I don’t think it’s “vile” at all to state that there is an audience who has not studied literature, philosophy, or cultural studies. I have not studied physics or chemistry, so if someone made a blog discussing introductory physics and chemistry and its relation to LOST, I would be its intended audience. There is nothing demeaning about this. Nor is it a slight to say there is an audience who is ‘unread.’

Returning to evidence, fantasy, and the issue of vulgarity and triteness: I’m discussing FB’s output as a whole– not just this one review. All one needs to do is experience any moment of her weird Jack vs Sawyer obsession (which has been the focus of many reviews). When she asks that question about leadership, she is leading the viewer. It’s not even an interesting question because the answer is obvious.

I don’t know if I can really support “adulthood” as a theme, as it is also somewhat broad in what it might entail.

Crap, I have to get back to work.

I don’t really understand your stake in this– the defense, the “LOL”s, the referal to FBs greatness. I don’t care if you disagree with me; you’re just stuck on a personal tangent that really has nothing to do with what has been written. I don’t want to play shepherd to your insecurities. You like her; I don’t. But what about the content? What has been disputed?

The pictures provide very little. They are usually out of context and then supported by FB strange fantasy.

That’s the short of it. I need to be somewhere in a few minutes.

As far as I can tell, you both have made valid points during this conversation. DM, you are correct that even free blogs like this one can and should receive some forms of criticism. When constructive, criticism allows us to improve our skills, and can lead to personal benefit as well as personal connections. MoniquE, you are correct in stating that interpreting and experiencing different sides of this show is fun for us fans. It’s the reason that the show is as popular as it is. Everyone has a right to discuss, explore, debate, and ultimately enjoy Lost anyway they choose.

Andy and SharkTaco… Well… you guys actually didn’t make any real points, you just insulted the other people in this conversation with hypothetical slights. However, you accurately expressed your opinions tersely and cogent, and for that I thank you.

In my personal opinion, I have to agree with MoniquE and Andy. I like Fishbiscuit’s work. Some people have mentioned that if you take away the pictures, it’s a ‘just a boring, poorly written article.’(Sunshine). But, the article was written with pictures to accent Fishbiscuit’s points with visual conformation. Is he/she always right? Of course not. That’s impossible. But his/her theories are backed up with visual evidence and logical thoughts. Something that can be hard to find in some Lost theories. For example, I disagree with him/her about Kate. Sure, Kate’s not my favorite character, but I find her as well flushed out and written as every other character in Lost. But, unlike other Lost fans (Not necessarily pointing fingers here); I don’t see the difference of view as a personal attack on my own beliefs about the show. Because it isn’t.

DM, you said ‘I think she’d have a hard time really pressing that “manhood” is a central theme in LOST.’ Well, maybe not “manhood”, but certainly “adulthood” is a theme of Lost. After all, we had three seasons of flashbacks establishing what events shaped the survivor’s personalities and a growing Walt. At this point, DM, you make some rather vile comments, like ‘…acknowledge who might comprise the FB audience: people who are not educated in literature, philosophy, and cultural studies.’ Ouch. That was mean. Sure, anyone who’s been online on any Lost website has probably read something about how Alice and Wonderland ties into Lost. But that doesn’t mean we cannot repeat it. There are always new theories and connections we can find in Lost (that Late is Et Al backwards BLEW MY MIND… even if it’s not probably what was meant by that.)

However, you next comment was basically unforgivable, and I hope is not your true opinions on this subject. You said you read this blog because ‘…I’m curious how the “unread” (for a lack of a better term) approach the storytelling or assess the thematics.’ Are you kidding? How could you possibly know Fishbiscuit, myself, MoniquE, Andy, SharkTaco, and every other person who reads this blog is ‘unread’? You can’t. I’m not a literary intellectual with a degree, but I’m fairly well educated and have been reading near constantly since I was five years old. What makes me unread? It sounds like you have a heightened view of yourself, and believe yourself intellectually superior to everyone. That is quite an assumption to make. You then state ‘Much of what FB writes shows a willful ignorance to what happens in the story while replacing scenes with fantasy.’ Where is that in the above entry? I looked several times, but couldn’t see any fantasy. In fact, with the pictures as visual proof, I can barely see any leaps of faith at all in the above blog.

Then you said some REALLY vile stuff. ‘Much of what is said in FB reviews cannot be supported by evidence within the show.’ Like what? A semi-retorical question about why Jack is the leader? Or are you referring to the statement that the survivors ate toothpaste, because that is CLEARLY an attempt at humor. Then you say that Fishbiscuit’s writing is‘…what might be described as the reading of the mass man: vulgar, trite, and myopic (something like the layman who insists Moby Dick is a story about Ahab’s quest for revenge).’ Vulgar? Trite? You at least used an example of myopic correctly, but that doesn’t make it true. These are opinions, not facts, yet you are advertising them as if they are undisputable. Just so you know, the Narrative of Moby Dick IS about Ahab’s quest for revenge. While there are other themes, too many to name, it’s not necessarily wrong that a person focuses on the revenge. It’s the most prominent, after all.

I think I’ve made my point by now… Several times, most likely (I do tend to ramble…). DM, you’re only being rude and petty, and nobody will listen to your opinions because of it. I suggest that you attempt to read these exchanges as a third party, and attempt to understand the viewpoints of others in this conflict. I’ve tried to be as un-insulting and impersonal as possible. At least consider my points DM. After all, it is Constructive Criticism.

You really need to stfu until you find a away to get out of that library, honey. If you ever wrote anything, which I doubt you ever will, I can almost guarantee it would be dull, self important and completely uninspired.

People are having FUN with this show. I find FB’s ideas invigorating. I don’t always agree and I don’t get the impression I’m supposed to. She’s throwing ideas out there and reminding us of all the richness of the show and how mind blowing it is.

Do you even realize that you have done nothing here but put down not only this review, which obviously took a lot of hard work and creativity, but you’re also putting down everyone who enjoys it as being less than YOU. No wonder her Jack criticism offends you. You sound like his clone.

I think the best suggestion I could give to you is to stop reading something you clearly detest. Or is there some kind of personal issue here? What’s your problem?

Even if I dislike FB’s reviews, I read them because I’m curious how the “unread” (for a lack of a better term) approach the storytelling or assess the thematics.

Much of what FB writes shows a willful ignorance to what happens in the story while replacing scenes with fantasy. This provides for poor interpretation.

I don’t know how often this needs to be repeated, but the disapproval of these reviews does not come from an admiration of Jack’s character. I just find the bias and misreadings tiresome. I kind of hold FB to be the Glenn Beck or Fox News of LOST analysis.

You want us idiots to read your genius analysis? I’ll pass. Condescending smugness is not appealing to me.
The great thing about a show like LOST is that everyone will watch and get something completely different out of it. To look down on people who do not share your interpretation is disrespectful.

Much of what is said in FB reviews cannot be supported by evidence within the show(I don’t know if I can stress this enough). FB’s perspective isn’t exactly anything but “commonplace.” In fact, it is the consensus view of what might be described as the reading of the mass man: vulgar, trite, and myopic (something like the layman who insists Moby Dick is a story about Ahab’s quest for revenge). I guess some people find comfort in knowing their lazy and superficial readings are not so rare. I just don’t find pleasure in wikipedia research, weak irony (you know, the kind that isn’t actually irony) and empty satire.

About the caution I advised earlier: It’s a warning to those who are not searching for “irony” and obvious pop-culture referencing (a boring example of post-modern gaming that illuminates nothing but trivia houses), but looking for insight into the show. It’s not for you, Monique, who I imagine likes to snort and “LOL” when reading childish remarks. That’s your gig. Keep it.

Reviews are not immune from criticism just because one has not authored a review. That’s just silly.

I already offered an argument against one point in this review: FB’s refusal to acknowledge why Jack had a leadership position. Was he a good leader? Not entirely. His failure is his story.

LOST is not a free association of pop references. The references are intentional in providing influences, like a wink or nod. Is the review community a free association of pop references? Yes– especially since bloggers write about what the show could be rather than what it is.

I do understand these reviews. They are just not good, and like I said earlier, they do not stand under scrutiny.

Maybe we don’t all have your superior intellect but I think we’re all perfectly capable of evaluating Fish’s arguments for ourselves. In fact, I think we can evaluate and appreciate any blogger who puts the actual WORK into writing something, unlike yourself. Sounds like you can’t even be bothered to argue a single point, since it’s self evident (to you) that yours would be superior.

Just accept that you don’t get these reviews. They’re obviously supposed to be irreverent and accessible and a free association of pop culture references, just like Lost is. If you want to go write a PhD thesis on Lost when you get a break from your studies (LOL!) then go right ahead, but in the meantime don’t get bent out of shape because not everybody takes this show as serious as you do.

FB draws ties in multiple pop-culture references into her reviews and this is fine. It gives a history of where themes develop even if the ideas expressed in the references are irrelevant to what is being said in LOST’s narrative. But most of this stuff is obvious. We aren’t breaking new ways to approach LOST by discussing Alice in Wonderland. We are only given an accessible account– and this is also fine. You just have to acknowledge who might comprise the FB audience: people who are not educated in literature, philosophy, and cultural studies. I think it’s great she writes for this audience; however, the content of her reviews/articles is betrayed by willful omissions so that she might spin characters as horrible (Jack and Kate) or god-like (Sawyer). The inaccuracy either comes from a dim viewing (read the review for “The Variable” for instance) or an determined effort to misrepresent characters (I don’t know why anyone would want to do this).

Sometimes words or ideas are also misrepresented. I just caution readers to not take it at face value because many of the arguments are extremely weak.

For those so upset that I would even think about contradicting FB and wondering about any sort of episode review that I might write– I’ve been considering starting a review blog. I only need a little time away from my current studies. I’ll keep you updated.