Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Roc
Interesting, Ok let me try to work this out.
I agree that Locke has self-interested reasons for wanting to stay on the island - as you said he has indeed prevented people from leaving the island etc before. Although I would also suggest that everyone has acted with self-interested reasons to an extent - Sawyer chose Locke's side for selfish (if you will) reasons - "surviving". I wonder if for Locke, being "connected" (to the island) is his version of "surviving". For Locke to go back 'home' would surely be the death of him..so perhaps his sabotage attempts can be sympathised with in that respect..
Although I can understand you perhaps suggesting that he shouldn't allow his dreams to impact on other people - those who want to go home? True, but as we've seen, there seems to be little window for discreation - it appears to be all or nothing in regards the choosing the best option  |
Yeah, I think I agree with all that. There are plenty of people acting in a self-interested fashion on that island - it's just that Sawyer's very upfront about it. I just basically think that Locke has such a record in acting in a self-interested manner to the detriment of other people's wellbeing that he can't really be surprised when people suspect his motives.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roco
I agree that Locke's current motivation seems to be based on more than a 'feeling' or a sign. Locke now has information (I would assume), whether he choses to divulge that info i'm not sure (although I'm sure at some point he will). What also interests me is that Locke's 'secrecy' is similar to Ben's and the Others - could there be a justifiable reason for this? I still think there could be..
|
Yes, perhaps you're right. Unfortunately for them, it's largely due to their secrecy and inability to explain that Jack contacted the freighter. It would've been hard for him to believe either Ben or Locke even if they presented solid arguments, to be honest, but the first time someone trustworthy offered them a concrete, logical reason ('Not Penny's boat'), a significant number of the survivors did take it to heart (and I expect Jack, Sayid and Desmond certainly didn't dismiss it out of hand either, but they all have their reasons for wanting to confront the freighter rather than run from it). Unless for some reason they absolutely can't explain what's going on, I do question the sense in sticking to that code when it's led to 'the beginning of the end' - which sounds pretty much like a worse case scenario. Nonetheless, I do hope that there's good reason ... something more than the writers wanting to string out the mystery at any rate!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roco
Totally agree that Charlie's message is essential in validating Locke's stance..and one would assume that if Charlie's message leaned more towards Jack's stance, then some of Locke's people would currently be on Team Jack. That's how powerful Charlie's message was..and perhaps moreso, how powerful Hurley's interpretation of that message is. As Hurley seems to be the most 'driven' post Charlie's death. Had Hurley not referenced Charlie at all, I wonder how the deck of cards would have fallen in relation to Jack and Locke..? That is, without the "Not Penny's boat" info, where would actual loyalties have stood. Right now I think it's about loyalty and information - remove that information and we just have trust, I feel
With that in mind you could be right - perhaps not many people would (or do) actually 'trust' Locke..however, I sense that not many trust Jack either. With trust levels being equal, my gut would tell me Locke..even if I didn't like him..I'm thinking about all the mistakes Jack has made..i'm thinking about the sight of him attempting to murder one of my fellows in cold blood..i'm thinking I wouldn't go anywhere with that man.
Interesting stuff nonetheless  |
Well, yes ... given the choice I'd rather go with neither of them. But the castaways aren't really choosing between personalities: more courses of actions. Locke's on the side of running away and finding somewhere safe to hide, which seems a fairly reasonable thing to do, and Jack's in favour of grabbing any slight chance to escape even if it puts him in terrible danger, and I can see why some people would take that option as well. The ostensible leader of each group doesn't really matter, though if personalities do come into it I guess more of the losties would trust Jack (who has, shooting Locke excepted, been acting largely with a view to getting his people to safety: and I guess even shooting Locke could, if you were being very charitable, be viewed as an albeit totally unnecessary attempt to prevent his further jeopardising the escape plan) than Locke (who has, as I said before, spent a long time trying to get what he wants at the expense of rather a lot of people) ... especially seeing as they'd all witnessed his stabbing Naomi without knowing why, and so at least knew what was motivating Jack. But yeah. There's not much to choose between any of them now. I'd much more readily follow Hurley.