Skip to main content

LOST and theology: The Others

***Spoiler Alert***

I've been re-watching the American TV series Lost. It is one of my favourite TV programmes, it's very well produced on all levels.

The engine of the storyline is mystery. As the viewer, you don't have any idea what's going on, and the drama happens when certain things are revealed. But of course every answer just brings ten more questions.

The basic premise is that an airplane crossing the Pacific crash lands on a deserted island. Except the survivors soon discovered the island is not exactly deserted. There are "Others" on the Island, as well as all sorts of mysterious goings-on.

Obviously re-watching a series like that is very different experience when you know most of the answers, and what's happening behind the mystery. In general the show knew where it was going, and planted some mysteries at the beginning that it solved at the very end six years later. This is not to say that there weren't some inconsistencies and plot dead-ends. But in general they had a strong sense of plot.

What is striking when you re-watch it is the development of "the Others." In the first two series the Others are slowly revealed. They are mysterious figures that emerge out of the jungle and kidnap children, they appear to be "savages" dressed in rags, they appear to be sub-human, amoral, vicious killers. One of the survivors says "they're animals."

But they appear a lot less scary when you're re-watching the series. Because you know that they are nothing of the sort. As the series develops we begin to see more of the Others. We see that they are people of different ages and sexes. We see some of them are married. We see they have book groups and bake muffins. And significantly we see them having funerals when one of them is killed by one of the survivors. We've been used to seeing them as the "bad guys" but slowly we begin to see things more from their perspectives. We begin to see them as frail human beings doing the best. No doubt some of them do some very immoral and violent things: killing, kidnapping, torturing. But then, when the survivors felt it was really necessary they did similar things too.

The point is an enemy is much scarier when we view them as inhumane monsters. When we know their names, their frailties, when we see their grief, it's impossible to see them as terrifying. Certainly the violence they bring is dangerous, but as a viewer you are simply not scared by them anymore.

Humans have an ability to "Other" a group of people - this fuels our fear and anger. But it is much more difficult to do this when we see the reality that, whatever else they are, they are still stupid frail human beings like the rest of us.

Comments

Mark said…
Saw about half the first series, until the hatch...

Kester Brewin has a book called 'Other' (www.kesterbrewin.com/other/)
Can lend if you want.
He blogs well about pirates too!
cheers,
Mark.

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th