"We Must Be The Good Guys, Huh?"

[D-Roc]

Upon being betrayed and heart-broken what does a man like Jin do? He fishes..naturally - after all this is a the root of the man, this is what he is, what he was before life programmed and then re-programmed him into hitman and a husband who forgot to show the affection that he has for his wife.

Fishing seems to be the natural thing to do, almost as if it symbolises the natural urge to go back into ones trueself.

But the symbolism which i found really interesting in this scene was the one of balance - the idea that the Universe gives out what you put in. Some call it 'paying it forward', others refer to it as "KARMA".

Could the Universe..this great big unseen mechanism that cushions our realities be that concerned about 'good' and 'bad', the choices we make and the paths we take..? If life is pre-determined and course-correction is on high alert, then does it 'really' matter what we..or characters like Sun, Jin and Jae Lee do with their lives..after all, aren't they gonna do what they're "supposed" to do anyway, or have some sentient force correct the glitches known as freewill?

I guess it's all a matter of perspective - if you believe in Karma, then Karma will attach itself to you - just like 'luck' and Hugo. he now believes that he's "lucky", and go figure, he's winning every island game going. This could also relate to Ben's idea of the "magic box": - whatever you believe to be in the box..will be in the box..

But even as a 'believer', this idea troubles me - we've seen many of our characters 'believe' in all sortd. Indeed, John Locke once told claire that he belives in "many things", yet currently John Locke is lost (literally). Is this all part of it, part of the trials and tribulations that each individual at some point finds themselves in? Perhaps even with the best intentions a man can become a "murderer" with the view of protecting an something he loves..but he's still a murderer, instructions or not. So perhaps Karma is not just about what an individual puts in and takes out, but how others influence and effect the paths of those..those who like John Locke had blood-free hands but are forced to do what they are 'supposed' to do due to circumstance..

Maybe we're all just pawns - "puppets on strings" is how Locke once described it, yet not every master is as well intentioned as Geppetto and not all consciences are as helpful as Jimminy Cricket.

The idea of "good guys" and "bad guys" has now become so skewed - but it's not just a case of right or wrong, as Bernard suggested, it's about perspective..it always has been and always will be. The way we see the world as individuals is the very thing which underpins our ability to interpret and to act according to those impressions of right and wrong. If you're Bernard then perhaps circumstance doesn't matter, because he's rarely been in a position where he's had to make decisions which push the moral boundaries - and even when he has, he was prepared to let his wife die - don't tell me about right and wrong Bernie! There are just some things that you can't let happen, there are somethings that one has to do in order to protect the ones we love. Bernard, I respect the fact that you want to honour your wife's wish and leave the island, but to base this choice on the idea that Locke is a "murderer", well, I have a pair of John's shoes that you need to walk a mile in..

I do believe in some of Berne's argument - doing good is always the right thing to do, but sometimes it's about circumstance and sometimes good stuff can only come after a bit of rain.

A man of God was recently obliterated by the islands Smokey Guardian - why? because he didn't explicitly say "sorry" for the life he had led. I'm not one to open up a can of lima beans, but who is Smokey to judge what is right and what is wrong? Is Smokey a 'good guy'? Yet he killed a man..so that makes Smokey a bad guy, right?

Maybe there are no 'good guys' as good people suffer..Rose, Locke, Hurley..I bet they've paid it forward and yet cancer, paralysis and mental illness have struck them down. where is the 'good' in that? Yet they've all been healed - Rose free from cancer, Locke able to walk and Hugo now feeling "lucky".

I guess good things come to those who wait, even if it takes a lifetime..

or several lifetimes..

But those who sin, they're not forgotten..because there is nothing better, than a sinner who redeems himself, or than a man who is able to forgive even when his heart is broken..

The good guys? power, politics, islands, love, war, peace aside..we all have the ability to be the good guys.

I love the notion that Jin's life was written - he was going to be born in 1974 and die in 2004. But that choices he made along they way ultimately dictated what kind of man he would come to be remebered as.

Dead or alive, I think it's safe to say that Jin has become a very good guy. But ultimately it's a matter of perspective.

[firebreathingfishies]

That was lovely Roco Very interesting too. I'm going to have to mull it over before I reply with anything remotely intellegent

[Murgatroyd]

It was an interesting scene, and a more endearing and perhaps straightforward take on the good guys/bad guys conundrum than we've previously seen. In my opinion, it was more idealistic than realistic - while I think that acting decently and with good intentions is far more likely to bring you rewards than acting ill, purely because you're going to win fewer enemies that way ... and certainly it makes you more deserving ... I don't think life's so inherently fair as Bernard seems to think it is. His worldview is naive in the best possible way - it's actually touching - but I think the conclusion of 'Ji Yeon' presented the more worldly view that bad things happen to good people and vice versa. It's unfair, but it happens.

But for all that gloominess, I think what Bernard said was actually a very vital principle. In the very confusing and morally dubious world of Lost, I think people (not just the Losties, but people like Ben and Widmore as well - fat chance, I know) could do a lot worse than act doggedly on the principle of taking the route of least harm: endeavouring to uphold key ideals, even if they fear they might ultimately fail because of it. Locke's way, and even Ben's way, may ultimately be the 'better' way (not the best way) for the greater number of people, in that more folk might come out the other end alive ... albeit morally bankrupt. But if people like Bernard and Rose fail to benefit from that, it won't be through a lack of decent intent: it'll be because they couldn't find it in themselves to condone methods that a decent human being shouldn't even be able to contemplate. Probably that won't secure them any rewards beyond the sense of self-worth and humanity that people like Locke and Ben (and Sawyer and Sayid and sadly countless others) have long since sacrificed en route, but it's nice to think that it would.

And the fact that Rose is the driving force behind this ideal is powerful as well: with Rose, it can't be said that it's easy enough for her to act the saint, because actually she's under enormous pressure - she made the decision not to openly approve behaviour she couldn't condone at the likely expense of her own life (and, significantly, nobody else's), which is about as self-sacrificing as you can be.

(And I can't believe how much respect I have for Rose at present - I couldn't stand her in the first three seasons!)

[Lauren [is Lost]]

This is very random but i just want to say that i love the way you present your ideas/theories, Roco! With all the screencaps & stuff...very nice lol.

I thought it was quite ironic when that line was said - "We must be the good guys"... with Lost i think no one is good and no one is bad - to me it seems that every single character does what they believe is good, its just that people have different views of good and bad. That's what i think anyway.

[-x-madegurl-x-]

omg jin doesn't have any eyelashes

[lost-lover]

That was a random comment there. Maybe his eyelashes are just very small.
On topic, I need to read this through before posting my proper reply.