[Audio Pineapple]

Originally Posted by *SP*,January 05, 2007 12:28 am

I don't think Locke has anger management issues. I mean, we all get angry about certain things but it's just contrasted more with Locke because he's normally so laid back. I think what we've seen is a sheer frustration with the situations Locke has had to encounter.

He clearly did in the past however and one of the fundemental themes of Lost is 'It'll come back around' and considering how all of Locke's other character flaws have come back to haunt him (the blind faith, trusting people and so on) is it just wishful thinking to believe that he has no problem at all, or will not develop one? Esspecially if Jack returns to the island and resumes the leadership role that Locke has happily claimed as his own?

Boone - I realise Locke was partly responsible for Boone's death in round about way but he didn't know exactly what would happen.  I think he was just following his faith in the Island and believed he was being led by forces outwith his control or knowledge.  I mean, really, if you'd had that vision you wouldn't know what it really meant, or even know it was some sort of fore-sight.  If you were a person of faith you'd just know it was leading you to your destiny.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit tonight (thoughts in another thread) and I'm not sure that it is an entirely roundabout way. Surely he must have thought that there was a chance that seeing Boone being bloodied and battered wasn't purely symbolic? Esspecially after he saw how real the beechcraft was? Although I'd put this down more to his blind faith rather than to his anger but I thought it could be included in the examples.

Charlie - Locke's anger was entirely justified in this situation.  Fundamentally Locke hit Charlie because he had put a defenseless baby in a lot of danger.  If he was angry with Charlie earlier in the day it's because everything he invested in to Charlie was thrown back in his face.  Charlie would try the patience of a saint and I don't think Locke acted irrationally at all.  If anything here, Locke's anger saved others from danger rather than put them in it.

I think it was justified as well, don't get me wrong, and he did have a right to be angry with Charlie but that is my point - he did get angry with Charlie and I'm not sure that Aaron was the sole reason for the beating.

Sayid/Ben - I don't think Locke's siding with Sayid was merely a tool to get back at Jack.  I mean, at this point Ana-Lucia had made it quite clear the threat the others had posed to the taillies and they all knew the others had Walt and had blown up the raft.  I think Locke wasn't entirely comfortable with the proposed torture of Ben but trusted Sayid that this was the only method to find out the truth.  His anger here was directed at the others and the potential threat that this one man could pose, thus his actions again were to portect the greater safety of his fellow survivors.

But it was a strange moment in time to bring up that Jack wasn't letting him join the army was it not? But considering Locke's usual "live and let live" approach, his faith in humanity and humans in general and his subsequent treatment of Ben it seemed out of character to me that he caved to Sayid's whim so easily. And again, you refer to 'his anger' and whether this was at Jack or at the Others I think that he flew off the handle somewhat.

The Destruction of the Computer - The loss of faith in the button/hatch came about from seeing 'evidence' that it had all been in vain.  Obviously Locke was angry about this...naturally.  The decision to stop the button being pushed was calculated and long thought out, not an immediate knee jerk reaction.  I think Locke truely believed that the button did nothing, and that no one's safety would be compromised.  He thought he was liberating people, which in a way he did now they don't have to keep pressing the damn button!

Stopping pushing the button was long and thought out, but breaking the computer? I'm not sure that this was in his long term plan - which seemed to be to simply not enter the code and see what happened and he only changed into a far more angry and violent temprement once Desmond began to question him.

Now, I'm not biased at all obviously ( ) but no, I don't think Locke puts people in danger due to his anger.  I think everyone could be a whole lot safer with Locke leading them than they were with Jack.

So far he hasn't really caused anyone any danger - unless there is fallout from the hatch being destroyed - and his destruction of the computer almost caused Eko to die from the polar bear. And I think that Jack will return to the camp and, if he did, Locke's new found glory would collapse and could lead him back into his anger. And even if Jack doesn't return - how long until Locke finds something that catches his intrest more than being leader does and he abandons the rest of the camp, leaving them with either no leader or (quite possibly) Sayid.