'Lost': What the Island 'Saw'

Hey, Doc. In your last column, you presented the broad strokes for your final theory of Lost. You said the Island was a sentient, psychic entity — a legitimate character in the Lost story. You named the Island Carrie, after the Stephen King novel. You said that all the human beings that came to Carrie became extensions of her psycho-spiritual ecosystem. You said that consequently, Carrie became aware of her future more than 2,000 years ago from the time-traveling castaways. You said that ever since downloading the memories of these quantum-leaping visitors, Carrie has had little choice but to facilitate its predestined future per the Lost rule of ''Whatever happened, happened.'' Finally, you said that in Part Two, you would begin recapitulating the Lost saga from the Island's perspective, and that doing so would clear up many of Lost's unresolved mysteries.
That would be a fair and succinct summary of what we covered a few weeks ago.

Then are you prepared to begin your history lesson?
Yes.

Great. But I'm not. I have some things I want to say first.
Okay. Fire away.

First, I would like to complain about the structure of your presentation and the voice you've given me. In Part One, you initially cast me in the role of ''Frustrated Lost Fan Who Wasn't Satisfied with the Finale.'' In doing so, you led those readers who were genuinely dissatisfied with the Lost finale to believe that my voice would speak for them. But that's not really what happened. You really only used me as a storytelling device, and a lazy one at that. Which is fine, I guess. I'm not here to judge your crap writing. But I think it was lame that you bait-and-switched on serving the frustrated, and so I'm calling you out on that.
Wow. Have you been hanging out in Fishbiscuitland?

''Fish''whichwhere?
Never mind. Actually, I agree with most of the words I just put in your mouth. I apologize.

Will you pledge right here, right now, to allow me to speak for the disappointed, to be a voice for the ruffled and rankled?
Not this week. Probably not in Part Three, either. But perhaps in Part Four, I'll have some things to say to the disenchanted and disenfranchised. What else bothered you about Part One?

Well, as much as I appreciate your madcap Lost-crunching, I must say that I don't know if I really like your theory. Time-travel logic is too tricky for my brain to process, and I consider myself a pretty intelligent person. Sometimes it can be fun. Usually, though, it reminds me of the science homework that I loathed in high school. But my biggest problem is that — in the words of @Bcpwilson, one of your Twitter followers — ''there is no joy in predestination.'' I like stories in which the hero chooses to participate in the story and has the ability to affect the outcome. Time loops and predestination take freedom, will, and power away from a hero. Case in point: The Architect sequence in The Matrix Reloaded, which turned Neo into a sap with its fatalistic determinism.

Also, when you present an audience with a mystery, the audience wants an answer that is surprising, compelling, and reasonable. If your intention is to explain Lost with a codex that says ''The only reason why anything happened was because it was supposed to happen,'' I don't think your theory will prove satisfying to many people.
Let's start with the ''no joy in predestination'' problem. To be clear, my theory actually concedes a great deal of freedom, will, and power to the characters that are the most important to Lost and most dear to fans: the castaways. Only the Island and a few key human characters — most notably, Benjamin Linus — were robbed of self-determination. So don't worry so much about that. As for the rest of your angst, I am certainly opposed to lazy writing. At the same time, my theory does indeed embrace a significant degree of ''Everything happened because it was supposed to happen'' reasoning, but I feel such logic is defensible and compelling because it's an expression of Lost's central thematic conflicts.

Which are?
Fate versus coincidence; purpose versus meaninglessness. Saying ''Everything happened because it was supposed to happen'' is just another way of saying ''destiny.'' John Locke's intuition was correct. The Island really did recruit the castaways for a reason: to produce the history that the Island knew they would produce as a result of their time traveling. Of course, Locke's definition of destiny also included a sense of transcendent, Skywalkeresque purpose. Oh, well.

I don't feel totally assuaged — but I'll let you ramble forth, because that's what you want to do, and I don't really have much choice here, do I?
No, you don't.

Okay. I'll save my other criticisms for the end. But can you do me a favor?
Sure. Anything.

First, watch this.

Can you promise me your theory will be as simple and elegant and entertaining as that guy's presentation?
Nope. Not at all.

(Sigh.) All right. Begin.

NEXT: Was Lost the most Excellent Adventure of all time?