to dinner. You know, watch a little Carol Burnett, laugh till my sides
hurt. And how can I do that, hmm? And even when I fail, how do I do that,
Jack? Because I have what it takes. Don't choose, Jack, don't decide.
You don't want to be a hero, you don't try and save everyone because when
you fail, you just don't have what it takes." Now, he's telling this
story with a glass of ice, and what looks like Bourbon. Is he telling
Jack the only way he surveys is by numbing his senses? Is this what he
means by, "I have what it takes." Looking back at this scene
now, I think that's exactly what he's saying. He's trying to keep his
son from going down the same path.
Further along in White Rabbit, we run across the scene after
Locke drags Jack off the cliff. Locke tells him the other survivors, "...need
someone to tell them what to do." Jack says, "I can't. I'm not
a leader. I don't know how to help them. I'll fail. There's been some
speculation that Jack has a drinking problem like his father. Is Jack
saying he doesn't have his crutch (alcohol), to make decisions for the
other survivors?
In Do No Harm, Jack's father was right there with him. There
was a thread speculating the location of Jack's mother at the wedding.
But, we definitely see his father.
The conversation between them by the pool was very touching. I had this
same conversation with my father on that day of day's. Again, he wasn't
making the decision for Jack, but pointed out what that decision should
be. Don't marry Sara for the wrong reasons.
Now, if you bring up Christian Shepherd's morals, that's where
I feel he stepped out of line. Asking Jack to be an accomplice to that
operating-room cover up, was wrong. More wrong, if you'll allow me, because
he was corrupting his son. That's something a father should never do.
Hodgepodge
SHBL, I think you captured exactly what I intended in different
terms. That is, Jack is not like Jack's father, but through her mystery-founded
on the impresseion that she has gone where moral men fear to tread-retains
a power over him. And no, I don't think it will change for dramatic reasons.
Unless something or someone takes his place. Because the nature of desire
is that it is continually, metynomically-displaced from one object to
the next when that distance object becomes known, "worn out,"
as it were.
Hidge, you bring up some great points regarding Christian Shepherd's intent.
I'm still not sure if he is an "obscene father," but I went
with that structural relation because he seems to imply that "exceptional"
men like himself are above the law, emotionally (he wasn't a "good"
father to Jack to make him "tougher") and morally (the drinking,
accident). So on reflection, I can't really find any redeeming qualities.
Because there is something obscene in the common sense about a man who
will not ease his son's suffering by "picking up the phone"
because he's a "bad man."
drabauer
Thanks drabauer for sharing this. I can't wait to hear more.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in death the obscene father haunts Jack as the "dead" law
that paradoxically never dies. As Jack tries desperately to save one life
after another, to find food, shelter and water for the lostaways, to mediate
differences and establish the voice of law on the island, he is but a
mouthpiece for the "other," for the voice beyond the grave (What
Would Christian Do?).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really know much about Lacan, so I have a question or two. Jack "disobeys" his father when he turns him in. Does this help him to "emerge as his own man" (or is that only possible through interaction with a woman? or by locating his own desire?)? I mean, obviously Jack is still dealing with the specter of his father, but it seems to me that that moment of truth redefined Jack's self-perception in a more positive way - created a more solid sense of self.
Do you think Locke counts as a father figure for Jack? I was struck by
the similarity between the ending of Do No Harm where Jack is going to
find Locke, and the scene where Jack runs off to find his father in White
Rabbit (both when he's talking to Kate). Maybe Jack calling Locke a murderer
has something to do with Jack's relationship with Christian. I sort of
see Locke as a father that Jack can rebel against, and one who is interested
in helping Jack to fulfill his potential. But I don't know, Locke doesn't
exactly seem like the poster boy for morality at the moment so I don't
know how, or if, he fits in with your Lacanian analysis.
I have to think more about Jack's relationship with Kate. I tend to think
that Kate was forced or coerced into her criminal acts. What you said
about language, though, makes me think about the theme of translation,
or lack of translation, (things slipping through the cracks). I think
Jack needs to de-cipher KateÉ I doubt she's going to do it for
him. But he may be able to help her "assert herself as fully-conscious,
moral subject."
SHBL wrote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
She also has a mercurial aspect to her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh, the Gemini is mercurial. Nice.
spooky
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack "disobeys" his father when he turns him in. Does this help
him to "emerge as his own man" (or is that only possible through
interaction with a woman? or by locating his own desire?)? I mean, obviously
Jack is still dealing with the specter of his father, but it seems to
me that that moment of truth redefined Jack's self-perception in a more
positive way - created a more solid sense of self.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know it's one thing to read Lacan and another to actually practice as an analyst, so I'm really not sure! But I would think so. The only problem is that we suspect there may be more to Jack's reaction than ethics (he may have suffered his own loss of a child). Still, re: our earlier discussion of what constitutes an "act" seems to apply here. Jack defied his father because it was the right thing to do, severing his ties with the father who had defined him his whole life (forget that it is highly unlikely a father and son would ever practice at the same hospital!). This was a necessary step; we need to know a little more backstory before knowing what the next step might be.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think Locke counts as a father figure for Jack? I was struck by
the similarity between the ending of Do No Harm where Jack is going to
find Locke, and the scene where Jack runs off to find his father in White
Rabbit (both when he's talking to Kate).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a great catch. I don't think of Locke as a father figure for Jack but I think Jack sees a parallel between his situation with Christian and Locke's with Boone. Except in White Rabbit he was seeking forgiveness, some kind of sign, whereas DNH was more of a flashback to his operating room experience. Locke is "drunk" on the lure of the island, and-as in the earlier scene-he drew Jack into the sacrifice and made him complicit in it. Although White Rabbit does carry that theme further: Christian drank himself to death, "sacrificed" himself to his desire to be ever the victim of his professional responsibilities, and forced Jack in a sense to be complicit in his death. The father's desire reaches out beyond the grave, as it were. So yes, Locke becomes another "obscene father" who sacrificed not only his "son" to his own desire but Jack's need for success in the "operating room," and for closure regarding his own demons. That scenario really raises the stakes for our Jack-Locke confrontation.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to think more about Jack's relationship with Kate. I tend to think
that Kate was forced or coerced into her criminal acts. What you said
about language, though, makes me think about the theme of translation,
or lack of translation, (things slipping through the cracks). I think
Jack needs to de-cipher KateÉ I doubt she's going to do it for
him. But he may be able to help her "assert herself as fully-conscious,
moral subject."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree. After Kate is "read," she may disappear
as a femme fatale but take on a new role as a partner. One of the fascinating
things about Lacan is even as he maintains that desire is the desire of
the Other (to be read in all its ambiguity, as a desire "for"
the Other and a desire to be desired "by" the Other, as well
as a desire to desire "like" the Other), there is a space for
love. When we truly love someone we love that thing that is more in them
than themselves, that thing that is more than a sum of parts, that thing
that cannot be merely a projection of desire or a reflection of our imaginary
ego. So we have to move beyond desire into that place where the Other
has been stripped of mystery and emerges as subject. Kate hasn't "emerged"
yet; her character represents a clever balancing act by the writers to
keep her mystery intact while maintaining our interest in all the possibilities
she represents.
drabauer
I think there should be warning labels on these kind of theories.
"Warning, all basement dwellers, get the blood flowing to your brain
again before reading this post."
Oh, my head. I'm going back downstairs...
(great post btw drabauer)
morbius76
Well, but look back at one of the initial scenes in White Rabbit where
Jack, as a child, looks pretty beaten up and Christian talks to him from
a chair almost as a doctor would while conducting the interview aspect
of an examination. I would have preferred some caregiving interaction
and maybe looking back on that Jack would have as well. While an adult
child can perhaps analyze that correspondence more rationally (while still
being angry) a child incorporates all sorts of reactive feelings and takes
on the unfortunate role of dual punisher. This is in reference to the
where you say, Drabauer, that he might have suffered a loss as a child.
The loss may have been childhood per se.
As for Locke I think that Locke himself has been on a quest for new roles
more than Jack has. Jack has not been ready to do that because his role
on the island has been so cemented and defined. Maybe this tough death
will jolt him a little. And Kate emerging more as a real person and not
just a figure of mystery. Under your premise, Locke (perhaps unwittingly)
becomes an obscene father for Boone, other islanders, etc.
Work calls. To close, Jack's first step towards redefining himself may
have been the decision not to be complicit with his father re surgical
misconduct. Once we have a glimpse of the possibility of changing our
lives, doesnt the hell of the details, and relapse or continuation into
old patterns, follow? At least initially?
boonian androphile
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While an adult child can perhaps analyze that correspondence more rationally
(while still being angry) a child incorporates all sorts of reactive feelings
and takes on the unfortunate role of dual punisher. This is in reference
to the where you say, Drabauer, that he might have suffered a loss as
a child. The loss may have been childhood per se.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree completely; that's a good way to put it: Jack "lost"
his childhood, he took on the responsibilities and worries of an adult
way too quickly. There are many studies of children of alcoholics that
bear this out.
And I agree about Locke's shifting role. Kristen at eonline (not that she's any kind of belwether), alluded to Locke becoming more apparently evil in the next few episodes.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once we have a glimpse of the possibility of changing our lives, doesnt
the hell of the details, and relapse or continuation into old patterns,
follow? At least initially?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Often, yes, we may withdraw to what we know. Lot's to think
about as we get ready for The Greater Good.
drabauer
Excellent analysis of Jack and his father, drabauer. I think
this is another example of the writers doing an excellent job. Jack's
character definitely flows from his relationship with his father as you
described.
Your general analysis didn't do the mother any favors though,
and I don't think children are as blank you say, but that is neither here
nor there in this discussion.
I don't think Locke is another obscene father - I wouldn't go that far,
but Jack definitely sees a parallel with Locke's responsibility for Boone's
death and his father's responsibility in the pregnant mother's death.
Jack turning his father in clearly didn't result in Jack becoming his
own man - it was just another reaction against his father that reaffirmed
and strengthened his problem with his father, not relieved it.
LostInWilderness
LiW, you're correct that I didn't do the mother any favors--but the writers
have only included her in Jack's story once, and there she appeared to
be an enabler of her husband's alcoholism.
And I wouldn't say Locke is an obscene father at all, only that there
is potential there. Locke is a classic obssessive, but again, you're right
that what matters is the structural relationship between the story of
Jack and his father and that of Locke and Boone. And I think I agree with
your final point too. Jack turning in his father seemed to reinforce their
standoff. It was such a public humiliation, as opposed to the result if
he had taken care of it earlier, or outside of the conference room. I
would say it was staged for the benefit of the Other, for society to condemn
Christian along with Jack, and thus let him distance himself from the
whole affair. Jack took the distance his father maintained with his sonand
turned it back on him with a vengeance, rather than helping his father
deal with his alcoholism.
drabauer
Now that's interesting. So you are saying that Jack changing his statement
re his father was more an act of defiance and retribution than an act,
for example, of heroism? Would then an act of heroism be a reconciliation
with his father in the guise of recognizing his father's faults and mistakes
and forgiving him? If so that part of Jack's journey wont occur till about
year 4! Being facetious there---but definitely at some distant date.
As per Locke (about whom I have strong mixed feelings---hmmm ...) I think
that by assuming role of mystic teacher early in the show he was in fact
assuming the parental role. Clearly though he wasnt ready to do so because
at a moment of extreme crisis he did not fulfill his self-adopted duties
as surrogate teacher/parent. The question is then was he acting on his
own volition from the start? Or was the island telling him what to do
at the most critical moments for his peers and at the most seemingly trivial?
Critical moments: convincing Boone to climb to the drug plane; helping
Charlie with his drug addiction; rescuing Jack from a cliff dive ( incidentally
all three of these incidents involve a cliff or a high elevation of land---Charlie's
guitar inexplicably stuck in overhead vines being the most subtle). And
the seemingly trivial: building the crib for Claire's baby; deflecting
Walt from an embarrassing social conviction of arson (although I would
place this beyond the trivial as such); telling Shannon that she's a grown
woman and can make her own decisions; helping Michael to assume a more
direct parental role. Before he acted in these various ways, and before
he encountered the "monster", Locke was rather dopey, grinning
stupidly at Kate, and telling Walt, "You want to know a secret?"
After he faced the "monster" eye to eye suddenly he's a great
sage! Now as I am writing this, I am coming to the conclusion that it
makes little sense who he is except through external intervention, that
the island is fulfilling Locke's deepest desires---to the potential detriment
of everyone. Whether Locke is in control of his own fate has been thoroughly
discussed already. But in the context of the obscene father, Locke perhaps
is and he isnt. The judgment of him by us really comes down to what he
told Boone and what he didnt. Notice that he emphasized the Teresa up
and down the stairs and not the bloodiness. Again, this has been talked
about before; but---if we decide he has assumed this parental role with
free will then basically he sacrificed his protege. If he assumed that
role via the guile and manipulation of the bad parent island (spontaneously
termed) then his pleading to the illuminating hatch makes more sense.
Trouble is that fellow Lostians have none or little of this information
to go by. All they have a dead young man who people knew was following
Locke's wise lead---because many of them had already done so with reasonable
success. Many people complain that Boone had free will to climb the cliff.
But werent both Locke and Boone suffering from in retrospect a misguided
trust in a parent or father figure that ostensibly stepped out of thin
air? It is a shame really that their happiness or fulfillment was catastrophically
transitory.
Sorry to have run past the stop sign. But where else is one to expound?
boonian androphile
Wow! Very insightful. I like it! I always wanted to know why Jack can't
let go and begin to even think about loving Kate. You hit the nail right
on the head.
DRABAUER WROTE :
Is Kate, the women he can never know, the antidote to the desire he doesn't
know? Or is she just another mirror for his confusion? No, Kate is the
obscene other who enjoys in place of Jack, as a substitute who realizes
the desire that Jack cannot admit. "There is no woman" because
the woman of man's desire is trapped by that desire. But Kate, as the
woman of Jack's desire can represent it for him, while he is off "saving
the world" (or at least the island). As long as Kate remains outside
the law (that is, as long as she remains a cipher, unknowable, unable
to be defined by words) Jack's desire will "live" outside of
him. If Kate were to wrest her own subjectivity from Jack's fantasy; that
is, if she were to assert herself as a fully-consicous, moral subject,
Jack would have to face and take responsibility for his own desire. Jack
would finally emerge as his own man.
imamiamigurl
Re: Jack and the "Law of the Father"
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying that Jack changing his statement re his father was more
an act of defiance and retribution than an act, for example, of heroism?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally saw that as a bullshit move. His heart was that of a pissed off kid, with the sophistication of an adult.
On paper, Jack did the "right thing" nobody could argue that
- which for me makes it even more sinister and cowardly. I didn't like
the dramatic stage setting in the conference room Jack used to castrate
his father. As Drabauer said, he could have handled it another way. Instead,
he used his father's mistake as an opportunity to shine in a riteous light.
The motive behind it seemed triggered by the narrative that the woman
provided, but the behavior had was totally vindictive; and ironically
they both lost.
He made a no win situation for both he and his father. A better more respectable
battle would allow his father to not totallly lose his dignity, but maybe
his job. I'm not saying what his father did was right, but Jack is not
a hero either.
sawyerhasbestlines
boonian androphile writes:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are saying that Jack changing his statement re his father was more
an act of defiance and retribution than an act, for example, of heroism?
Would then an act of heroism be a reconciliation with his father in the
guise of recognizing his father's faults and mistakes and forgiving him?
If so that part of Jack's journey wont occur till about year 4! Being
facetious there---but definitely at some distant date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly right. He compounded his daddy issues in the
most hurtful possible way. He's not getting over them anytime soon.
I'm also on board with drabauer's Kate analysis. I think we mentioned
it before in the obsession thread.
LostInWilderness
SHBL:
I perceive that Jack's look when the death of the fetus was mentioned
in the deposition was that of astonishment, disbelief, and absolute disgust.
And I agree that up to that point, and long before, Jack has served to
enable this process. But when people finally do something in their lives,
when they finally say no, for example, is it mapped out, planned, and
neat and tidy? I dont think so. Certainly his father was devastated by
Jack's reversal. But whose primary actions, both when Jack was a child
and an adult, led to this outcome? And using Drabauer's own Oedipal outline,
and extending that to the myth itself wherein Oedipus killed his father
(and married his mother), what other spontaneously driven course of action
was there? Is Jack going to say Excuse me Dad while I take a break to
contemplate this? Jack here, as he always has in some way, views his father
as the absolute enemy. And why? Because Christian was his father. It was
inevitable. Now if Jack himself were a functional adult then there might
have been a different result, but there wasnt. Drabauer made something
of an off-handed remark about father and son practicing in the same hospital.
But there's another question: why did Jack choose to work in the same
hospital? If their father/son relationship was as dysfunctional as we
have seen in brief flashback images, then I wonder if Jack had any choice
at all psychologically speaking. A lot of people are angry at Jack and
a lot people support Jack. I see this polar reaction by viewers generalized
in many of the other main characters. I once applauded Jack for his action
here. In rethinking it, I feel sorry for everyone. The same for Locke
whom I instantly loathed when I saw where Deus was going. Now I feel sorry
for him. Many of the characters are in a crash and burn pathway towards
resolution. Nothing will stop that.
A sidebar: It's interesting that when Jack remembers his father, by the
pool, at the wedding, strangely fondly (based on what we had witnessed
before), Jack himself is administering to a patient who, inspite of Jack's
best efforts, (of sorts) will certainly die. Christian says, in that episode:
You dont know how to let go (or similar to that). Wasn't Jack "letting
go" when he reversed his story re his father's, and by extension
his own, involvement? Was he letting go, not of responsibility, but the
lies---all the lies? The death of the unborn child changed everything.
And instantly. Like an explosion.
LIW:
And to extend into your statement, Jack is one that has to live with his
own decision regarding his father's resulting humiliation and death. Will
the reality that Christian was his father ever really leave Jack? Doubt
it. As I said above Christian is the primary cause if one believes in
a sort of familial determinism. And with that in mind, who is responsible
for Christian? And who before that? All the way back perhaps to the beginning?
I dont believe that in my real thinking necessarily, but the show seems
to be heading towards some kind of total death to the father scenario.
I hope that's not the outcome. Im not a believer, but that would be a
horribly pessimistic end.
boonian androphile
Boonian:
Would then an act of heroism be a reconciliation with his father in the
guise of recognizing his father's faults and mistakes and forgiving him?
Yes.
...rescuing Jack from a cliff dive ( incidentally all three of these incidents
involve a cliff or a high elevation of land---Charlie's guitar inexplicably
stuck in overhead vines being the most subtle).
Great point, reinforcing LiW's hatch vs. high ground theory, and carrying
the symbolic weight of reaching down to someone (ala Spooky's classic
avatar).
...Again, this has been talked about before; but---if we decide he has
assumed this parental role with free will then basically he sacrificed
his protege. If he assumed that role via the guile and manipulation of
the bad parent island (spontaneously termed) then his pleading to the
illuminating hatch makes more sense. Trouble is that fellow Lostians have
none or little of this information to go by. All they have a dead young
man who people knew was following Locke's wise lead---because many of
them had already done so with reasonable success. Many people complain
that Boone had free will to climb the cliff. But werent both Locke and
Boone suffering from in retrospect a misguided trust in a parent or father
figure that ostensibly stepped out of thin air?
An illuminating insight, BA, that the island functions as a father figure
for Locke, in the same way Christian did for Jack: the father who is distant,
authoritarian, and capricious. But one of the functions of Locke's dream
was to show us that Boone DOESN'T follow the island, he follows Locke
(the Abraham/Isaac scenario). So for Boone, Locke is the father. Now I
still have to write Locke's analysis, which will introduce another important
Lacanian concept, the subject supposed to know. In this sense with Boone
and Locke we are talking about a mentor relationship not unlike analysis:
the patient puts his faith in the analyst as someone who knows the truth
with complete certainty. Boone could not know the island as Locke claimed
to, but he could believe through the other, through Locke, that the island
was directing them towards their destiny. I will have more to say on this
later.
SHBL:
... I didn't like the dramatic stage setting in the conference room Jack
used to castrate his father.
Oh, right on!! I'm so glad you brought us castration, because that's exactly
what happened in the psychoanalytic sense!
..The motive behind it seemed triggered by the narrative that the woman
provided, but the behavior had was totally vindictive; and ironically
they both lost.
At that moment Jack declared himself free of Christian's influence, but
he was violently taking over the role of the father who metes out both
justice and vengeance. Assuming that role creates a lot more problems
than it solves, as Jack is far from the subject supposed to know, far
from the authority figure who, with complete certainty, can confidently
lead others. Hence the conversation in White Rabbit with Locke, wherein
he acts the part of a leader when his heart isn't really in it: he steps
into the empty placeholder that is leader of the castaways and thus becomes
their leader by default. But he is just playing a role, going through
the motions. In this I am also supporting BA's position that
... there's another question: why did Jack choose to work in the same
hospital? If their father/son relationship was as dysfunctional as we
have seen in brief flashback images, then I wonder if Jack had any choice
at all psychologically speaking... I once applauded Jack for his action
here. In rethinking it, I feel sorry for everyone. The same for Locke
whom I instantly loathed when I saw where Deus was going. Now I feel sorry
for him. Many of the characters are in a crash and burn pathway towards
resolution. Nothing will stop that.
Precisely. There is a sense of inevitability about Jack's story that brings
us back to the image of the mousetrap. Christian gave in completely to
the idea of fate, and set his son up to sacrifice his father for the greater
good.
A sidebar: It's interesting that when Jack remembers his father, by the
pool, at the wedding, strangely fondly (based on what we had witnessed
before), Jack himself is administering to a patient who, inspite of Jack's
best efforts, (of sorts) will certainly die.
Great observation BA. As to whether Jack was "letting go" when
he reversed his father's story, I think it's a bit more complex. He usurped
the position of the subject supposed to know, he became as you note Christian's
doctor, or rather the analyst who says "this patient is lying to
cover up his addiction, and I will expose him for the good of all."
In refuting the lies he takes on the heavy cloak of authority, he implies
his infallibility, he becomes the superego incarnate, the role his father
groomed him for all of his life:
I know I have been hard on you, but that is how you make a soft metal
into steel. That is why you are the most gifted young surgeon in this
city. And this, this is a career that is all about the greater good. I've
had to sacrifice certain aspects of my relationship with you so that hundreds
and thousands of patients will live because of your extraordinary skills.
I know it's a long time coming.
As you continue, BA, there is a "familial determinism," and
I find that an exciting thought, that the show seems to be heading towards
some kind of total death to the father scenario. I am not as pessimistic,
because I think it will prove to be another ironic reversal, one where
the castaways reclaim their agency, the command of their own fate.
drabauer
All right I wasnt going to respond here at this ridiculously early hr,
but will anyway.
It is interesting that you say that Jack had ostensibly and symbolically
become Christian's dr. I think I had meant that he was literally Boone's
dr. But your connection raises the stakes even higher.
It's funny, or perhaps not, that I stumble onto ideas that people with
longer histories on this board have already developed. Such stumbling
provides opportunities to go back in time as it were and (re)read earlier
theories. I havent read the board in such great depth---yet! But will
...
As far as familial determinism, you state that you favor a more optimistic
outcome. I would favor such an outcome. Probably in accordance with the
existentialist tenet that while, or because, God no longer plays a role
(polite language here) in life, people have a sudden but perhaps unwelcome
opportunity to shape their own destinies. Dont get me wrong---I am in
favor of spiritual belief and pursuit and dabble in these possibilities
in my own way. Am just not an inherent believer in a divine power. LOST,
through my own interpretation of events, is perhaps saying that to find
the core of what has lead the islanders to their current fate, trace not
only back to their fathers, but to the original father. Or from a biblical
perspective, what was the first disagreement?
In terms of one's own father or mother, it is ironic that while we say
we wont do the same things that they did when an adult, when raising children,
we often repeat the same patterns. And in a later perspective, one not
so wrought with emotion, we find that we may somewhat agree with our parents
on certain things. But not everything. Or we're just clones.
boonian androphile
Thank you for the complement Drabauer.
Boonian the relationship between Parent and child can represent the immortality
of the human race. We are all mirrors of our parents in one way or another,
but we do change. I think it will be interesting to see Locke relationship
between him and his Foster father. The island is treating him the same
way his real father has. This is one thing that does not make sense to
me. If his father manipulated him as he did, would he not be more skeptical
of his situation on the island, and the people. Something must have happen
to Locke after his Kidney operations that instilled in him a belief in
destiny once again. For all intents and purposes what we have seen from
this show are two people. The Lock in the now is a believer in destiny,
the Locke in the distant past is a normal person living a normal life
then is confronted with the idea of destiny. Once confronted he has found
it to be a false belief. What made him regain his belief I believe is
crucial to understanding the character.
Also if Jack superego is solidified why does he need Sun to tell him to
let go. He still seems unsure of himself, and his role. Most doctors have
to separate themselves from the patient in order to work on them. Jack
after helping Boone as best he could decides to put fate in his own hands
by hunting after Locke. This looks good from the stories perspective,
but Jack seems to be going after Locke for more than vindication. He seems
to be chasing after control over his life.
Gambit980
I also like the questioning of how could Jack and his father work at the same place. It's a great point and there is a lot to think about.
I'm still stuck on the Jack/father thing. They are both shackled to the
same dynamic. Everytime either one of them engages in a game of "castrating"
the other, they can't escape the dynamic. In a sense it doesnt even matter
who at what point is the victim and who is the victimizer because at any
different circumstance, the energy and role bounces back and forth between
them. As long as Jack assumes one of the roles - the dynamic and game
will continue, and he won't be free, or be his own man.
Right now, it's even worse because his father's dead. Jack's father literally
checked himself out of the game through death, but Jack is still carrying
it around, looking for a new partner to continue with Christian's role.
Which right now, looks like Locke.
Jack will never be free, until he stops assuming the roles of he and his
father. I wish he would stop running around the island reacting to every
little event and being everyone's judge. If he could just chill alone
and meditate for awhile - and let everyone else be accountable for their
own actions without his involvement.
sawyerhasbestlines
Re: The subject supposed to know
shbl:
I agree with you totally. Jack is following his own agenda, consciously
or not. He needs to broaden his roles. Or take lessons from Sun in how
to interpret life and death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gambit:
I like this concept. I like continuation of life interpretations for our
mortal selves. It's mystical and comforting at the same time.
As for Locke, I think that he is so desperate for a connection that he
surrendered himself to the island. Far from skepticism! In Locke's dream
vision Boone was the skeptical counterpoint. Maybe in this process Locke
sacrificed rational thought, an ironic moment considering the source of
his name.
As for Jack and Sun, perhaps we werent seeing Jack's superego so much
as a misidentified id. Or a dysfunctional superego. If these things exist.
Sun proved a more effective superego. As did Boone ironically enough.
For Jack, is ego actually humility? If so, that doesnt last long. He is
out for justice now. Based on his limited knowledge of circumstance though,
who can really blame him? It's not as though Locke confided in anyone
except perhaps in Boone and look what happened there!
boonian androphile
I really like this discussion, and am learning a lot. I had never really
considered Jack's action as vindictive or as taking on the role of his
father, but it makes a lot of sense. I still think it may be something
of an act of conviction, though not completely pure in motivation (I'm
not sure that's even possible, though).
So what do people think about Christian's words to Sawyer: "He thinks
I feel betrayed by him. But what I really feel is gratitude, and pride
because of what he did to me. What he did for me. It took more courage
than I have."?
I had been thinking that Christian was proud because Jack stood up to
him, and stood up for his own sense of what was right. And perhaps Christian
was also proud, (following along with Boonian's thoughts of familial determinism)
because he had never been able to stand up to his own father. But I'm
curious what you folks think. Does he feel gratitude because he no longer
has to play the role of authoritarian super-ego? Because he's free to
simply give in to his desires? Does what he's saying here effect how you
read Jack's behavior?
-----
That's an interesting question about Sun's role. She seemed to be acting
more like a doctor than Jack was. As was Kate, for that matter.
-----
Jack and Christian both working at the same hospital is strange.
Another part of the mousetrap?
-----
SHBL wrote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish he would stop running around the island reacting to every little
event and being everyone's judge. If he could just chill alone and meditate
for awhile - and let everyone else be accountable for their own actions
without his involvement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes Jack seems more like a nosy neighbor than a leader.
spooky
I completely agree with Gambit that we desperately need to know what caused Locke to regain his belief in destiny. Was it just becoming mobile again, or was there something that set him up, maybe someone that told him this would happen, that he would walk again because he was "fated" to.
And Gambit, just because Jack steps into the role of the superego doesn't
mean that is who is deep down, it's simply a role that he is playing:
someone has to lead the others and maintain order, which is the role of
the superego. SHBL put it well: Jack and his father are shackled to the
same dynamic. She has captured precisely what's going on: it's the master/slave
dynamic that Hegel identified, Nietzsche elaborated, and Lacan touched
on in Kant avec Sade. Here's one version of it:
The Master feels threatened because recognition of himself depends exclusively
on the Slave; that is, the Master reduces others to a mirror of him/herself.
A multiplicity of desires seeking universal recognition results in a life-and-death
fight. If both adversaries remain alive, it means that one gives in to
the other, recognizing him as the Master. The Master, unable to recognize
the other who recognizes him, finds himself in an impasse. The Master
makes the Slave work in order to satisfy his own desires. To satisfy the
desires of the Master, the Slave has to repress his own instincts, but
transcends himself by working, transforming things and himself at the
same time. In becoming master of Nature by work, the Slave frees himself
from Nature, from his own and from the Master, and finds a kind of freedom.
Thus the future and history hence belong not to the warlike Master, but
to the working Slave. The Slave changes himself by changing the world.
In the master/slave dynamic it looks like the master has all the power,
and the slave has none. But since the master derives his power and his
pleasure from the slave, it is really the slave who controls the dynamic.
OK, so Jack is the slave to his father's desires and has worked his whole
life to meet his father's demands. He has educated himself, saved hundreds
of people, while trying to escape his father's tyranny. But in the end
he steps into the role of Master instead of renouncing it and finding
another path. I'm sure others will have more to say on this dynamic. I
think this also applies to Locke and his father, and maybe Locke and the
island, but I'm going to complete a Locke analysis and post that soon.
This lead's to spooky's post. Yes, I think Christian is grateful because
Jack's action set him free from this debilitating dynamic. He no longer
had to play the Master or the subject supposed to know; in disgrace, he
found a kind of peace.
drabauer
Locke's first flashback suggested a warrior heading to the final battle.
To have conquered the Australian outback would have been striking, but
to have lost to the forces of nature would have been noble and more in
tune with Locke's value system. Then as well he would never have to talk
with his idiotic box company manager(?). Plus another term for box is
of course coffin. He felt dead anyway. Therefore, I contend that the miracle
happened on the island, when he retook his first solid steps on terra
nova. A rebirth? A resurrection? A lazarus motif? Directly after (stated
this elsewhere) he was goofier than a kid. Then he assumed the hunter/provider
role, envisioned the monster, then assumed the teacher/mystic role. Then
of course he collapsed, literally and symbolically. The island told him,
the island guided him, and the island betrayed him---at least in our eyes.
Maybe the island is just a blood-thirsty beast and rewarded Locke for
misinterpreting signs that I as a viewer and in fuller knowledge of events
perceived as obvious. Or maybe the island communicated what it knew, without
any ability to interrelate the images.
As for Christian, yes he might have felt relieved for being overthrown
as the Master, but so newly without that role and with no compelling replacement
role, he drank himself to death. Is this enlightenment or is this annihilation?
Is this a final toast to the victor? A passing of the crown?
From what I know of the Freudian terms, we jump from id to ego to superego
and back again depending on circumstance. I perceive that Jack can do
superego and ego fairly well but uses id sparingly: comical medical interview
with Sawyer. This will be even more so in the context of assuming his
father's place and using that implied power in island politics. Doesnt
mean that Jack doesnt have appealing values and a vital role. It just
means that winning and losing is still an inescapable paradigm.
boonian androphile
spooky writes:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he feel gratitude because he no longer has to play the role of authoritarian
super-ego? Because he's free to simply give in to his desires? Does what
he's saying here effect how you read Jack's behavior?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think he's proud of Jack because Jack took over his role. He'd made Jack into his own image.
I also think Jack is going after Locke because of the Locke/Boone parallel
with Christian/dead pregnant woman, and because he has to place blame
for failing to save Boone somewhere other than himself.
LostInWilderness
Dr Amy I thought you were in the field of Music. First Lacan the Freud
and now Hegel. Sounds to me like someone was a philosopher in a past life.
Gambit980
Just my hobby, Gambit. I must say you've got quite the philosophical bent,
although you play it close to the vest. I would love to hear more of your
take on the character's dilemmas.
drabauer
Well it is a hobby of mine. Anyway I can see what you mean about Jack
and his father slave and master relationship. A more obvious one for me
is between Locke and Boone. When Boone attack Micheal, it seemed like
he was attacking him, because Micheal was attacking the Master and it
was his duty as a slave to protect him. It wasn't so much dialect, evolve
to the point of switching roles. Although when Locke legs finally gave
way Boone did have control over Locke, instead of him asserting himself
in the master role, he became a slave once again by doing what Locke wanted.
Maybe this is why he did not come down from the plane when it started
to collapse, because he wanted to assert himself as the master and use
the radio to save everyone on the island.
Gambit980
I think Locke and Boone are much closer to Master and Student in the Asian
martial tradition than Master and Slave as drabauer described.
LostInWilderness
This is true, LiW, or to be more specific, their relationship can be broken
down into Master/Apprentice and Master/Slave. The slave aspect only really
appears in that Boone is forced to accept Locke'sreligious faith in the
island. But in terms of learning emotional and physical skills and gaining
knowledge, he is Locke's apprentice. I'll have more to say on this later-thanks
for mentioning it.
drabauer
Boone chose to become Locke's student - if he wanted to learn he had to
chose to accept Locke's faith. I don't see any Master/Slave aspect here
at all. Boone didn't lend Locke any power that I can see; he kept it himself
and followed willingly. IMO, this is classic Asian martial arts tradition.
LostInWilderness
Perhaps Boone ultimately chose to be Locke's student. But in psychological
terms perhaps not so much. To lose a belief structure so quickly, even
an obsessive incestuous codependent one, something must replace it. Psychology
abhors a vacuum as much as nature does. Go back to the sudden willingness
of Boone to follow Locke into the jungle after Locke "encouraged"
Boone to recognize his own obsessions. Boone didnt exactly sit on a rock
(or the hatch) and contemplate his options. Trust was automatically given
or else there would have been emptiness. People dont do well with emptiness.
They long for meaning and purpose. Even if the meaning and purpose dont
automatically lead to healthy results.
boonian androphile
Boonian, you have summed the relationship up nicely. LiW, I brought up
the Master-Slave dialectic in the abstract as a relation not exclusive
to masters and slaves, but as an aspect of many lopsided power relations
between two individuals. I don't agree that Boone retains his own power;
the Asian tradition requires a sacrifice of some agency (I haven't practiced
Martial arts, but I have studied Indian music with an Ustad). I adore
my Indian teacher but he says some pretty off-the-wall stuff that I ignore
when I am in apprentice mode (but not when we are just hanging out drinking
tea).
Boone certainly gave up more than his obsession with Shannon; he gave
up his connection to the beachcombers, to his easy life, to his previous
belief structure, to his freedom of speech (among other things). That's
not to say he was a slave, merely that he gave Locke his allegiance in
turn for life lessons. More important to my point, however, is that Locke
needed an acolyte, needed someone to reflect, to mirror the new Locke,
if only to convince himself that he wasn't dreaming. By gaining an apprentice
Locke "locks" in his status as a new man. Ergo loosing Boone
was loosing a surrogate son but also a loss of identity for Locke: Boone
was the lynchpin for that identity, the anchor that held Locke as subject
in place.
drabauer
drabauer, I'm really looking forward to your analysis of Locke, so this
is my last post on the subject until then.
I disagree with both you and boonian. You can study martial arts without
giving up anything except time, and IMO that's what Boone did. Locke used
his Spirit Guide powers on Boone to get him over his relationship with
his sister. This may well work in the realm of Master conquering Slave
- but Boone never acted like a slave even afterward, but definitely not
in the classic Slave lends power to the Master interaction. Just my humble
opinion.
I'm really looking forward to discussing this further and in detail when
you analyze Locke.
Back to drabauer's excellent analysis of Jack, his father, and his relationship
with Kate, which was dead on.
LostInWilderness
Drabauer & LIW:
I can claim no martial arts or eastern based frame of reference. I can
only reiterate that Boone made a decision based on the absolute psychology
of his character. If Jack, for instance, had mentored Boone more, Boone
would have followed Jack. Boone, as his young age, remained an inherent
follower and wouldnt have grown out of that role for some time if he had
had the opportunity. But Jack did not require a follower as such---he
requires other things certainly! Locke, however, did require a shadow
to prove his own new identity. I mean forget about Boone and psychological
transformation!---Locke is the absolute epitome! And he has done that
more than once throughout the year! First he cant walk (pre-crash) then
he can then he cant and with Boone's arguable sacrifice he can again.
The physical symbolizing the psychological. And based on his previews
affect alone he is returning to the fold to look for new followers and
new mirrors of identity. An interesting sage turns into a charismatic
megalomaniac. Before he crashes of course a la King Lear who metes out
his kingdom to those who validate him and his high position before the
one who really matters stares back at him with the dead eyes of inescapable
recognition. Cordelia's death is Lear's death. Boone's death will be Locke's.
It's just a question what form that particular death will take. I guess
that makes the hatch and the island Goneril and Regan.
boonian androphile
Read
More