Should Locke eat humble Pie?

[D-Roc]

So, it turns out that Locke was a drug dealer..or at least part of an organised drug syndicate. (my he's led a varied life hasnt he).

The irony of this was not lost on Charlie, who is understandably still bitter about the beating he took at the fists of Locke back in Fire + Water.. back then Charlie was undergoing serious addiction issues and Locke assumed that he had been using when it transpired that in actual fact, he hadnt.

Anyway, with that in mind, do you think Locke owes Chucky an apology?

[*SP*]

I don't think he owes him an apology! If I recall correctly, Locke punched Charlie out because he had essentially abducted Aaron and was standing at the edge of the ocean with him. Regardless of whether he was using heroin or not this is concerning behaviour and Locke was looking to protect Claire and the baby.

I thought about this last night and wondered was Locke a hypocite about the whole drugs issue but I don't think he has been. First of all, all he ever tried to do was help Charlie, not force his hand. When he had the heroin he told Charlie if he asked for it 3 times he would give it over and he held true to his word. I think Lockes' actions could be at least partially attributed when it came to Charlie having the strength to overcome the desire for drugs. I don't remember him ever sitting in judgement of Charlies' drug abuse.

Anyway I don't think cannabis and herion are comparable. One is a class A illegal substance that affects the anatomy in a severe and immediate way and by proxy can have consequences on by standers. The other is a soft recreational substance that has been reclassified recently and tends to imact primarily on the individual using it over time without causing adverse affect to those around a user.

If anything Charlie should feel humbled that Locke has allowed him to be involved with important stuff that's going on. After his recent behaviour towards the guy I think Charlie is lucky he's given the time of day. Although someone less desperate to be accepted would probably have had the insight to realise he was only being included because there really was no other alternative!

[Mushi]

Well I shall surprise everyone here, I dont think that he does owe Charlie an apology! I think the events in the flashback perhaps showed why he was so hard on Charlie back in S1 and continued to be hard on him in S2!

I know however if Charlie were to find out he would be demanding an apology....

[D-Roc]

I agree that Locke was concerned about the welfare of Aaron and Claire, hence his beating of the man..i also feel that Locke's frustration and hurt at seeing Charlie 'seemingly' throw all of his hard work and trust down the toilet, boiled over.

So I feel that one the drug issue, Locke does owe Charlie an apology for hitting him..because Locke admitted that he was hurt because he said "you lied to me Charlie.." and all of that stuff about 'trust bieng difficult to win back'..so i feel that Locke was very much angered over the drugs..but he was also concerned for Aaron's safety. Plus Locke knows how dangerous drug's are and especially when the user is someone as weak as Charlie.

So, i feel it's a bit of both..an apology wouldnt go amiss but also Charlie should understand that Locke had Aaron's (and his) best interests at heart. As always with these things, i think it's less black and white and more shades of grey.

[Murgatroyd]

I certainly think an apology for the assault and for incorrectly disbelieving Charlie would not go amiss... but I think Charlie could also acknowledge that his was behaving incredibly dangerously at the time, and that, rather than the suspected drugs use, was the primary reason for Locke's thumping him. I'm not even sure Charlie apologised to Claire properly for stealing her baby and wandering into the sea with it.

[Losty]

The assualt was a little harsh, I'm gonna say. Charlie was trying to help Claire and Aaron, he was just going about it the wrong way. Charlie was still in withdrawal and he was confused with his rejection from Claire. Withdrawal from drugs could possibly make you do crazy things, and Charlie was going through a series of different emotions, what with memories of his brother and he just wanted to patch up his relatioship with Claire and Eko's hint made up Charlie's mind. Locke's assualt was very harsh considering the circumstances, and if he was thinking of memories of his drug-dealing days that would have fueled his anger, as well it would have done if he was dealing with self-hatred, for whatever reason. But asside from all of that, Charlie was ioslated from the whole group (aside from Sawyer) and whatever happened, the last thing Charlie needed was to be alone, without any guidance.

[-x-madegurl-x-]

Locke must be doing this to Charlie for a reason. He's always been very serious about charlie taking his drugs and i think there's more to be unraveled about it.

[Him]

I voted for 'A tiny one, perhaps', but now that I think about Charlie's revenge, in the form of helping Sawyer con him through stealing the guns and attacking Sun, I don't think he does owe him one...

[The_other_other]

no, as i think the fact that locke has worked on a weed farm perhaps explains why he takes drugs so seriously, he understands the danger of them more than most poeple and was understandably angry with Charlie for what he saw as a betrayal (id call what he did tough love, charle needed a kick up the ass if you ask me).

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Losty,November 28, 2006 05:06 pm

The assualt was a little harsh, I'm gonna say. Charlie was trying to help Claire and Aaron, he was just going about it the wrong way. Charlie was still in withdrawal and he was confused with his rejection from Claire. Withdrawal from drugs could possibly make you do crazy things, and Charlie was going through a series of different emotions, what with memories of his brother and he just wanted to patch up his relatioship with Claire and Eko's hint made up Charlie's mind. Locke's assualt was very harsh considering the circumstances, and if he was thinking of memories of his drug-dealing days that would have fueled his anger, as well it would have done if he was dealing with self-hatred, for whatever reason. But asside from all of that, Charlie was ioslated from the whole group (aside from Sawyer) and whatever happened, the last thing Charlie needed was to be alone, without any guidance.

WHat intrigues me is that Charlie's primary motivation for almost drowning (ok, baptising) Aaron was the dream/s that he had. Now isnt this kinda important...because we know that Locke had a dream (or vision, subconcious discussion with the island - whatever you wanna call it) and Eko has also had a dream that told them to do certain things and basically gave them signposts to follow. So what im wondering is, does Locke now recognise or accept the idea that if his dreams/visions are 'true' (meant for him to follow), then perhaps the like's of Charlie's dream was too?

Ok, Charlie perhaps misinterpreted his dream and it does seem like the island got what it wanted with Aaron being Baptised in the end..but why?? Why would an island want a baby Baptised? ..Baptism is a religious act, so does this suggest that the island is in fact a sentient of God (as in God God)..is the island really the Garden of Eden? ..or is the island being programmed and/or used as a medium to enable someone to guide the losties? What I mean is, is the island alive and functioning on it's own accord..or is the island being directed by someone..for example, the deGroots.. are they in an underground lab somewhere using the island's unique properties to help guide the likes of Locke and Eko.. or perhaps the island is being directed by no-one and just act's as an extracter..in that it merely extracts the deep rooted subconcious of it's residents (eg in dream, vision, whisper format etc) and so in a sense the island is a multitude of people's different conciousness fighting amonst one another to guide their respective mortal bodies..?

i'll end it there.

[Him]

Surely if the Island wanted to get the baby baptised, it would have just told him that straight out... In fact, surely it would have told Eko that.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Him,November 29, 2006 04:14 pm

Surely if the Island wanted to get the baby baptised, it would have just told him that straight out... In fact, surely it would have told Eko that.

Thats the thing..why woud the island want a baby baptised..and if that wasnt the message, then what was it really trying to tell Charlie?

Though to 'perhaps' answer your question as to why it didnt tell Eko..Charlie is closer to Claire and Aaron, so perhaps theisland tries to deliver messages in through people who are best placed (closely related/friendly with etc) to deliver the message..like how it chose(?) Boone to deliver the messages to Locke and Yemi to deliver the message to Eko..?

[*SP*]

This probably won't make a lot of sense, I warn you .....

Maybe the Island is a sentient of God. Maybe the aim of it is to create some sort of utopian society. Find people who have sinned but are redeemable. Those who fully repent from sin are considered more pure than those who believe they are without sin. Anyway, about the baptism thing. I'd be interested to know which of the survivors have been baptised at some point....See although Aaron is just a tiny baby if he hadn't been baptised the 'Island' (or whatever is the force behind it) couldn't consider him cleansed from sin.

Sorry, I'm rambling. But take Sawyer, or any of our Losties who have 'obviously' sinned. The potential is there for real repentance from an adult who can make their own decisions about such things. But the only way Aaron could be fully cleansed would be through baptism....without it he would be considered a sinner and therefore unbalance the utopia sought.

Just to clarify, in case anyone doesn't have the benefit( ) of a catholic upbringing, A baby is born tainted with the original sin of Adam and Eve. Baptism is not just a nice little inauguration into Gods kingdom but is essentially an excorcism of that sin we are born with. So although Aaron could not have commited an actual tangible sin like some of them, he is incapable of redemption from the sin he carried without baptism.

Sheesh! I need to go lie down after that!!! Just for the record I don't actually buy any of that but thought I'd join in the discussion!

[Cavegirl]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,November 29, 2006 03:19 pm

Thats the thing..why woud the island want a baby baptised..and if that wasnt the message, then what was it really trying to tell Charlie?

The more I think about Fire and Water, the more I wonder if the dream/vision Charlie experienced really was fuelled by his own imagination, fears and withdrawl from drugs, rather than the island. The main aspects seem to be:

1. Baby in danger - Charlie must protect it.
We know from the flashbacks that Charlie has been imbued with responsibility for those around him - his family felt that he and his musical gift would "save" them. He must have felt a lot of pressure about this from a young age. Also, the island is a frightening and dangerous place!

2. Water is dangerous (cot/piano drowning)
Charlie can't swim, and may well be afraid of water.

3. Religious imagery
Charlie's upbringing and beliefs, confused further by the drugs being stashed in Virgin Mary statues.

None of these things seem to come from anywhere but Charlie - except for the very discreet plane crash in the background. And even then, Charlie has been in a plane crash and knew about the beechcraft. Again, the dreams don't tell him explicitly that Aaron needs to be baptised. This is something he thinks of himself after speaking to Eko about his disturbing "save Aaron" dreams. I think Charlie going to such extremes to do this - burning the brush and snatching Aaron - is basically Charlie having a bit of a nervous breakdown because of his recent rejection by Claire. He desperately wants to be important and to help. I think he's delusional at this point, and I don't think the island has much to do with it.

Oh, and to answer the original question: I think Locke should apologise, I have always thought so. He doesn't know about the bad things Charlie has done, so these have no effect on whether punching Charlie in the face requires an apology or not. Charlie was a confused man suffering withdrawl - he needed to be stopped and helped, not bludgeoned. I think Locke shares some of the responsibility for Charlie's subsequent downward spiral into "evil Charlie".