At 10:18 last night the unthinkable happend

[Verix]

I fell out of love with Locke

Since day one i have loved Locke, he has been my guiding hope for the show but last night i realised that my passion for him was no longer there. I realise similar points have been put accross in the numerous other threads that this whole situuation has caused but i'll try to give my account of things.

At 10:18 last night (i checked the clock because i felt the moment was so historic) i realised where the episode was going. locke and Sawyer were walking through the jungle and Locke was asking Sawyer about his past etc etc and it seeed so obvious that Locke was going to try and make Sawyer killed Cooper.

And that was it. I just can't look at Locke in the same light. He has become just like Ben, rather than get his hands dirty he'll get someone else to do it for him. Come on Locke, where is the strength in that? In this whole episode Locke just used Sawyer to get him in cosy with the others. How can the 'great man' turn his back on those who he has called friends last night and as his final act get one of them to commit murder for him.

Don't get me wrong Sawyer isn't blameless (though i get the feeling that Locke may have never let Sawyer out had he not killed Cooper). I wanted soooooo badly for Sawyer to not kill Cooper, i wanted it soo badly i can't even say. But sadly he didn't, he let himself be maniuplated like everyone else has done. Is there anyone left to fight against this very otherish way of getting things done (i.e. manipulating others). Is it just me or does this tactic smack of weakness. What's more in the eyes of some (mentioning no names lol) manipulating to do something horrid and morally unexcusable is well, excusable because they didn't commit the act - which is good news for Hitler becasue to my knowledge he killed no one with his bare hands meaning his soul is pure... or something. KoR could explain it better than me

Of course i haven't even touched upon Ben here but that's because i felt his lack of empathy, his self-rightousness and his ignorance towards other peoples feelings were completly in character and barely worth noting down.

[D-Roc]

Fear not Verix..im sure Locke will accept you back into his bossem when the time comes

I personally see no need to bail out on Locke now..why now??

But im glad that you compare Locke to Ben..do you know how glad thats made me?

I fear you're making a mistake Verix..i fear that you're missingthe bigger picture, but before anyone flames me (current trend you see), your opinion is your own and good luck with it

As for comparing Locke to Hitler..were you being serious or jesting? Eitherway i throw it out of the window, like Cooper did to Locke. Sorry, but thats my opinion of that sensationalised comment. Of course you're welcome to your opinion but if you compare Locke to Hitler, well..i hope you got more evidence than you're currently packing

'Bigger picture': just please remember those 2 words for when the time comes..

[Kiowa Warrior]

The closest I've ever come to falling out with Locke was during Par Avion when he pushed Mikahil through the fence, and I think that was largely in part due to not knowing a lot of Locke's motivations for doing so, but after The Brig my love for him is still as strong as ever and I find it very hard to condemn him for his actions. I can fully understand why they would be perceived as being pretty awful, but I don't feel that they were.

OK yes Locke manipulated Sawyer into killing Anthony, but it can first of all be argued that Locke himself was manipulated into doing just that by Richard and Ben. And Locke is more than prepared to clean up his own mess, but the simple and undeniable fact is that Locke isn't a killer...he just can't do it.

What I don't get from reading a lot of comments on here so far is when Locke is accused of being 'spineless' or other such cowardly terms because he didn't draw a knife across Anthony's throat...he didn't kill him because Locke simply doesn't have murder in his blood. As much as Locke would like to kill someone when he believes he has to - step forward Eddie and Anthony - he just can't bring himself to do it. And I really don't see how not being able to kill someone is a mark of not having a great deal of courage or determination or whatever...I think it takes a lot more of those qualities to *not* kill someone when your heart and head are screaming for you to do so.

I love the fact that Locke didn't kill Anthony when he was tied to the poll, because I would hate to see Locke become a cold blooded killer like that. Locke had every possible reason to kill Anthony with nothing to lose and everything to gain, but he didn't do it because he simply couldn't. There are some things people just can't do no matter how much they want to. Locke did manipulate Sawyer into killing Anthony because Locke wanted him dead but couldn't do it himself while knowing that Sawyer could do so if provoked enough, but Locke also did it to help Sawyer be set free from Anthony as well.

Locke isn't doing all of this just to become best friends with the Others - he's doing whatever it takes for him to find a purpose in his life, and he's not too picky as to who he has to team up with to get it. Just because he's left the Losties doesn't mean he's on the Others' side because it doesn't...if Locke has truly turned his back on the Losties and left them to fend for themselves, then why did he warn Sawyer about Juliet and hand her the tape?

Locke's actions may not have been utterly fantastic, but he is still as strong as ever and I don't blame him a great deal at all for doing any of what he did. In fact I'm very proud of most of what he did, and that he will continue to do the right things by himself and everyone else.

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by Verix

locke and Sawyer were walking through the jungle and Locke was asking Sawyer about his past etc etc and it seeed so obvious that Locke was going to try and make Sawyer killed Cooper.

Oh no I don't think Locke was trying to make Sawyer kill Cooper at all. I think had he wanted Sawyer to kill Cooper purely for his (Locke's) own benefit then he would have told Sawyer straight away that it was Cooper and not Ben that he had imprisoned. I think Locke made Sawyer go not knowing it was Cooper so he wouldn't have time to prepare for the murder. He knew that if he locked Sawyer in with Cooper Sawyer would work out who Cooper was for himself and then take matters into his own hands. He was asking him about his past to keep to stop him returning to the beach

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

What I don't get from reading a lot of comments on here so far is when Locke is accused of being 'spineless' or other such cowardly terms because he didn't draw a knife across Anthony's throat...he didn't kill him because Locke simply doesn't have murder in his blood.

and because he's not the sort to take orders

[Verix]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo

As for comparing Locke to Hitler..were you being serious or jesting? Eitherway i throw it out of the window, like Cooper did to Locke. Sorry, but thats my opinion of that sensationalised comment. Of course you're welcome to your opinion but if you compare Locke to Hitler, well..i hope you got more evidence than you're currently packing

'Bigger picture': just please remember those 2 words for when the time comes..

The HItler thignwas partly in jest. My point was that really those who make someone do something (lead them on, manipulate) are almost as much to blame as the culprit imo. Hitler himself killed no one himslef but no one would claim he has a clean kill record (although technically he does). Yet Locke and Ben don't techincally have any kills on their record they are still blameable for the murder of Cooper. Equally Ben should imo have a fair few crimes on his card because he (we assume) has been the driving force behind them.

And yes, i'm willing to accept there's a bigger picture. However i'm not willing to give Ben carte blanc on the previso that there is a bigger picture. Whatever the bigger picture is i feel there have always been diffeent ways around Ben's struggles (for example there would have been other ways to take Walt which didn't involve the attempted murder of 3 innocent men).

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Easily confused

and because he's not the sort to take orders

??

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Verix

The HItler thignwas partly in jest. My point was that really those who make someone do something (lead them on, manipulate) are almost as much to blame as the culprit imo. Hitler himself killed no one himslef but no one would claim he has a clean kill record (although technically he does). Yet Locke and Ben don't techincally have any kills on their record they are still blameable for the murder of Cooper. Equally Ben should imo have a fair few crimes on his card because he (we assume) has been the driving force behind them.

And yes, i'm willing to accept there's a bigger picture. However i'm not willing to give Ben carte blanc on the previso that there is a bigger picture. Whatever the bigger picture is i feel there have always been diffeent ways around Ben's struggles (for example there would have been other ways to take Walt which didn't involve the attempted murder of 3 innocent men).

Please understand that the following is my own opinion:

To constantly blame Ben strikes me as slightly desperate. I sense that Ben-haters are looking for anything to pin on Ben. The blame-focus should be on Sawyer..the episode was called "the brig" - hence the focus is on what went down in the 'Brig'. Of course your interpretation of blame is your own and you're most welcome to it Verix..no doubt i disagree with you.

But i understand that you badly want Ben to be a murderer..and this may very well be the closest you'll get to having that happen

If Bens a murderer, id rather live in a wolrd of Bens than a world of Fords.

Aka, ben is *not* a murderer and the blame should be apportioned to Sawyer. *imo*

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo

??

Ben told Locke to kill Cooper Locke didn't do it (he's not the sort to take orders) so is therefore not spineless for not doing what Ben told him to do - why should he do it just because Ben told him to - besides murdering his farther may not be the best way for him to get closure

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by Easily confused

and because he's not the sort to take orders

True Locke doesn't like to be told what he can and can't do, and I don't think that Locke wanted to break free from Anthony just because Ben had decided that now was the moment that he should. Like Locke said he needed time to think, and doing something as monumental as killing your own Father or allowing him to die can't just be done on the spur of the moment. And at the end of the day for all his awful crimes Anthony was still Locke's Father, and Locke isn't the kind of person to brutally kill anyone, let alone his own family.

[Easily confused]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

True Locke doesn't like to be told what he can and can't do, and I don't think that Locke wanted to break free from Anthony just because Ben had decided that now was the moment that he should. Like Locke said he needed time to think, and doing something as monumental as killing your own Father or allowing him to die can't just be done on the spur of the moment. And at the end of the day for all his awful crimes Anthony was still Locke's Father, and Locke isn't the kind of person to brutally kill anyone, let alone his own family.

Exactly its down to Locke to decide how to deal with his hurt that Cooper caused him not Ben (he's not the boss of Locke)

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Easily confused

Ben told Locke to kill Cooper Locke didn't do it (he's not the sort to take orders) so is therefore not spineless for not doing what Ben told him to do - why should he do it just because Ben told him to - besides murdering his farther may not be the best way for him to get closure

Ooooh, i thought you were cussing Locke and that Jazz