Once upon a time, you believed that you were very special. That you’d grow up to make a difference in the world, be paid handsomely for doing so, find true love, have some equally special children, and live happily ever after. Unfortunately, life hasn’t worked out quite as good as the fairytale. So, were we all lied to? In Lost’s “Happily Ever After” Desmond discovers that there is a reality where all his dreams can come true. So where is this reality and do we need to be as special as Desmond to get there?
First of all, let’s be realistic. The fairytale life is just that—a fairytale. Recent films like Shrek and Enchanted have poked fun at how unrealistic these fairy stories are and how they might play out in the real world. 
Still, this doesn’t mean that these stories should be dismissed outright. Just like any tale featuring a journey, challenges, magic and monsters, they are myths. While one definition of a myth is that of an untrue belief, another is that of a story filled with age-old truths that serves as a metaphor for how life really works. Funny how both “fairytale” and “myth” have come to have both positive and negative connotations. But just as Lost teaches us, perhaps they actually contain aspects of both. Really, it just depends if you take the stories literally—just on the surface level—or look deeper to their true metaphorical message.
Many of the problems we have in society today are due to how people interpret their culture’s mythology. Some people take the stories found in the Bible, Koran, Torah, their religion, folklore, or other cultural tales literally. Others look at their metaphorical meaning, while others, only seeing the surface stories, ignore them all together. These differing perspectives have led to wars, massacres, clashing ideologies, genocides, proselytizing, entitlements, xenophobia, prejudice, and countless other issues. Jonathan Swift noted the irony in Gulliver’s Travels, where he depicted the small-minded Lilliputians as fighting a war that’s lasted longer than anyone can remember. The cause of the war? An argument over which is the proper side of an egg to crack open—the small side or large side? Due to their disagreement, a war raged on claiming countless lives. Dr. Seuss made a similar analogy with The Butter Battle Book—the battle over which side to butter your bread. While it all seems silly, the point is that there’s really never a good reason to start a war, but especially when it’s over differing ideologies, which almost every war is ultimately about.
While mythologies all have their messages to tell, I think that when we look at them too literally, they can get us into trouble. Most of us first hear fairytales as kids though, when we aren’t old enough to understand their metaphorical messages. So, we often internalize their stories instead, resulting in generations that feel like entitled little princes and princesses. I’m glad to see that stories like Shrek, Wicked, and even Harry Potter are updating these myths to make them a bit more in line with society today. Lost is doing this too, and that’s why I think it’s so important and so much more than just a show.
I heard once that the phrase “happily ever after” was owned by Disney, and that if you wanted to publish something that mentioned it, you’d first have to get permission and then pay whatever fees they demanded. While I’m not sure if it’s true, it makes a lot of sense in our society. Of course our “happily ever after” should be owned by a corporation. It seems that corporations own our lives and whether or not we should be happy. Surely, you too have been brainwashed to believe that you need to own an iPhone to be happy, or buy “green” products, or smell great with the latest body wash. Corporations own us. They own us because most of us bought into the fairytale that we could live happily ever after. To get there, we apparently need to drive cars that everyone will stare at in awe, download hundreds of apps to make our lives easier, and buy gizmos that enable us to do mostly time-wasting tasks much more efficiently, etc. etc. Of course, it’s our choice to decide whether or not to buy these things. But what kind of choice is it when not having these things makes you an outcast—shunned by society?
All of the choices that we have collectively made have led us to the society we now live in. One where happiness is thought of as something that must be bought and there is no longer any time left to actually think about what that means. But surely, somewhere, in some other dimension, there exists a universe where we, and all our ancestors, all made different choices, and where those choices led to still other, different choices. Assuming that there is a version of you that exists in this world, how different would this alternate you be from the you that exists in our current world? Interestingly, this question is exactly what Lost’s “Happily Ever After” episode brought up.
“Happily Ever After” was all about choice. Claire chooses not to ride with Desmond after he asked, and that choice led to severe repercussions. Desmond gives Charlie the choice of whether to stay in the bar or come with him. “It doesn’t really seem like a choice,” Charlie complains, to which Desmond replies, “There’s always a choice, brother.” Daniel Faraday believes he made a choice in another timeline to blow up an atom bomb. He believes it may have been the wrong choice. At the end of the episode, Desmond chooses to peacefully go with Sayid.
In quantum physics, there’s a theory known as the many-world’s theory which states that for every option that is possible to make, there exists an entire parallel universe where that option was chosen. Should we make that choice, we leap into that universe—unbeknownst to us—where everything is a little bit different depending on the effects of that choice. This is not a fairytale brother; this may be how our reality really works. You are not really moving through time. You are simply leaping into different parallel universes. We are all. Right now, there exists a universe where I did not write this article, and therefore, you are not reading it. But, if it contains information that, even in some very slight way, will somehow influence your choices (even if it’s because you decide not to agree with its premise), chances are that you are reading some other article in that world that will yield the same or similar result.
Getting back to Claire, in her flash-sideways, she chooses not to ride in a car with Desmond. While it wasn’t necessarily a wrong choice, why would she make it? Perhaps she had once heard a story about a well-dressed man who approached a woman and kidnapped her. Perhaps she had a bad experience with a Scotsman once. Perhaps her mother taught her that she should always be independent and never rely on people for anything. Who knows what little things influence us to make the decisions that we do? The point is though, that we make them. And every choice we make helps shape the person that we are becoming. However, there also exists a person that you want to be—that your soul (or your connection to the collective energy of the universe) ultimately wants you to become. And for that reason, when you make choices that are not in line with that, the world course corrects to throw you another opportunity that will hopefully yield the intended result.
For whatever reason, Claire’s destiny seems to be intertwined with Kate. So while Claire chose not to ride with Desmond, there is probably another flash-sideways universe where she had. But even in that universe, there would probably have been another scenario that connects her to Kate because it seems to be part of her destiny. Perhaps Kate will help her see the values of raising a child, and from Claire, Kate will learn the same. Similarly, in both timelines, Charlie has a drug problem. Although he got over it in one, it remains to be seen what will happen in the other. But since Charlie’s higher self is drug-free, the universe will continually challenge him to grow into that person. While we all have choices, there are certain markers that are set in stone. These points are built into every reality—when we are born, who are parents will be, what major challenges we will face, who we can fall in love with, when we will die, etc—and these will not change. They are constants.
In “Happily Ever After” we learn that love is the constant that connects the parallel realities. In this way, Charlie is connected to Claire, Desmond with Penny, and Daniel with Charlotte (who was eating a chocolate bar just as when Daniel last saw her when she was a child, a nod to the illusion of time and space). What Lost is telling us is that love transcends the illusion of time. That it exists in all dimensions and is ultimately something our souls are meant to experience. Why? Perhaps because that feeling elevates us to a level that gets us in touch with the highest version of ourselves. The version that would go on a dangerous voyage, battle monsters, require the aid of friends and mentors, and slay a dragon to experience love—the best version of who we are.
That’s the part of the fairytale that we should incorporate into our collective psyche—the inspiration to challenge ourselves for a greater good. As opposed to the prince/princess entitlement part—that’s a message for our physical, materialistic, lower selves…the part that our soul wants us to shake free from…the part that metaphorically represents hell. When you get stuck in that perspective, it can be hard to get the loftier messages. And the more choices you make that reward the physical, fleeting part of yourself, the more challenging it will be to break free from them. But as I’ve said, there is nothing wrong or right about either choice. One is simply about making the best of the illusionary world we live in, the other is about wanting to go beyond it.
Whether or not the Lost characters turn out to be stuck in a dream, a parallel timeline, a simulation, hell, purgatory, or a mystical island controlled by gods, the lesson is that they are existing in a realm that isn’t real. For those who haven’t caught that message with the countless references to The Wizard of Oz and Alice In Wonderland, they practically hit us over the head with it in “Happily Ever After.” 
When Charlie begins to tell Desmond why he knows that he isn’t happy with all his materialistic treasures, Desmond guesses, “Because none of it’s real?” When Desmond catches up to the runaway Charlie in the hospital, Charlie tells him, “This doesn’t matter. None of this matters.” When Daniel explains his dream to Desmond, he laments, “this wasn’t supposed to be our life. What if we had some other life but for some reason we changed things.”
While on the surface it seems that they are speaking about the flash-sideways, again, this is the literal interpretation of the story. What they are really talking about is physical reality period. Our reality. But like any good mythology, Lost can’t just tell us this. It has to hide its messages under symbolism and archetypes in hopes that they will sneak past our conscious minds into our deeper, subconscious understanding—a place that influences our future choices. Choices we make without really knowing why. But this is why. Star Wars is why. Fairytales are why. The beliefs you have about yourself, your culture and your reality are why. But none of them may even be true. Most of us live life thinking that we are moving through time and that everyone is experiencing it the exact same way. But if this isn’t the case, then everything we know about reality is wrong. Therefore, our choices have all been based on bad information.
Flash-sideways Desmond believes he’s never met Eloise Hawking before. As the omniscient viewers, we know that he has. What is the culprit that has created a curtain that has prevented Desmond from knowing that he and Ms. Hawking, now Ms. Widmore, have met before? It is this new dimension. This parallel time. In fact, Eloise tells him and us this, but it was so cleverly worded, few of us noticed it. Flash-sideways Eloise says to Desmond, “It’s a travesty that we haven’t met before. Well, it’s about time.” Like everything else on Lost, this wording is no accident. It is a hint as to the reason they haven’t met—time is the reason. The illusion of time. If we could see how reality really works—how everything that ever has happened, could’ve happened, is happening, or could ever happen is happening right now, then we wouldn’t need to play this game called life. The man behind the curtain would be revealed, and would be seen for who he truly is, someone just pushing a bunch of flashy buttons and gizmos to try and distract us from the real world.
Right now, I’m not sure if we live in the timeline where it’s even possible for us to get to this unveiling of reality, or as it’s more Biblically known, this apocalypse. For the record, apocalypse actually means, “unveiling.” It is the time when we are no longer living in the illusionary world and the true world is revealed to us. This is where we ultimately want to go, but I’m not so sure that we live in a timeline where we’ll be getting there. We may have to start all over again. On Lost, island-reality Widmore is convinced that he too may live in a doomed timeline, but believes that it may be possible for him and those close to him to leap to a parallel one. So, being that this is a theme on Lost, is it possible for us to do the same? Can we leap to the dimension where we, as a people, made different choices leading to a different outcome?
Lost may still yield clues to this possibility, for now though, I’d say that it is entirely possible, and that you don’t need to be gifted with Desmond’s powers to withstand high electromagnetism to get there. The high electromagnetism thing is all just symbolic for having a high vibration—a high soul, someone who is close to being the best version of his or herself—in other words, the archetypal messiah figure, who Desmond most definitely is. He has sacrificed himself by turning the failsafe key, he was reborn, and then found love—the feeling closest to the heavenly realm. He became so in tune with his surroundings, he was able to see visions of how the illusionary realm was playing out. This relates to our gut instincts—the knowing without consciously knowing, but knowing on another level.
Once you reach this level, you become like Neo in The Marix—able to see the world for what it really is. Through Lost’s archetypes, you become like Desmond, who, now aware of his ultimate destiny, is able to go with the flow and play his role without anymore suffering or struggle. This is probably why he simply agrees to go with Sayid at the end of the episode. Because he now realizes that he no longer needs to struggle and that whatever happens will lead him towards fulfilling what he is meant to do. As someone from my Lost Meetup group said, “Desmond is now moving through God’s channel.” Yes, because while a hero suffers, he suffers only so that he can get to a place where he can rise above the illusionary world. Rise above the brainwashing and the need to collect material possessions for happiness. Rise to a place where he can see that all you need is love—it is the only constant that matters.
This is ultimately where we are all meant to go. And, we will all eventually get there. Some quicker than others. Perhaps those that do will experience some kind of Rapture during the end days and be able to skip over the woeful times that may lie ahead for everyone else left behind. But even this seems to be a myth that isn’t meant to be taken literally. I think that we can jump to our sideways flash. And it will not require electromagnetism, a particle collider at CERN, meeting up with a returning messiah, or a mystical island. All it will require is the choices you make about who you are.
So decide who you most want to be and make choices in line with that ideal. Then, watch as the events surrounding your life begin to come together to make that version of yourself happen. Again, there is no wrong choice. Some choices may require more challenging lessons than others, but if you are someone who loves materialistic pleasures then the benefits of the more spiritual choices may not be a benefit for you. 
Simply put, as Eloise said to Desmond, “you just aren’t ready yet.” Sideways Desmond is someone who loves materialistic pleasures and longed for the approval of a powerful man. He lived a life without love and yet, this didn’t bother him in the least until his consciousness intertwined and was influenced by his higher, island-reality self. This version of Desmond was so much more in tune, its impact stayed with the more materialistic version of himself even after it had leapt back to its own dimension.
Perhaps when we dream, or listen to empowering music, or watch an inspiring movie, we too get in touch with that higher version of ourselves. And perhaps enough of it stays behind to actually manipulate our chemistry, or cause us to leap to a dimension more aligned with our higher self. Anyone can do this, you don’t have to be Desmond, a messianic archetype, or even a hero. Anyone can make choices towards the best version of him or herself.
When I began writing this column today, I was a bit taken aback by how I ended the first paragraph. While I sometimes end my first paragraph with a teaser question, this was the first time I ended it with a question that I myself did not yet know the answer to. I wasn’t really sure what was involved in getting to this other reality and whether or not we did indeed have to be as special as Desmond to get there. But, like much of what I write, I figured I’d just be open to an answer and hope it would be given to me as I made this journey to get to the end, hopefully being able to tie together mythological themes and this past episode of Lost in the process.
While it took a while to get there, I think the answer did in fact come to me. And I tend to find that the columns that I write that resonate the truest for me are the ones that I go into without a definite plan. It’s that leap of faith thing again. Another theme that shows up quite a bit on Lost.
Many years from now, I wouldn’t be surprised if Lost turns out to inspire its own religion, perhaps even with millions of followers. While many might consider the following statement to be blasphemous, because the show is based on universal wisdom, I do not see its messages as being of any lesser value than any other religion. My only hope however, is that the followers of this faith look to the mythology, symbolism, archetypes, metaphors, messages, themes, and hidden wisdom of the show and just use the story to string it all together. In other words, I hope they don’t take the story too literally. Because then the beliefs, customs, and practices it would lead to, would really be no better than any other fairytale. And that’s what got us here to begin with.
Marc Oromaner is a New York City writer whose book, The Myth of Lost offers a simple solution to Lost and uncovers its hidden insight into the mysteries of life. He can be contacted in the discussion section of The Myth of Lost Facebook page.
The Myth of Lost is available on Amazon and barnesandnoble.com.
Tags: abc, constant, fairytale, freedom of choice, illusion, Lost, love, many-world's theory, marc oromaner, metaphor, myth, mythology, symbolism, the myth of lost
50 Responses to “Marc Oromaner’s Lost In Myth: Where’s Your “Happily Ever After”?”
Leave a Reply
This site utilizes the Global Avatar standard developed by Gravatar. To set your avatar, click on the logo to the left.Return To Top
sattellite tv special offers
Since Disney owns ABC, do they not by default kinda own LOST? Never thought about that before.
Yes, but the “happily ever after” copyright goes back way before that. However, it might explain why “LOST” was able to use it.
Marc,
As a writer, you should know that one can’t claim copyright in short phrases — not even the mouse monolith.
Perhaps it was registering it as a trademark that I’m thinking of.
LOST already has a religion with millions of followers. We’re all waiting eagerly to find out if we’ve been had, or if our lives have some greater meaning.
(and Marc, you must not have an iPhone. It’s not indispensable because Apple tells us so. It’s indispensable because I can’t imaging being without it. A device that actually changes future behavior.)
Don’t waste your time, dude; Marc’s on a different plane.
Or the Fringe universe, I can’t tell which!
When I read “1984″ in grade school, I remember wondering how Big Brother would begin forcing us to submit to his ever-watchful eye. Turns out, we all volunteered willingly. I try to hold off as long as possible before submitting to the newest “must-have” technology. I feel that the more things I cannot live without, the more dependent I’ve become, and therefore, the more things that own me. The brainwashing is just how they get you to believe you must have something. Once you get it, you’re hooked. Nobody gives up their iPhone, or flat-screen TV, or Blue-Ray player, or Internet, or DVR, once they have it. Amazing how just ten years ago, we managed to survive without any of these things. In ten more years, how many more things will we need to survive?
There’s a great Star Trek episode where an entire world is going to hell and no one knows why. Turns out that their god was actually a computer built thousands of years ago to run the world, but it broke and no one knew how to fix it. We’re getting there.
As for LOST’s final episode, the show has already given us the wisdom we need to see that our lives have greater meaning. The final episode isn’t necessary for that. It’s only necessary to help us connect it to our lives and see where we may be heading. Just as no one judges Christianity based solely on Revelations, LOST is bigger than its final chapter.
Saw the episode- when I was a kid.
That’s all…almost.
Marc, seriously, are you really Ron Paul in disguise…?
The dystopia where people give in willingly to be drugged with pleasure is Brave New World. It’s not an authoritarian Big Brother but something else.
And we do give up toys when they’re replaced by better technology. As they inevitably are.
(Marc, you’re sounding a bit like Jacob here. Or the DI, with their 70s mainframes.)
The Big Brother is the Facebook, and email, and iPhone with satellite that can track exactly where you are.
Like I said, I have nothing against technology. I just think it’s an issue when we become too reliant on it and feel a need to have it in order to function. I guess the Brave New World analogy works too since we are all swallowing the pill after being told how much we need things and if we don’t want them or have them then there must be something wrong with us. It also works in that most of this technology helps distract us from life, and it becomes addictive like a drug.
Says the jerk that posts regularly online.
I could not agree more, call me an old soul but i feel lost in this world sometimes, so much of what we hold as important and indispensable these days is worth nothing in a real sense. Yes iphones allow us to be more productive and bluerays allow us to see with our eyes what one could have only imagined years ago. But we have lost the value in being unproductive and just standing still to feel the breeze, really feel it pass through us. We have also lost the value in only the imagination, we have beome obessed with seeing. I also understand the value in todays technology, I just purchased a blueray, still holding off on the iphone, but as Marc states it is when we become completely dependent on it that we really lose something valuable…our sense of self.
They actually completed a study I read about years ago about how kids developed using imaginative play. They found that the more imagination kids used (using a stick as a sword instead of a plastic one, glowing lightsaber, or videogame) developed to be more productive adults. Kids who imagined had to talk through certain acts that lead to good managerial skills. I can’t remember if the test was across generations or all done within one generation, but the difference was pretty astounding–as in a nine year old who had only played videogames had the same managing abilities as a six year old who had used imagination.
They should reacquaint kids with this kind of play today.
I have read many studies on this, as a mother of two I fully understand the benefit to imagination. I try to give me kids the best of our modern world, my son is a computer kid, but I also try to encourage them to just enjoy the simple things, like sticks and rocks. To enjoy sitting still and watching the day go by, and NOT be bored by it!!
Talk about idiosyncratic!
Seriously, as I lie here typing on my bought-first-in-line iPad this reflex to your odd attack on corporate and collective from your odd use of corporate (Internet and branded computer) from your collective point of view (Buhda, Buhda, anyone, anyone), I like, totally get what you’re saying…?
Sigh…
There’s a difference between using technology and devices as helpful tools, and relying on them to boost up one’s own self-worth.
And who is anyone to judge that consumers consume for self-worth in general. We take noticable exceptions and apply that as a template when it’s not the case – or we don’t know that it is.
Look, guys, here’s a simple truth: Life is boring. Call it a blessing you want, but it’s a long drudge with some brief highlights. Some question whether it’s even worth it.
So we – HUMANS – are constantly looking for “stuf” relieve the boredom. Nothing wrong sitting on that bolder all Wordsworth-like harping at people walking by with their “stuff” ignorant to the joys of NATURE (the one God Humanists kneel too). But don’t judge those who don’t like sitting on a freaking hard rock all day long!
Life is full of choices, brutha’, worry about your own and leave the rest of us alone.
Now, back to drooling over my iPad.
I am a victim just as much as anyone else. I included myself within that group of brainwashed individuals. I just notice it more because I work in advertising and was born in an earlier era. Hey, not everyone likes nature, hiking, or yoga. That’s fine. But there isn’t nearly as much peer pressure to do those things b/c three isn’t as much money to be made in them. When I see a commercial on TV showing how you can all play video games with your friends on a camping trip, I think it’s a bit sad that advertisers are actually serious. That we’ve gotten to a point where they can simply create needs for us to shove their products down our throats. The world tells us we need prescription drugs, expensive gizmos (that become outdated every 2-5 years), and flashy clothes and cars to be accepted. All I’m saying is don’t believe the hype. Don’t react to their pitches. Decide when you need something. Don’t decide that you need it when they tell you you need it. Let them serve you, not the other way around.
Pathetic.
Yeah, you really got a point there Esteban. “Pathetic”. wow! How did you come up with an astonishing answer like this? Someone (Marc) was expressing his opinion. You could say “agree” or “disagree”, which would be a more polite response, you know, like the ones we actually use in the civilized world. Thank you. Bye.
Sorry, only boring people get bored. My life is exactly what I want it to be 24 hours a day and not because of money or technology or anything else outside of my skull. I have been/can be/will be entertained by my mighty man brains for my entire life.
I enjoyed this article. it was interesting, and between you and fishbiscuit and my own theories, I do feel like this IS IN FACT going somewhere.
I personally really hope that the characters choose to live and die in the islandLOST rather than the OtherLOST. Although some things are satisfying, it feels so contrived that I just can’t believe it will be the ultimate reality, or ending point.
Many-Worlds is fascinating, but I just find it SO excessive, that I just can’t imagine that could really be the true nature of reality, despite what many seem to think given what we know now. Entire universes for every possible choice? How can such a thing really be. That is gazillions of universes. And who knows about other aliens also making choices…
Although the LOST universe might work with Constants, in a real many-worlds universe some people’s choices would have consequences that change everyone’s world. What would the world be like if Hitler won the war and took over the planet? Everything we know now would be different. What if Hitler had become an artist instead of a politician?
Even something as simple as a choice not to move somewhere could lead you to never meet your partner–thus potentially leading you to become a very different person.
It is a very interesting concept, but it also feels like a scientific version of “heaven” or “hell”. There is somewhere where you didn’t make that terrible choice, or somewhere where you did that terrible thing you always thought of doing.
Glad you liked it.
The many-worlds concept seems excessive, but I think of it just like a video game. From the perspective of the character in the game, he or she is moving in a straight line in time and the choices it made are in its past. We however know that every move the character has made or could ever make have already been written and they exist on one moment, in code, on the game disc. Every time the character makes a choice, it leaps to the part of the code that was written for that choice. It will now meet characters and go places contingent on that choice. But its other choices also exist. Yes, it’s all very excessive. But there are way too many stars in the universe to count, but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t there.
I completely agree that choices would change everyone’s world. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that every choice effects everyone’s world. So everyone that exists in your world now is here because of choices you have made. In your other flash-sideways, everyone you know is different. And the versions of them in those worlds are different because of choices they’ve made. It all connects.
I don’t see the many worlds as heaven/hell, I see this entire illusionary world as what we would call “hell” because we are here to go through the challenges of the game of life so we can get to the next level. I think the many-worlds fits more with the idea of karma. Your choices lead to certain repercussions.
Here’s the thing about “many-worlds”: it doesn’t actually have anything to do with human decisions. It’s really about the states of subatomic particles. For example, some electron is in a superposition of positive spin and negative spin, and when that superposition resolves, two universes branch off: one in which it resolves to the positive spin, and one in which it resolves to the negative spin. Many, many such resolutions can give rise to changes that would be detectable at the level of human consciousness (if it was possible to make comparisons across “worlds”, which it isn’t), but human consciousness doesn’t do anything to create these worlds (apart from anything humans intentionally do to make a particle resolve its state).
Thus there are an incomprehensibly vast number of “worlds”, each created by some subatomic particle’s state being resolved. It is likely that life does not even exist in the vast majority of them. None of them are privileged in any way; there’s no fundamental physical difference between the one we live in and the one in which a bunch of particles resolved state in such a way that caused me not to write this comment, and no fundamental physical difference between the one we live in and one in which life doesn’t exist at all.
Whether it seems excessive or not doesn’t matter, because communication between the “worlds” is not possible. From the perspective of any particle, the “world” it finds itself in is the only one that exists. The reason the theory exists is to remove the apparent non-determinism from quantum measurements.
The sci-fi version of this trope has very little connection to the actual physics, in my opinion (but I am not a physicist). Sci-fi versions almost always allow communication between the worlds, and always treat at least one world as privileged over the others (just by virtue of the fact that the story it’s telling revolves around that world).
“Desmond is now moving through God’s channel.”
Donnie Darko!
Marc, you are having the same thoughts I am. I don’t know if, in the beginning of the show, Lost’s execs planned to forge a story that would take us on a journey of transcendence. But that’s what’s happened.
Lost is elevating our consciousness, helping us realize that we are responsible for our own heaven or hell. By aligning with the power of love, we reach nirvana. Getting wrapped up in ego and fear is a cheap ticket to hell.
We all have the choice, can take either road, travel either “universe.”
Jack definitely has finally let go of ego and fear. Doesn’t it seem as though he’s all about love when he offers his hand to Sun? To me, he appears “enlightened” and lighter–free of the heavy burdens he’s been carrying all of his life.
It’s great that Charlie and Desmond have become one with their higher selves through a vision. But I don’t believe Lost is saying you have to experience a near death encounter or be bombarded by electromagnetic forces to “get it.”
I’m very glad to see you emphasize that Lost uses myths created by religions to teach simple truths but doesn’t get hung up on taking the myths literally.
Like you, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Lost develop a religious following, though I don’t want to see that happen. Once people turn anything into dogma, it gets screwed up, becomes a power base instead of a God channel.
Lost has helped me see that it’s all about choice. Intentional choice.
Thanks, Marc. I loved your column this week.
Your right about Jack, he did “let it go” his ego, fear, and anger. Let’s just hope he eases up on being so stubborn. Just how Locke left him alone in “Follow the White Rabbit” because a leader can’t lead if he doesn’t know where he’s going. Thats what Jacob wanted him to do at the lighthouse.
Marc, I know that you’re proposing the “many worlds” theory as a metaphor and not as an actuality, but I still have problems with the anthropocentric & egocentric nature of this model. [Have you ever read Nietzsche's "On Truth & Lie in a Non-Moral Sense"?] This theory makes each one of us the very center of the universe. What sort of choice is valorized? I don’t think we’re talking about whether I decided to have eggs or oatmeal for breakfast this morning. Who are what determines what constitutes a choice? Then there’s the matter of my dog deciding whether she’s going to go on the living chair even though she knows full well that she’s not supposed to.
I’ve been a regular visitor to Jensen’s columns & continue to participate in the comment boards. However, he has totally gone off the deep end. I’ve recently gotten caught up in your essays as well as Fishbiscuit’s postings, because I think the 2 of you are grappling with season 6 in the same way that I am. Lost has been my favorite tv show ever — nothing comes close — but I have found the episodes this season lacking, not living up to the high standards the creators have established. As a writer myself, I am troubled by the past plot elements that now seem to be simply flash effects & not part of an intricate design. I do hold out hope that they will pull it off and surprise us with one of their incredible reframings. I’m equally disturbed by the venom directed towards anyone who questions, who isn’t a true believer. Therefore, I find the very thought of a future Lost religion rather frightening. I see a lot of attention paid to what is going to happen on Lost when we don’t even know what has happened, which speaks volumes about the way we look at things.
The actual physical “many worlds” theory actually is the opposite of anthropocentric and egocentric: it says that the only reason you perceive your existence is because a bunch of random things happened to a bunch of subatomic particles. It says that there are effectively infinitely many worlds in which you and I don’t exist at all. In the extreme, you could take it to say that nothing we do matters, because there’s just going to be some other world in which we do the opposite.
I’ve read your reply & comment above, in which you move “many worlds” outside of the realm of consciousness. [I have absolutely no understanding of the study of consciousness, but I should imagine there will come a time in which scientists might understand it at the level of subatomic particles.] However, your description has some resonance with the ideas of David Hume, who was concerned with identity: “man is a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed one another with an inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement.” He said “bundle” — might we also say “package”? There have been a number of points of resonance throughout Lost with Hume’s ideas, including Hume’s boat, the constant.
thank you for this wonderfully written article. you seem to be a real writer – unlike FB. you should give her some pointers on how to write about the show for its fans. lovely, thanks.
You know the sad thing? I think Marc’s and fishbiscuit’s articles are often more entertaining these days than the show itself. A friend of mine recently asked me, while we were discussing the MANY questions and mysteries and plot threads than have been left unanswered this late in the game, “What if the problem is that we’re all thinking about this show more deeply than those who are creating it? What if the writers see the unanswered questions and the dangling plot threads and the dropped mysteries as just part of the show’s schtick, unlike the rest of us, who see it as something that really matters? How can we possibly expect a satisfying ending if that’s the case?” I don’t know yet if I agree with him, since I haven’t seen the ending in question, but I will say this: When I read fishbiscuit’s and Marc’s articles, I’m reminded of the awe and wonder I once felt for Lost, before the brilliance of the first three seasons was somewhat dulled by non-fleshed-out characters like Charlotte, Ilana and Zoe, and by the plot’s having meandered away from its former tight cohesion. I’m not trashing the show, mind you–I still greatly enjoy it, and I’ll still be pleased as pie if they pull a Dharma-stamped rabbit out of their hat in minute 59. But as we get closer to the endgame, and as the LONG list of inconsistencies and incomprehensives remains inconsistent and incomprehensive, I can’t help but worry. As such, I look forward to the articles of Marc and fishbiscuit as much as I do the episodes themselves, as they help balance out the mundanity of the flash-sideways storylines. For me, seasons 5 and 6 have been somewhat of a letdown compared to what came before. Having rewatched the first five seasons in the past two months, I’ve seen a lot of threads that were left unwoven, which is frustrating.
more entertaining than the show? PFFT.
At times, yep–in that the material in the articles is often deeper and more well-thought-out than what ends up on the show.
I completely agree.
blasphemy!
oh don’t be so ridiculous.
No wonder I stopped visiting this website.
This post right here is why docarzt is just a bad website. Jackasses like Smitty who think anything Mac says is intelligent.
Some of the theories I’ve read over the past few years have been very entertaining and mind-opening making it that much for fun to watch every week. Maybe because of this, the “shockers” aren’t all that shocking. Such as theorizing Richard came from The Black Rock, really wasn’t surprising to see it. So I understand where your coming from, except it was them that paved the way to the theories we read.
Firstly,
Of course Disney owns LOST, so they borrow a lot from Disney.
Secondly, I’m pretty sure that if Disney tried to sue you for using “Happily Ever After” they would loose. I think that certain short phrases cannot be owned.
-Ben
I don’t know if they own “Happily Ever After”, I do think they own “Happient Place on Earth” though.
Disney does not own a copyright or trademark on the phrase “happily ever after.” It’s a standard ending in fairy tales, and has been for a long time. I don’t know where you got the idea that Disney owns it, but they don’t.
You could be right. But the fact that it was used for many years before Disney would not be the reason. For example, the song “Happy Birthday” has been around for a long time but then was bought by Paul McCartney so you had to pay to use it in any form of media or to use more than two lines of its lyrics. Yes, songs are different than phrases. I am not a copyright lawyer, and I may be remembering wrong or have been given incorrect information. So much that I once believed to be true turned out to be BS on snopes.com! It looks like for now, most people seem to agree that you cannot copyright a short phrase. Hey, I’m glad. Maybe whatever it was I’d heard was only true in another universe I’ve since leaped out of!
Interesting treatise, Marc, but a little on the idealistic side, at least as concerns the role of “love”. As I’ve noted in other posts, LOST is not the basis of some authority on reality or the basis of any religion as alluded to at the end of your post. It’s simply a fictional premise written by other humans with no better insight into the human condition than any other deep thinker here.
What you came very close to saying but never quite got there is that the logical conclusion of our reality is nihilistic. In the end, nothing matters, your choices, your efforts don’t count for anything of permanence. It’s an illusion that humans think they’re so important and that their actions have objective meaning. And the same goes for the conceit of “love”. Love is just another artificially assigned meaning by humans, it has no objective reality, and that’s where your treatise falls short. Keep in mind that many people neither seek nor need love, and in many cases love isn’t even available to many, and those that think they found it more often than not become acquainted with the painful fact of divorce due to failed love. Happily Ever After Love is just a fictional mechanism of LOST and thus should enjoy no elevated status except within that realm. You simply can’t extrapolate a fictional mechanism to our reality, whether couched in myth or fairy tale.
Alright, I’m sure most of the class is snoring by now, but I felt compelled to register this perspective, not that it really matters if you’ve understood my meaning (slyly smiles).
Marc just got judged by Smokey.
Yeah. We’re all snoring cause you are so vastly more intelligent than the rest of us, right? Shut up.
Hey Marc, just curious, any plans for a follow up to your last book after the series ends?
[...] I still say don’t worry. The writers know what they are doing. As I mentioned in last week’s “‘Lost In Myth: Where’s Your ‘Happily Ever After’?” Desmond is the messianic archetypal figure. Just like Jesus, Desmond has been left for dead in a [...]
[...] I still say don’t worry. The writers know what they are doing. As I mentioned in last week’s “‘Lost In Myth: Where’s Your ‘Happily Ever After’?” Desmond is the messianic archetypal figure. Just like Jesus, Desmond has been left for dead in a [...]
[...] say don’t worry. The writers know what they are doing. As I mentioned in last week’s “‘Lost In Myth: Where’s Your ‘Happily Ever After’?” Desmond is the messianic archetypal figure. Just like Jesus, Desmond has been left for dead in a [...]