Some excellent reflections on the season 5 finale of LOST have been posted at Entertainment Weekly by Doc Jensen (HT Carmen Andres, who also has posted her own thoughts about the episode). Here’s a sample, which represents his own theory about the significance of certain events:
Much of the castaways’ history — including the crash of Oceanic 815 — has been molded and manipulated by the entity that is the Nameless Man In Black, an intricate, divine conspiracy whose ultimate goal was to kill Jacob. That was the significance of Alterna-Locke’s gloating line: “And you have no idea what I’ve gone through to be here.” But what the Adversary didn’t know was that Jacob had been doing some plotting of his own to counter all of his enemy’s moves. And in the last moment of the Jacob/Alterna-Locke/Ben showdown, I think what we saw was Alterna-Locke realizing that he’d been checkmated. ”They’re coming,” Jacob sputtered — referring, I believe, to Jack, Kate, Sawyer and the entire quantum leaping cavalry. I think the Adversary completely understood the significance of what Jacob was saying — and it pissed him off big time. Hence, why Alterna-Locke angrily kicked Jacob into the fire. Hence, that scowl on his face. It was the pout of defeat.
You should definitely read the whole thing if you are a fan. How often do you get Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Perry Como pitted against one another to make sense of the religious themes of a science fiction TV show?
I’ve also found myself wondering if the riddle isn’t an explanation of what happened in the season finale. “What lies (i.e. deceives) in the shadow of the statue? That which protects us all”: in some way, through its very existence, Jacob’s Enemy is crucial to our ongoing existence. Somehow for there to be life and existence, the shadow side (to which the riddle question itself alludes) cannot be eliminated altogether, it must simply be held in check. (For those thinking that “That which protects us all” might be the island, there’s a problem: insula is a feminine noun in Latin, while “he/that which” in Richard’s answer is ille, the masculine form).
I also remembered John Locke’s question to Christian Shepherd (or someone impersonating him) in the cabin. While the claim to be able to speak for Jacob makes me suspect that pseudo-Christian might not be trustworthy, I nonetheless suspect that he was being truthful in saying that John was right about why he was there: Because he had been chosen to be. Jacob’s enemy required someone who would believe in his own importance sufficiently to believe he was to lead the island, and believe he must die and be willing to go through with it.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In