One thing that stuck out to me (in my own reaction and a few others I’ve encountered) is the immediate desire to make comparisons, not as a way of ranking the ending but as a way to try to understand it. After I had a chance to think about it for awhile, the ending reminded me of Donny Darko (plane-related disaster + possible time-travel divergent timeline + acceptance of death) and Abre Los Ojos/Vanilla Sky (the explanation about the people who matter most to you + acceptance of death). I did this not to suggest that the ending was unoriginal (I think a lot of people made comparisons of Avatar to Fern Gully, Dance with Wolves, and Pocahontas for just that reason). There are only so many endings so it is bound to resemble SOME existing narrative. To be honest, I’m still not quite sure why seeing the similarities amongst other narratives and this one added pleasure to the experience for me. Maybe I needed to somehow justify liking it by seeing it as similar to narratives I knew I liked.

On an unrelated note, I thought Chuck Klosterman (on a Sports Guy podcast) had an interesting observation about the tone of the ending. The show could’ve retained the same plot elements (everybody dies, eventually) but instead of depicting this with poignant music and a bright light, it could’ve just cut to black. Saying that this would’ve radically altered many people’s reaction to the conclusion is a fairly obvious point, and yet many people I’ve talked to/read concentrate on whether or not the events in the plot were emotionally satisfying and don’t really talk about formal/tonal elements.

Ultimately, I think the idea of singular comprehension of authorial intent is being trotted out to close down an otherwise more open meaning making process. “Comprehension” allows us to talk about the meanings viewers SHOULD have made, as if some are somehow deficient (conspiracy theorists?) for the way they comprehended the text in negotiation of intervening paratexts. I say give these people a break–the crash images were a far more proximate paratext to the text than the later paratextual clarifications of authorial intent (so proximate it had to be clarified that it wasn’t part of a text). I don’t think that what “happened” in the story world is as textually clear as you insist, and it it took another paratext stating intent to combat the power the first images had to inflect another comprehension of text (especially on a show where what you think you once comprehended was always subject to revision and new comprehensions later on).

Plus, while I understand the conceptual differences between comprehension and interpretation, I’m wary of how the idea of “comprehension” could be used to give some claims about textual experience the status of common sense universal truth, despite the existence of other claims and experiences that become policed as “wrong” in this binary. No matter how much you think they’ve just misread, the “crashers” exist, and discussion of their lack of “comprehension” delegitimate and dismiss their empirical experiences with the text. (I guess I’d be curious to know what the stakes are here–why does it matter that crasher readings are debunked as poor comprehension? Who is served by this?) Perhaps because I found Lost wanting in the end, I’m more interested in that messy process of meaning making than adjudicating any one “correct” comprehension.

Thanks for keeping this discussion going!

People claiming that nobody survived Oceanic 815 – I’ve heard them called “crashers,” comparable to evidence-denying, conspiracy-minded “birthers” – are not making an interpretation of theme or allegory. They are claiming that something happened in the storyworld that clearly did not, an act of comprehension not interpretation. There is no ambiguity that holds up on this question, and the one piece of evidence that is being offered was an unintentional action not endorsed by the storytellers.

It’s like if a promo for BSG said “Next week, the Battlestar lands in Iraq” and Moore disowned the promo as the work of the network that he had no input into. Would that paratext make New Caprica equal to Iraq in the storyworld (not in allegory, but literal action)?

I am thus torn. I loved the episode. I love the character of Hurley. I hate the feeling I was left with when Hurley ascended to protector.

Bite your tongue about killing Penny! Her role as the Penelope of the story was hugely important. (Even if she wasn’t the weaver, she obviously fended off suitors.)

Seriously, every character had imperfect relationships including Desmond and Penny (until their reunion). Eloise’s meddling and the whole backdrop of The Constant established that.

Also, there were the other relationslips that had to be repaired through the action on the island. The heartbreaking breakup between Kate and Jack after Jack told Kate that Aaron “isn’t even related to YOU.” And if it makes you feel better, Desmond’s misconception of Sideways almost killed him, and we were left never knowing if he and Penny reunited again. I hope they did, but those who weren’t moved by them can assume they didn’t.