The two foundational long stories in Western culture–The Iliad and The Odyssey–both ends in ways that we would probably term unsatisfying, by the criteria of well-told stories. (I’d throw in The Aeneid as well.) It’s not that I’m against pay-offs. But I would argue with the idea that pay-offs are a given, especially with long narratives.

Is there a problematic fundamentalism associated with terms such as “unity,” or “all happening for a reason”? I’m not advocating for chaos. But there’s a lot of middle ground between chaos and unity.

Still, I wonder how this is all going to come together–and it seems that it is going to come together with Desmond’s uncanny talent. But is Desmond is a tragic hero? Is he going to be our Morpheus (as you suggest) or is he going to become Billy Pilgrim, unstuck in time and unable to change his fate?

Also, I agree about Hugo. It wasn’t ever established that he heard someone say “don’t let the man in black leave the island,” right? I think he either made that up or he heard it from Jacob. But then is it too obvious that Hugo is the final cylon or the One or Jacob 2.0?

I’m starting to think that we’ve really got two catastrophic events here, and they might actually be unrelated. The main event seems to be the impending, centuries-in-the-making showdown between Smokey and Jacob, and the settlement of the “candidate” issue. However, has anyone else noticed that neither Smokey nor Jacob has ever referred to Jughead, nor “the Incident”? Why not? I think it’s because they can’t perceive what has happened in the sideways timeline. That is, Jughead was decisive in ways even Smokey and Jacob can’t comprehend. The Oceanic passengers (and, apparently, others with connections, e.g., clearly Desmond, Daniel, and Eloise) can tell there’s something not quite right about the sideways world, and now Desmond is going to be the willing catalyst (in both timelines) to change it.

What does it mean? Dare I say it? Love conquers all, including vanquishing the machinations of Gods.

Accordingly, it’s time to start sorting out the “love connections” (sorry!). Going by what we’ve seen so far in S6, our fundamental pairings seem to be:

Desmond & Penny (duh)
Charlie & Claire
Sun & Jin (though they may be fated *not* to connect)
Daniel & Charlotte
Charles & Eloise (perhaps why she doesn’t want to change anything?)
Juliet & James (remember, she told him “It worked,” i.e., she could perceive the sideways timeline)

It gets trickier with everyone else, but bear with me:

Miles & his dad (hopefully a Dr. Chang-centric ep with sideways Dharma-ness will come!)
Jack & his son (resolving his father issues by being a good father)
Locke & Ben (not romantic per se, but bonding over their experiences)

This leaves Sayid, Kate, and Hurley. I’m guessing one of them will sacrifice themselves selflessly in the finale, i.e., to stand for something “good” even if it kills them. FWIW, my money’s on Kate for that role. Hugo seems to be the prime candidate for Jacob 2.0, but that seems too obvious. As for Sayid… I gotta think on him a bit more. They’re setting him up for something, but I’m still thinking Kate for the “heroic sacrifice” move.

What I mean for both is what I’ve written before in an essay on LOST & evaluation: at its best, the show offers a sense of unity in narrative design – this is all happening for a reason. Integrity is more architectural than ethical, and satisfaction means that our expectations are paid-off. One of my primary expectations for LOST is that the various dangling mysteries, loose ends and narrative twists were motivated by something more than keeping me entertained for an hour – they should add up to something in the end. That expectation of unity is not essential to many other shows.

As we well know, the challenge of a serialized story is that the end is often deferred past its expiration date. My desperate hope for LOST is that the pay-off is there both intellectually & emotionally: intellectually, it would be a new achievement in network serialized narrative (and help justify my research!); emotionally, I want to feel the joys of a story well-told.

It’s a potentially interesting theory, I’m just curious what firm basis it has in anything that’s been revealed so far.

Two questions:

1) What do you mean by “highly satisfying,” or “narratively unsatisfying”? I gave a talk on serials and satisfaction recently, and I’m interested in what we mean/expect by the word.

2) Related: what do you mean by “narrative integrity”? Is there some standard of narrative ethics in operation? Or does integrity speak to the desire to have things fit together? Again, curious about how we use these terms, in relation to serial storytelling.

Full disclosure: I guess I’m agnostic about this stuff, especially with this show. I wonder (personally) how fully these barometers apply to Lost–by contrast with series that have clearer boundaries. Would this be the same, say, as The Wire ending with a V-style alien invasion, or The Sopranos ending with a cut to black?