I'd like to talk about "Flashes Before Your Eyes" for a little bit. Many have seen the events during Desmond's time in 1996 during the episode and his attempts at saving Charlie throughout Season 3 as evidence of ALT. Us WHH'ers suggest that while it seems this way, it could actually still all be just what always happened. I'm going to pose a hypothetical situation to illustrate the two viewpoints and try to show which is more likely.
First, a few deductions from the show. It's a reasonable deduction that Eloise Hawking in 1977 will eventually end up with Faraday's journal. In this journal she learns all about her son and his research. And apparently Desmond.
I don't know when Faraday writes all this information about Desmond in his journal, or indeed exactly how or what he learns about Desmond seeing as we've really only seen them talk a few times. But let's assume that Faraday does come to learn about Desmond's failed relationship with Penny and writes about it in his journal. This is what brings Hawking to the ring shop in the first place and her telling Desmond not to screw with destiny.
So, what motivates Hawking to tell Desmond not to screw with destiny? Why has she become this champion of course correction we all know her as? Why is she not adamantly trying to avoid her destiny as Jack was all throughout Season 4?
I think that maybe she was. But, like Jack, learned a valuable lesson at some point. Perhaps she learned not to fight destiny and from that point on chose to follow it. Remember that scene where middle-aged Hawking talks to her young son as he played the piano? What if she was the one that tried to get him to play the piano in the first place? What if she was adamantly trying to get him to go on another path other than science? But, alas, something makes her change her mind and instead she pushes him onto the path she knows she should take.
Now on to my hypothetical situation. So what could have happened to make her come to this conclusion, that destiny cannot be avoided? Well, young Daniel was probably about 9 or 10 in that scene, so that would make it about 1986 or 1987. Remember this is all purely hypothetical, just to illustrate my point, so bare with me.
What if Faraday wrote something in his journal about the assassination attempt of President Reagan by John Hinkley Jr. on March 30, 1981? Hawking's got this journal, she's got this information, and she says to herself, "fuck destiny, I'm going to try and stop this tragedy from happening." So let's say she uses the information in the journal to try and change this event.
How would this hypothetical scenario play out in both the WHH and ALT methodolgies to put Hawking in the frame of mind she was in in "Flashes Before Your Eyes"?
Let's look at the ALT scenario first. Let's say Hawking tails Hinkley on March 30th and stops him from attempting to assassinate Reagan. Success! She goes home happy, but oh noes, the next day, March 31st, Hinkley some how tries again and events go down pretty close to how they did originally. Reagan is shot. She would have changed things a little bit, but destiny still happens, just a slightly different way. And so she deduces that destiny cannot be avoided, and that while you can change things a little bit, the universe course corrects!
Now, how would this hypothetical scenario play out in the WHH idea? Let's say Hawking tails Hinkley on March 30th, early in the day she sees Hinkley pull his gun, but she stops him and lays a good old-fashioned Others beatdown on him. Success! She goes home happy, but later that same day Hinkley some how tries again and events go down EXACTLY as we all knew they did and as was written in history. Hawking prevents one assassination attempt, but in doing so CAUSES events to happen as they always have. She may think that she's causing a slight change to the history events, thus her deduction of the idea of course correction. But we would all learn that she was always a part of that history in a way we hadn't realized before.
So, which is it? Is the ALT scenario or the WHH scenario more likely? Based on my discussion here I'd have to say that each is equally likely! Each is equally logical.
But once you try to rationalize them with the events of season 5, I hope you see that the WHH scenario becomes more reasonable. If you believe the 1977 losties actions in the past hold to WHH, then you might conclude that this hypothetical assassination scenario would probably hold to WHH as well. This leads to Hawkings understanding of course correction, while consistend with WHH at the same time. Which would leads to a WHH view of all of Desmond's time travel experiences.
The assassination scenario is purely hypothetical, and not something I'd seriously think we would see on Lost, but just a way to explain how I think Hawking's motivations and view on time travel fits with the WHH theory.
First, a few deductions from the show. It's a reasonable deduction that Eloise Hawking in 1977 will eventually end up with Faraday's journal. In this journal she learns all about her son and his research. And apparently Desmond.
I don't know when Faraday writes all this information about Desmond in his journal, or indeed exactly how or what he learns about Desmond seeing as we've really only seen them talk a few times. But let's assume that Faraday does come to learn about Desmond's failed relationship with Penny and writes about it in his journal. This is what brings Hawking to the ring shop in the first place and her telling Desmond not to screw with destiny.
So, what motivates Hawking to tell Desmond not to screw with destiny? Why has she become this champion of course correction we all know her as? Why is she not adamantly trying to avoid her destiny as Jack was all throughout Season 4?
I think that maybe she was. But, like Jack, learned a valuable lesson at some point. Perhaps she learned not to fight destiny and from that point on chose to follow it. Remember that scene where middle-aged Hawking talks to her young son as he played the piano? What if she was the one that tried to get him to play the piano in the first place? What if she was adamantly trying to get him to go on another path other than science? But, alas, something makes her change her mind and instead she pushes him onto the path she knows she should take.
Now on to my hypothetical situation. So what could have happened to make her come to this conclusion, that destiny cannot be avoided? Well, young Daniel was probably about 9 or 10 in that scene, so that would make it about 1986 or 1987. Remember this is all purely hypothetical, just to illustrate my point, so bare with me.
What if Faraday wrote something in his journal about the assassination attempt of President Reagan by John Hinkley Jr. on March 30, 1981? Hawking's got this journal, she's got this information, and she says to herself, "fuck destiny, I'm going to try and stop this tragedy from happening." So let's say she uses the information in the journal to try and change this event.
How would this hypothetical scenario play out in both the WHH and ALT methodolgies to put Hawking in the frame of mind she was in in "Flashes Before Your Eyes"?
Let's look at the ALT scenario first. Let's say Hawking tails Hinkley on March 30th and stops him from attempting to assassinate Reagan. Success! She goes home happy, but oh noes, the next day, March 31st, Hinkley some how tries again and events go down pretty close to how they did originally. Reagan is shot. She would have changed things a little bit, but destiny still happens, just a slightly different way. And so she deduces that destiny cannot be avoided, and that while you can change things a little bit, the universe course corrects!
Now, how would this hypothetical scenario play out in the WHH idea? Let's say Hawking tails Hinkley on March 30th, early in the day she sees Hinkley pull his gun, but she stops him and lays a good old-fashioned Others beatdown on him. Success! She goes home happy, but later that same day Hinkley some how tries again and events go down EXACTLY as we all knew they did and as was written in history. Hawking prevents one assassination attempt, but in doing so CAUSES events to happen as they always have. She may think that she's causing a slight change to the history events, thus her deduction of the idea of course correction. But we would all learn that she was always a part of that history in a way we hadn't realized before.
So, which is it? Is the ALT scenario or the WHH scenario more likely? Based on my discussion here I'd have to say that each is equally likely! Each is equally logical.
But once you try to rationalize them with the events of season 5, I hope you see that the WHH scenario becomes more reasonable. If you believe the 1977 losties actions in the past hold to WHH, then you might conclude that this hypothetical assassination scenario would probably hold to WHH as well. This leads to Hawkings understanding of course correction, while consistend with WHH at the same time. Which would leads to a WHH view of all of Desmond's time travel experiences.
The assassination scenario is purely hypothetical, and not something I'd seriously think we would see on Lost, but just a way to explain how I think Hawking's motivations and view on time travel fits with the WHH theory.
