'Lost': Framing the Discussion

THE DHARMA/ALPERT ''LETTER OF TRUCE:'' ADDENDUMS REVEALED! (cont.)
What I find most conspicuous about Alpert's addendums is that they raise questions, or put another way, invite curiosity. Certainly our curiosity — but I think it would have punched Dharma's curiosity buttons, too. Knowing what we know now about hot-headed Radzinsky, I don't think he would have been content to accept these stipulations without a second thought. In fact, I'm thinking he would have resented them. ''Why can't we go in the ruins? Why can't we drill deeper than 10 meters? Why can't we stay longer than 15 years? Why can't we bring more than 216 people to the Island?'' It's like the Garden of Eden: Tell Adam and Eve not to eat the apples, and all they want to do is think about the apples, and think about eating apples, and finally act on those thoughts. So...is it possible that Richard was playing the role of tempter with his rules? Could it be he was trying to goad Dharma into doing some or all of the things he was telling them they were prohibited from doing. (Ah, that recurring Lost theme: ''Don't tell me what I can't do!'')

Why would Richard want to manipulate Dharma into doing these things? The answer is time loop theory (open loop edition). The idea is this: There is an Island drama that has happened before, many times, and it's supposed to keep happening, over and over again, for eternity. But as we learned from Desmond and the Season 3 Principal of Course Correction, the details of this looping drama can be altered, even if the final outcome cannot — or so we've been told. I don't think that's true. Indeed, the story of Lost may be chronicling a successful break in this tyrannical time loop. From this perspective, Richard may represent a group of people on the Island who are aware of this looping circuit and are charged with perpetuating it — or he may represent a group of rebels who are determined to bring the looping to an end. Application to the addendums: In either scenario, Richard, operating with knowledge of the future, was trying to control or coax Dharma toward outcomes that serve his interest with his curiously specific, provocatively tempting restrictions.

To be clear, this theory remains viable without making Richard some double-talking manipulator. Richard, charged with managing the time loop, needed Dharma to abide by these guidelines to protect (or negate) predestined events and was actually doing them the favor of being extremely specific. Still, given how wantonly Radzinsky and Chang were violating these addendums, believing that Richard was sincere about these rules means also believing that he was pretty sloppy about enforcing them. And I reject any theory that paints Alpert as sloppy! He's too well-dressed to be anything less that hyper-diligent.

Regardless, those are my initial thoughts about the implications of Alpert's addendums. What do you think? Post your thoughts in the message boards below — or send me your theoretical musings to docjensenew@gmail.com. We'll do a round-up of reactions in a future column. That's it for this week. I know I promised a revealing essay about the Man In Black, but we're going to have to save that for our next meeting. Follow me on Twitter (especially tonight re: the Gallery 1998/Underground Lost Art Project opening) at twitter.com/ewdocjensen. I hope the holiday season is joyful, not exhausting, and...

Namaste!
Doc Jensen