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

Swords into Ploughshares

  "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...

Art Lester

  I've just heard the extremely sad and shocking news of the death of Unitarian Minister Art Lester. It shocked me even more as I was emailing him a few days ago as he spontaneously emailed me thanking me for my book and offering to send me a copy of his latest one (pictured above).  I already feel like I've missed the opportunity to get to know him better, as he's the kind of person I would really have liked to have been a mentor as he always seemed wise and spiritually rooted, in a mischievous, not-taking-himself-too-seriously way (which is a good sign of spiritual maturity I think).  He ended his email with, "I attach a portion of a sermon I’ll be giving at the Paris Fellowship next month.  It’s my 29th service over the past 27 years and possibly my last.  I wouldn’t normally bore a colleague with my scribbles, but I think you might like this one."  I do. I do like this one. And as he now won't deliver this at Paris Fellowship I thought it was worth shar...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...