What have we learned from Lost?

[shah_of_blah]

I finished my angry Lost essay that has been in the works for quite some time.  It's up at Critically Obsessed, but I will post a teaser here.  A very long teaser.  The essay is approximately 2000 words in total.

Disclaimer: If you really like Lost, you might not want to read this essay.

Here’s the thing about me and Lost: I don’t like it very much. Everyone talks with a nostalgic air about the pilot and the first season, but I didn’t really like either. I thought the first season was dumb. But here’s where things get complicated because even with all that, I still watched the show for six seasons (almost as many years). I have no idea why. I think that when I watched the first two seasons, I was sort of vaguely entertained and thought it might get better. After I’d sat through the third season, I figured I was owed something in return. Something like an answer. So I stuck around for the fourth season, and the fifth, at so on. It was fun, and I held onto the vain hope that it might make sense eventually. Every season or so I considered quitting, but I’d watched it for so long I thought I might as well see it through to its bitter end.

And yes it was. Bitter, that is. Or I think so anyway. I am aware that some disagree.

Why I think Lost is a fundamentally nonsensical show:

When it comes to Lost fandom, it seems as if there are two main camps.

• The first: It’s always been about the characters, not the plot and if you can’t see that then you’re stupid.
• The second: Everything makes perfect sense, and if you can’t see that then you’re stupid.

Okay, so there are actually more camps than that (e.g. It’s always been about the plot, which makes zero sense—my camp!). But still, most of the pro-Lost comments that I’ve seen since the show ended have amounted to one of those.

To the first, I say this: That’s great that you like the characters, but I don’t care (except for Sun and Hurley, and maaaaybe Sayid or Sawyer on a good day. I don’t even care about Desmond, and don’t get me started on Juliet). I thought the characterizations (well, the dialogue anyway) were fairly cardboard to begin with, and then mostly just turned into a mess as the show did. Enough to give a person whiplash.

Plus, if it’s about the characters, how do you explain the fourth or fifth seasons? You know, when they were traveling in space and time, wallowing in self-centered misery and accomplishing nothing but complete selfishness at the end? How’s that for character development? So I’m sorry, but I can’t jump on that boat. Bandwagon. Metaphor of your choice. I believe that if it were all about the characters, then it should have been character-driven, by which I mean the actions/plot/story should have derived from internal or interpersonal, organically-generated conflict. Not by Jacob or Smokey or whoever the hell was running things. The first two seasons are, like, mildly less crazy than the rest of the show but still—what drives the show? Light and water? Godly beings? Ben and Widmore? I have no idea, except that it was not the main characters.

Which brings me to camp the second: everything makes perfect sense and I’m the idiot who wasn’t paying enough attention to understand. Now, I’ll fully admit that I wasn’t paying all that much attention—I’ve forgotten people’s names and I forgot the four-toed statue existed for at least a season. I’m not sure why I bothered remembering though, since it wasn’t actually important or even interesting. Although I did laugh about Jacob living in the foot because really, living in a foot?

I will say that for Lost: it gave me quite a few laughs.

Anyway, so…the plot makes sense, you say? Again, I have to ask why the fourth or fifth seasons happened because REALLY WHAT WAS THAT? Why did they need to travel in time—especially since Lindelof & Cuse said earlier that there wouldn’t be time travel—if all it lead to was…Sawyer and Juliet getting together, and then breaking up, and all of them setting off a nuclear bomb that did absolutely nothing except to send them back into the present? I mean, yeah, sure, going back to the right time is important and all, but if that was the plan why send them to the ‘70s in the first place? No really, I would like to know what this accomplished.

Also, “a combination of light and water” does not explain time travel or teleportation or whatever else was going on. As my sister pointed out, light and water combine all the time—it’s called refraction, if my admittedly shoddy grasp of science hasn’t failed me—without making islands disappear or people travel thousands of miles in an instant. Or making other people immortal or whatever the hell was going on.

So I’m sorry to break it to you Lost, but if that’s your explanation then you need to hand in your science fiction card now, because you no longer fall under that category.

And I still don’t understand what was the deal with all the visions—both on and off the island—of Christian Shepard. Or what would have happened if the Man in Black had escaped. I’m not sure I care either, but the show did spend quite a long time acting like these things were important and I should care. Right?

Why this even matters to me:

Just because I think Lost is a waste of time doesn’t mean you can’t like it. I understand finding Lost enjoyable on a superficial level, although I don’t quite see how people can think it’s actually quality storytelling. You’re allowed to disagree with me though. That may perplex me, but it doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is the way people have been saying for ages that Lost changed the face of television. That we can learn from it.

I propose that there are certainly lessons to be learned from Lost, but that if it has changed the face of television it is for the worse.


Read the full essay at Critically Obsessed.

Comments

[entaiaime.livejournal.com]

♥ Love ♥

I never watched Lost after the first two seasons. I never figured out why it couldn't have just been them crash landing on the island and that being the show. I never understood the need for the smoke monster or the hatch. It baffled me. It still baffles me. One of my friends has been trying to get me to watch Lost for years and I can't bring myself to watch it.

I really enjoyed the full essay. I was talking to one of my friends about long-arcs in TV shows just the other day. We wondered if it doesn't work a lot of times because the writers don't know how many seasons they are going to be on the air. When I write a story you usually know where it's going to ultimately end up, but when the execs won't let you get to the end for another two seasons then you've got to figure out additional plot points that in Lost's case never held water.

Again, I never watched past the second season but I did keep up on what happened just to reaffirm my decision that I never wanted to watch it. *shrugs*

[shah-of-blah.livejournal.com]

I never figured out why it couldn't have just been them crash landing on the island and that being the show. I never understood the need for the smoke monster or the hatch.
I feel somewhat conflicted about this. I think a full-on sci-fi mystery island would have been really cool -- if they had done it well. That's a big if.

That's a good point about not knowing the number of seasons. In Lost's case, however, I'm fairly certain that Lindelof & Cuse were in control of this. They weren't in danger of being cancelled, and they announced sometime around the fourth season, I believe, that there would be six seasons in total. So they certainly knew for the last few years.

[entaiaime.livejournal.com]

Do you think that shows suffer when different writers compose each episode versus just one writer or them writing each episode as a group? Especially if the writers have different ideas about the characters or how the show should go?

Did you know that Damon Lindelof sent the writers of Community a Lost box gift set after the Christmas episode and Community's dig at Lost's "lack of payoff"? You probably already knew this but here's the link..

Funny

[shah-of-blah.livejournal.com]

Ahaha, that's pretty funny about Lindelof. At least he's got a sense of humor about it.

Do you think that shows suffer when different writers compose each episode versus just one writer or them writing each episode as a group? Especially if the writers have different ideas about the characters or how the show should go?
It's hard to say. I think that having a variety of writers is probably a boon as much as it may be a handicap, i.e. all those different writers bringing different ideas to the show. Sometimes you'll have a writer who has a noticeable affinity for a particular character, and that can be a good thing. And we'll never know what really goes on inside the writer's room. I mean, we have Ron's Bible, but there's a lot of stuff that was in the first season that isn't in the bible, a lot of really good stuff and we have no idea if he came up with those other things or someone else did.

The problem is when the writers lack cohesion or have differing views on the show. Glee is a classic example of this--back when I still watched Glee, the show had become practically schizophrenic and rumor has it that's because they have three main writers who take turns, and each of those three has a very different style. Why they can't talk things out and review each other's scripts, I have no idea.

With Battlestar, I feel like Ron has sort of character ADHD. Like he can't concentrate on too many at once, which is a real problem since he created a show with a whole lot of characters, and in the later seasons especially they focused on a lot of people in addition to the Top 7. For example, he's stated that he didn't really have a handle on Lee and didn't know what to do with him, which is pretty obvious in the fourth season since poor Leland gets shunted off to the side for so many episodes. And with relationships, it's like Ron could focus on Kara and Lee or on Roslin and Adama, but never walk and chew gum at the same time. I guess I'd say that a lot of BSG's problems were Ron Moore's own fault, and that if he had been the sole writer it could have been a helluva lot worse!

[entaiaime.livejournal.com]

Well said. I didn't know that about Glee, but I always felt that way about BSG. Ron started with a lot of characters but apparently he didn't know what to do with them and so he added more.. and more.. until yeah... I'm glad he wasn't the only writer. Really, really glad.

[daybreak777.livejournal.com]

But here’s where things get complicated because even with all that, I still watched the show for six seasons (almost as many years). I have no idea why.
What was it about Lost that kept us watching? I know sometimes I watched it for hot Sayid. Yep, I'm shallow but the man is so beautiful. :-)

But seriously, he wasn't the focus that much. Maybe I just kept hoping it would make sense someday? Or maybe I knew if I stopped too long I'd be utterly baffled should it ever become awesome? I don't know, either. It's a mystery.

maaaaybe Sayid or Sawyer on a good day
Maaaybe Sayid? Oh Shah, you hurt me. ;-) You have looked at his hair, right? Man is crazy-hot. :-) Me, I gave up on Hurley. Hurley was a fave but I felt he just became a device. At least Naveen was still pretty even after all they did to him.

Lost was brutal if you liked characters. Totally. I liked Hurley, Sayid and Claire. I know, good luck, right? I even liked Danielle and Alex. Yeah, totally brutal.

I have no idea, except that it was not the main characters.Lindelof & Cuse said earlier that there wouldn’t be time travel
They lied. They lied about purgatory too because then what the hell was that at the end, you know? Lies, Shah. I'd be angry at being lied to except I stayed to the end knowing I'd been lied to. I stayed anyway. Fool me twice, shame on me, I guess.

if it has changed the face of television it is for the worse.
Oh, gosh, yes! The worse! I have no attention span partly because of shows like Lost. I can't be patient and think it will make sense at the end. I can't 'wait for it' with shows like Fringe (by the same show creator, I think). Wait for what?! I'm all like, "Show me what you are made of RFN, or frak it, I'm switching the channel." And I do. It's changed television. It's made a lot of us more bitter.

So my heartfelt message to TV writers: you don’t always have to surprise us.
Hmm. I think it's so different with the internets now. Really. As a writer, I want people to figure it out! But I don't want the whole world to know. Still, they won't know everything, will they? We weren't spoiled for Dee's suicide, you know? (It's debatable whether that was a great character point, but my point is not all spoilers get revealed.) It is better to have spoilers out than have a poorly written show. People are forgetting the basics.

I, like you, respectfully, request a return to good story writing. One season show, that's fine. Don't drag it out if you really don't have a well-crafted plot. Don't always try to shock the viewer. Just write a good story. Get good actors. It's really simple. Difficult, but I think well worth it.

Thanks for the rant!

[shah-of-blah.livejournal.com]

Maybe I just kept hoping it would make sense someday? Or maybe I knew if I stopped too long I'd be utterly baffled should it ever become awesome?
I think that was at least part of my reasoning, but it is still a mystery! The true mystery of Lost.

Haha, I don't mean to impugn Sayid! At least he's on my "maybe" list. I always liked him, but sometimes I forgot about him or just didn't care that much. I wouldn't have watched for him (although Naveen is certainly easy on the eyes), though I wouldn't have watched for any of the Lost characters really. No Kara Thraces in that lot.

Fringe is J.J. Abrams too, though I don't know if he passed it off to other people like he did with Lost. But between Lost and BSG, I definitely have less faith in TV writers, and probably less patience too.

As a writer, I want people to figure it out! But I don't want the whole world to know. Still, they won't know everything, will they? We weren't spoiled for Dee's suicide, you know? (It's debatable whether that was a great character point, but my point is not all spoilers get revealed.) It is better to have spoilers out than have a poorly written show.
Yes, absolutely! Things can still happen that will be surprising and unexpected, but not everything has to be a huge shocker! Foreshadowing is good. If Lost were a puzzle, then it would be like trying to fit together a bunch of totally different pieces, and if they did come together the picture they formed wouldn't match the one on the box.

Thanks for reading!

[daybreak777.livejournal.com]

The true mystery of Lost.
So many of us still have no idea. Habit? I truly do not know.

No Kara Thraces in that lot.
Naveen was pretty, but you are right. I just don't think they spent enough time on characters at a time so viewers could connect. But that's just me. Other viewers fell in love and felt they knew their people.

I definitely have less faith in TV writers, and probably less patience too.
Me too. I could blame Lost but BSG is in there too. Oh, the days of Buffy and Angel when a show was consistently good (to me). I expected less and it seemed they gave more. I miss that. :-(

If Lost were a puzzle, then it would be like trying to fit together a bunch of totally different pieces, and if they did come together the picture they formed wouldn't match the one on the box.
It was crazy. Lost had pieces from three different puzzle boxes. No one had any idea what that picture was going to be.

[cosetteferaud.livejournal.com]

This ♥ ♥ ♥

I feel I have already said all I wanted to say about this show, but I agree so much on this. I admit that I enjoyed the first season (and I think the pilot was pretty good), but that’s all for me. Oddly enough, I kept watching and watching for six years and (like you) I don’t even know why (it’s not that I cared about the characters!), but I guess that I was curious and I thought we were going to get some answers in the end. After the finale, though, I have no desire to watch that thing again because, as you say, it was such a waste of time.

Also, it amuses me to no end when people say that this show was all about the characters. It always was a “big mystery” TV series to me, but whatever.

I propose that there are certainly lessons to be learned from Lost, but that if it has changed the face of television it is for the worse.
I agree. The writers lied to us, all the time. In the end, I felt they were insulting my intelligence: that ending was lazy and shameful, and I felt cheated as a viewer. That's what I learned from Lost (and BSG): never trust the writers.

Lovely rant, girl! :)

[shah-of-blah.livejournal.com]

Hi Cosette! I thought you might agree with me on this one. :)

That's what I learned from Lost (and BSG): never trust the writers.
Haha, yeah. I left BSG out of this post, but in the end they had a lot of the same problems. Although I actually prefer the BSG finale to the Lost finale because Lost was trying to pretend it was something it was not (character-driven!) whereas Daybreak was closer to being true to the show (or what the show had become anyway). It's just that Daybreak exposed so many of the pre-existing problems.

[clueless-02.livejournal.com]

Hello, I'm surfing in on a rec from daybreak777

For most part, you have expressed my frustrations much better than I ever could.

Even though I have never been a fan of Charles Dickens, I have always had a major kink! for the 'lets make everyone connected in a random kind of way' that both he and Lost's first season employed, but yeah, I was kind of over that novelty by the end of the S2.

I know you mentioned to not get you started on Juliet, but Juliet was the only reason that I watched the show to its bitter conclusion. I know they abused the hell out of her character, but she always had this air of being above all the petty island bickering even though she was dragged through ever possible connotation of the Lost Quadrangle of DOOM!

But like I said earlier, I pretty much agree with your frustrations with Lost and if I had known that I was going to get the 'its the journey not the destination' outcome mixed in with some really bad science fiction/fantasy, I would have saved some serious time and cash.

What bothers me is the way people have been saying for ages that Lost changed the face of television.

I really like that you pointed this out because other than the extensive use of flashbacks as a storytelling device, the show used the standard tropes, and shows with long arcs (DS9, The Wire, The Shield, B5) and time travel have been done to death before.

Anyways, great essay! It was really fun to read.

[shah-of-blah.livejournal.com]

Thanks for reading! Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner.

I do understand why people like the first two seasons, and I actually enjoyed the second one for the most part. It was fun to discover the ways everyone was connected. But for me, that wasn't enough. I wanted to know about the island.

And yeah, I won't start on Juliet. I don't like to read other people hating on my favorite characters, so I'll just be quiet in my non-Juliet-loving corner.

I really like that you pointed this out because other than the extensive use of flashbacks as a storytelling device, the show used the standard tropes, and shows with long arcs (DS9, The Wire, The Shield, B5) and time travel have been done to death before.
Oh yes, more examples! I actually have not seen any of the shows you listed, but I mentioned B5 in my essay because word on the street is that the arc is very well done. I've heard the same thing about The Wire too.