LOST Theories - DarkUFO

This theory is not so much about the content of LOST but merely an observation about the relationship between the audience and the writers. My goal is that people should think about what is really made explicit by the show, and what is implied. Furthermore, I want to postulate a tool to stop people from saying: "you're theory is as good as mine, because something are open-ended".

During one of my pragmatics classes at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands a few weeks ago, we talked about two types of interests in conversation. There are two players in this game of conversation, namely: the Speaker, and the Hearer.

The Hearers interest:
Say as much as you can, use specific words with specific meanings. This will lead to different words with different meanings to express yourself

The Speaker:
Say no more than you must. Wants to uses as little language as possible to make his or her point clear: Leads to being able to say a lot with 1 word.

In LOST, the audience is obviously the Hearer. We want the show (which in my view is the conversation itself) to explain everything. There can be no question, because everything is made explicit. Nothing is implied, nothing is omitted.

The Writers (Speakers) have a different interest: they want to make a cool show that entertains people. In the case of LOST entertaining the audience also means answering some questions. But to keep the pace, and to have an emotionally satisfying ending, not all is answered. But many things are implied. A few examples

Normally, when we see hieroglyphics we assume that there were Egyptians involved. But a part of the audience can't assume anything. They say: this has not been made explicit, so it may not be true. But as I've said: it is not in the writers interest to be explicit about that. The only thing you CAN do is assume.

About Walt: He was special. We know what was special about him: he kills birds. The assumption is that someone who can force birds to fly against walls can also affect people to do or see stuff. But this is not made explicit, we only have a vague scene with Shannon in the forest. Since his storyline was terminated, we question why he was brought up in the first place. But I have an answer: He was introduced to give us the shows first example of someone being special. We learn with Walt that in LOST there are some people who are special. Then Desmond shows up being special, Aaron is special, MIB is special. Now we don't have a hard time accepting specialness as a explanation for certain characters. This all based on assumptions, but they are not without evidence.

If people really would only be satisfied if the Hearer's interest is satisfied we would not be able to imply anything. Think about a world where everything needs to be spelled out for you. I don't want to live in that world, school would take 30 years. And I don't want a scene for every little piece of information. Last example: I haven't seen how Locke got his scar on the Island, but I assume that he got it in the crash, right?

We welcome relevant, respectful comments.
blog comments powered by Disqus