I have thought about this for quite awhile now and I think LOCKE might be the villian in this whole show, either by hook or by crook, his leg injuries, in metaphor, indicate a psychological void in his mental state and personality. In my own little mind I have clue after clue that points to John being in some conspiracy with 'who knows who' . John is soooo darn gullible in everything he is told almost too gullible and ready willing and able to go along with whatever. Johns backstory indicates he too willing for his own good, he wants to BELONG and be accepted, not for who he is but what he thinks YOU want him to be, understanding son, cult member, organ donor, guru. He assimilates himself to whatever the situation calls for. Does John even know he's doing this, does he know his own personality? You would think John would learn some things from 'the school of hard knocks' I think he's adapted. Have you ever wondered where that idea to have Sawyer kill for him came from? Locke has a temper but uses his head to get him through, most of the time he is passive agressive. John has never been concerned with money, he wants recognition, to be accepted. Locke is a man of many colors. maybe it's just a simple matter of Locke being sick of being conned so much in his life he has decided to be the con-er The question is: Will John con himself in the meantime? John now is very smug in his place in line. Wouldn't Locke be the last you would suspect to be the bad guy? LOCKE has chosen the dark side :eek2: Does this thread take on a whole new meaning now after seeing RECON?

I think John's being used as a tool. Yes, he's easy to manipulate. He doesn't think before he acts. He doesn't question authority when it appears friendly. He has a good heart, and probably believes what he's doing is the right thing, but he's only being used to reach ends that are contrary to what he believes.

Locke's a "blunt little tool" for the Others. He's getting or has gotten the LOng Con KE...

Have you ever wondered where that idea to have Sawyer kill for him came from?

You mean beside Richard giving him Sawyer's file?


As far as your theory goes, here are some points that support you.

1) Locke told Ben that Jacob wants to move the island. He did not tell Ben that Christian was speaking for Jacob. And as far as we know, no one told Locke to move the island. Christian only said "Ask yourself, 'How do I save the island'"

2) When the camps split, Hurley went with Locke. Later, Hurley told Jack that he made a bad decision.

3) Locke knocks out Sayid and destroys radio equipiment. This would have shown them the location of the radio tower.

4) Blows up submarine

5) Blows up Flame communication station - knows the code "Enter 77" - Beats the chess game (is he really that good at chess or does he know something)

6) First to encounter Smokey - calls it beautiful (is he working for Smokey?)

7) Locke keeps Hatch a secret and lies about it.

8) Begins a somewhat strange relationship with Walt, against his father's wishes (i.e. teaches him to throw a knife??)

9) Stops several people from killing Ben

ROGER: RE: THE FILE, Are you saying mind-control, manipulation or both? Locke really has to be sick in the head to go through with that because of a file and the need to belong, TOO simple for character motivation as far as I'm concerned. John, calmly sitting there threading his needle while his father is screaming and a ruckus ensues is just totally Cold, Conniving and Calculated. John has to prove that he is king of the mountain and he knows for whom and why.

Thanks for all of those points, at least I'm not totally whacked!!

ROGER: RE: THE FILE, Are you saying mind-control, manipulation or both? Locke really has to be sick in the head to go through with that because of a file and the need to belong, TOO simple for character motivation as far as I'm concerned. John, calmly sitting there threading his needle while his father is screaming and a ruckus ensues is just totally Cold, Conniving and Calculated. John has to prove that he is king of the mountain and he knows for whom and why.

Thanks for all of those points, at least I'm not totally whacked!!

I don't disagree with your observation. The original post asked the question "Where did Locke get the idea?" - I was merely pointing out that it wasn't Locke's idea to get Sawyer to do the dirty deed, it was Alpert's idea.

As to John's motivation, it appears to be simple...take deep-rooted resentment and add to that selfish ambition.

John was going to group therapy to overcome his hatred of this guy (not to mention stalking his house). Now he finds out that the only way he can be the leader of the island (which he has made clear that he never wants leave) is to kill this dirtbag.... with no consequenses whatsoever. No brainer.

To me, the real question is "Why didn't he kill Cooper himself?" Is it because he is a pacifist? Tell that to Naomi.

To me, the real question is "Why didn't he kill Cooper himself?" Is it because he is a pacifist? Tell that to Naomi.

Yet more evidence to go in the "John is not Ben" box, Ben did away with his Daddy just fine!

Savage hunter or civilized farmer, which will it be?

JOHN: I'm not a scientist! I like boxing and fishing and cars. I like sports!

GELLERT: I'm gonna tell you something--something I wish someone had told me at your age. You might not want to be that guy in the labs surrounded by test tubes and beakers, but that's who you are, John. You can't be the prom king. You can't be the quarterback. You can't be a superhero.

JOHN: Don't tell me what I can't do.

ABADDON: You know what you need, Mr. Locke? You need to go on a walkabout.

LOCKE: Wha--what's a walkabout?

ABADDON: It's a journey of self-discovery. You go out into the Australian Outback with nothing more than a knife and your wits.

LOCKE: I can't "walkabout" anything. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a cripple.

ABADDON: Is that what you are, Mr. Locke? I went on my walkabout convinced I was one thing, but I came back another. I found out what I was made of, who I was.

There are two (http://www.lostpedia.com/images/e/e0/Locke_backgammon.jpg) sides (http://www.lostpedia.com/images/3/37/Lockeyeblackwhite.jpg).

I don't disagree with your observation. The original post asked the question "Where did Locke get the idea?" - I was merely pointing out that it wasn't Locke's idea to get Sawyer to do the dirty deed, it was Alpert's idea.

As to John's motivation, it appears to be simple...take deep-rooted resentment and add to that selfish ambition.

John was going to group therapy to overcome his hatred of this guy (not to mention stalking his house). Now he finds out that the only way he can be the leader of the island (which he has made clear that he never wants leave) is to kill this dirtbag.... with no consequenses whatsoever. No brainer.

To me, the real question is "Why didn't he kill Cooper himself?" Is it because he is a pacifist? Tell that to Naomi.

I agree with what your saying but think it's a lot more complex regarding Johns motivation. I knew Alpert gave him the file and maybe Richard knew what John would do but did Richard know how he would do it, another test? Did John think that it was expected of him? We wouldn't kill or manipulate anyone to kill over a file, even with good reason, we would control ourselves, even if there were no consequences. Johns ability to manipulate someone worse off, revenge wise (Sawyer) to do his dirty work is sick sick sick. Reminds me of Charles Manson, having his followers do his dirty work, sick enough to plan it but wise enough not to do it himself. ( Although that didn't help Manson) it all proves to me that John is totally capable of anything for any reason. John has a complex which drives him to be all that he can be:biggrin:

we would control ourselves, even if there were no consequences.

Really? We would? I can't judge him so decisively. I am not sure what I would do if a man pushed me out of a building and left me paralyzed, a man who cons women and destroys families for a living. When I saw Cooper murdered on screen, I can't say I was shedding any tears.

BTW, I doubt that you know what you would do in that situation either.

I don't think that makes him Charles Manson. I think it makes him human.

Like I said, the only thing I can't understand is why he couldn't do it himself. He clearly doesn't have any trouble putting a knife in a woman's back.

Hello. I think that Lost has moved beyond absolute conceptions of "Hero" and "Villain" as pertains to the central characters. I don't think its doing justice to the developed humanity of the characters to assign such general labels. I'm of the opinion that the writers are interested in developing realistic characters that display deeply human traits, one of which is fallibility be it moral, logical, physical, etc. I've been convinced of this even more by the development of Ben Linus. He is initially introduced as the leader of the Others, the group that antagonized the Losties for an entire season. By association, he initially assumes the role of 'villain'.

He is depicted as selfish, manipulative, and cunning. But it is evident that the writers want the viewer to sympathize with him on a certain level. The viewers are presented a flashback in which it is revealed that Ben lost his mother as a child and was raised by an emotionally abusive and neglectful father. This humanizes Ben and for the viewer to see him as completely evil is to ignore the fact that his choices and personal development are affected by events in his life. Flash-forward to “The Shape of Things to Come” in which Alex is ruthlessly killed by Keamy. This furthers the humanization of Ben as the filmic elements (acting, music, and dialogue) used in the scene when Ben is saying good-bye to his dead daughter do nothing, but portray him in a human and sympathetic manner.

It’s clear at the end of season 4 that Ben is no longer a ‘villain’, but simply someone who is driven by complex emotions and causal relationships. In the Season 4 finale, he offers to help Jack convince the rest of the Oceanic 6 to return to the Island. Generally speaking, that is ‘good’. Yet, we are aware that he is planning to kill Penny Widmore in retaliation for the loss of his daughter. Generally speaking, that is ‘bad’ (partly because of the popular, negative conceptions of revenge and partly because of our emotional attachment to Penny through Desmond).

Contrast that development and portrayal with the portrayal of someone I feel was intended to serve as a stock character that functioned only as “antagonist” and “opposition”; Keamy. We know very little of Keamy’s background and are only shown his violent and militaristic disposition. We learn that he is a mercenary, which furthers his characterization as a ‘bad person’. His only purpose is to cause harm and conflict. Very few viewers can sympathize with that.

With the established logic, I assert that Locke is not a “villain” or a “hero” in an absolute sense. With what has been presented to the viewer, it is clear that Locke was working towards the “right” thing as pertains to the Island and the Losties. That’s made clearer by Jack’s despondence and regret at leaving the Island. Jack has acknowledged that John was right. John was working towards a seemingly ‘good’ end and that is not ‘villainous’ at all.

If I were to categorize John Locke (which I would rather not, but the writers might be implementing archetypes for characters to follow) , I would probably say he is the classic “tragic hero”. He possesses great intelligence (vast breadth of knowledge, excels in chess and other cerebral board games, excels academically), extensive resourcefulness, a strong sense of intuition, and resolute sense of purpose. He has the potential to do great things, but will ultimately be brought down by a tragic flaw; his gullibility, amplified not only by his desire to belong or to get recognition, but most significantly by his quest for knowledge and answers to the Island’s mysteries. He will fall unless he transcends self-importance, which I believe he is moving towards as demonstrated by the question “How do I save the Island?” He realized that thee are more important things than his own personal fate and that is why he is dead or maybe he didn’t and that is why he is dead.

This is Lost so I am anticipating a Locke-resurrection with him returning as semi-deified in the Jacob sense or as bearer of some enlightening knowledge (more so than now).

Really? We would? I can't judge him so decisively. I am not sure what I would do if a man pushed me out of a building and left me paralyzed, a man who cons women and destroys families for a living. When I saw Cooper murdered on screen, I can't say I was shedding any tears.

BTW, I doubt that you know what you would do in that situation either.

I don't think that makes him Charles Manson. I think it makes him human.

Like I said, the only thing I can't understand is why he couldn't do it himself. He clearly doesn't have any trouble putting a knife in a woman's back.

Lets put it this way, I could never be a cop because of too many accusations of excessive force, :biggrin: I wouldn't murder anyone. Lockes behavior reminded me of Mansons thought process. I suppose Sawyer killing Cooper was a training session for Locke to do Naomi. Lockes motivation is don't tell me what I can't do, he does whatever he's told. Typical personality disorder, can't stand up to dad but stabs a woman in the back, no less. Just like daddy. Oh Yes, Cooper so deserved it:biggrin: (in the tv world)

Really? We would? I can't judge him so decisively. I am not sure what I would do if a man pushed me out of a building and left me paralyzed, a man who cons women and destroys families for a living. When I saw Cooper murdered on screen, I can't say I was shedding any tears.
Yeah, but I bet you weren't laughing like me! Maybe you would have if you'd noticed Cooper-Seward's sudden development of a Southern accident, or recognized the common magic trick of bloody strangulation.

Robert

I agree that Locke's motivations are more complex than to label him specifically.

I saw nothing contradictory in him when he couldn't kill his father yet he could kill Naomi. He couldn't kill Jack even when he threatened to do so. He knows Jack and believes Jack to be a good, if misguided, person. So he couldn't kill him - even if he thought it would be in the Island's best interest.

John's most violent impulses are just that - impulses - knee jerk reactions to the immediate situation. So he sees Naomi trying to reach the freighter by phone and he reacts - lethally. He didn't even really had time to think at all.

When he was presented with the task of killing his father, he had a whole lot of time to think about it. This act would be a deliberate act of patricide. Lots of forethought involved. So he couldn't do it. He had too much time to think about what he would be doing.

Now I think he is still responsible for Cooper's death. He basically had him bound and caged with someone who would be able to kill with hot blooded anger. He provided the weapon. But he didn't prime it. He could have told Sawyer that Cooper was the man who conned his mother - but he didn't. But by not performing the act, by not telling Sawyer who Cooper was, Locke gives himself some wiggle room. He can now rationalize the event. He didn't kill Cooper, Sawyer did. And by golly, Sawyer even had a good reason to do it, and so on.

As to John's motivation, it appears to be simple...take deep-rooted resentment and add to that selfish ambition.
That sounds like a different show than the one I was watching. His motivation was doing what needed to be done -- what justice demanded -- and doing what both he and Sawyer needed to move on with their lives.

John was going to group therapy to overcome his hatred of this guy (not to mention stalking his house). Now he finds out that the only way he can be the leader of the island (which he has made clear that he never wants leave) is to kill this dirtbag.... with no consequenses whatsoever. No brainer.

He was there to deal with his anger, which he did overcome, and at his father's presumed grave, he told him that he forgave him.

To me, the real question is "Why didn't he kill Cooper himself?" Is it because he is a pacifist? Tell that to Naomi.

The same reason Luke couldn't kill his own father. Because he's his father and Locke is a man of compassion. He rationally knows it must be done, but to do the act with his own hands goes too much against his nature. Naomi was a stranger in the process of intentionally getting all the Losties killed. That one was a no-brainer.
100%
I saw nothing contradictory in him when he couldn't kill his father yet he could kill Naomi. He couldn't kill Jack even when he threatened to do so. He knows Jack and believes Jack to be a good, if misguided, person. So he couldn't kill him - even if he thought it would be in the Island's best interest.

John's most violent impulses are just that - impulses - knee jerk reactions to the immediate situation. So he sees Naomi trying to reach the freighter by phone and he reacts - lethally. He didn't even really had time to think at all.

I think he went there specifically prepared to do that. I don't think it was impulsive. He knew that she knew exactly what she was doing in contacting the freighter, whereas Jack thought he was saving everyone. Even though he was getting a lot of people killed by making the call, he believed he was saving them, plus Locke knows he's basically a good guy, and feels a personal connection with him. That's why he can't kill him. He's an emotional guy.

When he was presented with the task of killing his father, he had a whole lot of time to think about it. This act would be a deliberate act of patricide. Lots of forethought involved. So he couldn't do it. He had too much time to think about what he would be doing.
When he was initially tasked with doing so, with the knife, with goading by Ben (and by his father), that seemed like the ideal time for an impulsive act if he was capable of it. But he wasn't.

Now I think he is still responsible for Cooper's death. He basically had him bound and caged with someone who would be able to kill with hot blooded anger. He provided the weapon. But he didn't prime it. He could have told Sawyer that Cooper was the man who conned his mother - but he didn't. But by not performing the act, by not telling Sawyer who Cooper was, Locke gives himself some wiggle room. He can now rationalize the event. He didn't kill Cooper, Sawyer did. And by golly, Sawyer even had a good reason to do it, and so on.
I don't think that's the way he thinks at all. He doesn't need any wiggle room or rationalization. He feels fully justified, as he said, "Because he had it coming. And because he ruined my life and he ruined your life."
100%
It’s clear at the end of season 4 that Ben is no longer a ‘villain’, but simply someone who is driven by complex emotions and causal relationships.
To me, it's more clear than ever at the end of season 4 that Ben is a villain. In a good story you should be able to sympathize with the villain on certain levels. But they're still the villain.

In the Season 4 finale, he offers to help Jack convince the rest of the Oceanic 6 to return to the Island. Generally speaking, that is ‘good’. Yet, we are aware that he is planning to kill Penny Widmore in retaliation for the loss of his daughter. Generally speaking, that is ‘bad’ (partly because of the popular, negative conceptions of revenge and partly because of our emotional attachment to Penny through Desmond).
Killing someone to purely make their family suffer is about as evil an act as a human being can conceive of, IMO. To me it is entirely implausible at this point that there is anything good in Ben's motivation to get the O6 back to the island. My guess as to his motivation would be that Penny is there.

Contrast that development and portrayal with the portrayal of someone I feel was intended to serve as a stock character that functioned only as “antagonist” and “opposition”; Keamy. We know very little of Keamy’s background and are only shown his violent and militaristic disposition. We learn that he is a mercenary, which furthers his characterization as a ‘bad person’. His only purpose is to cause harm and conflict. Very few viewers can sympathize with that.
Keamy was an awesome character. I'm sad he's gone. Though he became more 1-dimensional at the end, that was established as being attributed to the "sickness". When we first met him, he was resolving conflict and helping to calm down Desmond. So I never saw him as necessarily "evil" in the sense that Ben is -- we never knew him well enough to really know.

The same reason Luke couldn't kill his own father. Because he's his father and Locke is a man of compassion. He rationally knows it must be done, but to do the act with his own hands goes too much against his nature. Naomi was a stranger in the process of intentionally getting all the Losties killed. That one was a no-brainer.
100%


IMO you hit the nail right on the head with this.

Keamy was an awesome character. I'm sad he's gone. Though he became more 1-dimensional at the end, that was established as being attributed to the "sickness"..

I didn't see any sign of the sickness in Keamy, quite the contrary. What you took as 1-dimensional, I took as single-mindedness. He was a man with a mission.
And yes, he was an awesome character! The screen crackled with energy whenever he appeared.

I'm still undecided if Keamy had the "sickness", if it was a set-up for Danielle's story being told later down the line, or whether all mercenaries are just a little bit evil?

If Keamy did have "the sickness" then it seems very different to what Desmond experienced?

I didn't see any sign of the sickness in Keamy, quite the contrary. What you took as 1-dimensional, I took as single-mindedness. He was a man with a mission.

He went from a seemingly reasonable (as mercenaries go) man being paid to go capture Ben, to threatening to kill Gault with no reason to suspect him of anything, trying to kill Michael, and killing the doc, and of course rigging the freighter to blow up. That does in itself tell us it's the sickness, of course, but I don't think it gets clearer than this:

GAULT: Listen, Martin. While you were gone, there was some sort of a sickness.
KEAMY: Mm-hm.
GAULT: The crew--they've been exhibiting some very strange behavior. Regina threw herself overboard, for God's sake. Now I would be derelict in my duty if I didn't point out that this might be exactly what's happening to you.
KEAMY: I appreciate your concern. Give me your key.
GAULT: That's not the protocol--
(Asphixiates GAULT, slamming him against the wall and rips key from around his neck)
KEAMY: Thank you.



And yes, he was an awesome character! The screen crackled with energy whenever he appeared.Even when he just said, "What does it look like we're doing? We're shooting things." he had an incredibly real and intimidating presence about him.

I'm still undecides if Keamy had the "sickness", if it was a set-up for Danielle's story being told later down the line, or whether all mercenaries are just a little bit evil?

If Keamy did have "the sickness" then it seems very different to what Desmond experienced?

Yes, what Desmond and Minkowski (and the guy with Minkowski) experienced was definitely different I think. The behavior that Keamy exhibited seems like they type of behavior that Rouseau was intimating that the rest of her crew had; that is homicidal (and from what we've seen on the Kahana, suicidal) tendencies. I don't think Rouseau would have killed the father of her child just for having a bloody nose and not knowing where he was.

In fact, she pretty much indicated that she only killed him after he tried to kill her, not noticing that the firing pin had been removed from the rifle.

Well, I think that some of the wacky things that we've seen John do are the result of his naivete and desire to belong to a group and be special. However, I think that we have seen some scenes that are examples of John consciousness time travelling and doing certain situations over again. I'm not the best one to explain this theory and they're are other people on the Fuselage that believe this kind of wacky theory. Basically, I think that John (and other Losties) have learned how to consciousness time travel and go back in time, just like we've seen Desmond do and, in a way, Ben do - although I sometimes wonder if Ben physically goes back in time, not just his consciousness...

So, when John has gone back in time via consciousness time travelling, he's redoing things with a sort of unique kind of foresight. He's using information that's not available to everyone else in the stiuation. He knows what should be done to create a certain outcome and he's gone back to change them. One example of this idea is when he said to Jack, "You're not supposed to do this!" when he was calling the Freighties on the satellite phone. Another time is when he knows that it's going to rain right before it does. Another time is when he's in the submarine and seems to know where everything is...

The behavior that Keamy exhibited seems like they type of behavior that Rouseau was intimating that the rest of her crew had; that is homicidal (and from what we've seen on the Kahana, suicidal) tendencies. I don't think Rouseau would have killed the father of her child just for having a bloody nose and not knowing where he was.


You made a nice case, I'm not swayed :) but I do see your point.
I doubt we'll ever know for sure. I'm ok with the open-endedness of smaller issues like this one...

Locke is a man of compassion.

You might be right. But I think there is more to Mr. Locke than meets the eye. Real men of compassion are not compassionate some of the time.

I agree he at times shows us he is a very good man. But compassionate men don't kill strangers with a knife (which turned out to be pointless). They don't put grenades in people mouths and pull the pin out. They don't knock people out out for trying to find a radio tower. They don't blow up submarines and commication stations when people are trying to be rescued. So your premise that he killed Naomi because he cares about the Losties doesn't hold water, given his track record of undermining every possibility of them being rescued.

And the idea that Locke's motivation was to help Sawyer get on with his life is laughable. Did you really say that?

I think you might find that there is another reason why Locke didn't/couldn't kill his father.

I think you might find that there is another reason why Locke didn't kill his father.What do you think that it is, roger work man?

Although I love the character of Locke and love TOQ's performance, I thought that Locke's manipulation of Sawyer was horrible. Talk about finding out what someone's emotional hot buttons are and then pushing them...really hard! IMHO, that move was nasty, manipulative and very Ben-like. I actually think that it was worse than if he just killed Cooper himself...

that move was nasty, manipulative and very Ben-like.

It was orchestrated by Alpert, who imo is the sneakiest lowlife on the show.

It was orchestrated by Alpert, who imo is the sneakiest lowlife on the show.I agree, although it's ironic as Richard initially comes across as nice - with his big, brown, Maybelline eyes...

It was to Richard's benefit that Locke come back to Ben's camp with his dead father on his back...it helped Richard's "end", so to speak...and it only drew Locke deeper into his obsession...

What do you think that it is, roger work man?

I was afraid you would ask. Truth is...I don't know yet. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. How can someone be a pacifist one minute and kill so easily the next? Maybe Pythagoras is right (he usually is), but it doesn't quite add up to me.

Locke has been incredibly selfish in thwarting all their chances of getting rescued (see my prev post for examples). He even lied to Ben when he said "Jacob told us to move the island" - He didn't talk to Jacob, and there is no record that Christian told him to move the island. Christian just said save the island. But why wouldn't Locke tell Ben that Christian was speaking on behalf of Jacob, didn't he think that was relevant??? Especially when Jacob's last words were "Help me"

This I know for sure. Locke loves the Island, not the Losties.

Locke has been incredibly selfish in thwarting all their chances of getting rescued.

As it turns out, leaving the island ain't all its cracked up to be.

I thought that Locke's manipulation of Sawyer was horrible. Talk about finding out what someone's emotional hot buttons are and then pushing them...really hard! IMHO, that move was nasty, manipulative and very Ben-like. I actually think that it was worse than if he just killed Cooper himself...

I thought I remembered that Ben knew why Sawyer was in Australia. He used it against him on Alcatraz Island early in S3. That would have been in the file. So, Locke finds out what Cooper did to Sawyer's family and that Sawyer needs to kill him. Having Sawyer do it provides closure for both of them. Sawyer never shows any bitterness about it to Locke, and he becomes practically heroic in S4. Would he be that way if Locke had killed Cooper himself?

If Locke is looping, maybe he knew that he wasn't the one who should kill Cooper, but didn't know the reason (that Sawyer needed to kill him) until Alpert gave him the file.

More likely it was was the ostensible reason portrayed on-screen. Locke doubts himself and couldn't get over his personal daddy issues to kill Cooper. But he never doubts the island. And the island, through "taller ghost Walt", told him to kill Naomi (maybe not in so many words, but in effect.)

BTW, this discussion shows how deep the divide is between the Locke faction and other fans. No matter what happens between now and then, we will not lose faith in Locke until that last "LOST" pops up at the end of the S6 Finale. Probably not even then. :yes:

And to FringeBenefits' theory that started this string: Locke is not the villian. No. Never. Impossible. Please don't let that be true.

As it turns out, leaving the island ain't all its cracked up to be.



I thought I remembered that Ben knew why Sawyer was in Australia. He used it against him on Alcatraz Island early in S3. That would have been in the file. So, Locke finds out what Cooper did to Sawyer's family and that Sawyer needs to kill him. Having Sawyer do it provides closure for both of them. Sawyer never shows any bitterness about it to Locke, and he becomes practically heroic in S4. Would he be that way if Locke had killed Cooper himself?

If Locke is looping, maybe he knew that he wasn't the one who should kill Cooper, but didn't know the reason (that Sawyer needed to kill him) until Alpert gave him the file.

More likely it was was the ostensible reason portrayed on-screen. Locke doubts himself and couldn't get over his personal daddy issues to kill Cooper. But he never doubts the island. And the island, through "taller ghost Walt", told him to kill Naomi (maybe not in so many words, but in effect.)

BTW, this discussion shows how deep the divide is between the Locke faction and other fans. No matter what happens between now and then, we will not lose faith in Locke until that last "LOST" pops up at the end of the S6 Finale. Probably not even then. :yes:

And to FringeBenefits' theory that started this string: Locke is not the villian. No. Never. Impossible. Please don't let that be true.

Well, I do like to pick the least likely unusual suspects, Hugo and John:biggrin: and maybe as a tag team. What originally got me to thinking about Locke being the bad guy was a statement suppossedly made by TOQ, "he didn't like where his character was going" I can't recall where I read it or even if it's true, it just got me to thinking. Besides, TOQ is so good as the bad guy, remember how sweet he was in: The Stepfather"?

What originally got me to thinking about Locke being the bad guy was a statement suppossedly made by TOQ, "he didn't like where his character was going" I can't recall where I read it or even if it's true, it just got me to thinking.

I remember that in S2, TOQ said he didn't like Locke being stuck in the hatch, that he wanted to him to be out in the wilderness, hunting and going on A-missions.

I haven't heard anything since, but if you heard something new, I'll concede that he would have a valid gripe about where his character is going, since he ended up in a coffin. :)

Judging from this thread and using some of my own thoughts, I've come to agree with most of you when it comes to Locke. On one hand, he has been conned his entire life and when he got to the island, he finally found a place where he was accepted and regarded as someone special. It's clear that he wants to stay on the island and protect it's people at whatever cost. I've felt this way up until we finally meet Ben and the Other's and Locke starts to assimilate into their group.

Ever since Ben, and more importantly Richard, I have noticed Locke reverting back to his old self that constantly believes whatever someone tells him. I know that with the information we've been given that Richard chooses the new leader on the island, and that he's been watching Locke since he's been born. I believe that Richard has nothing but his own interests in mind, or that of Jacob's,and that they have nothing to do with John Locke. Like someone mentioned before, John Locke is a "tragic hero" that in the end will be tricked for one final time. I believe we'll come to find out that Richard is the precursor to the real endgame in all of this and will do away with Locke, possibly in the scene at the end of season 4.

Wow this is pretty much the exact same thing JunieBun and LostMio said earlier, so sorry about that.

Judging from this thread and using some of my own thoughts, I've come to agree with most of you when it comes to Locke. On one hand, he has been conned his entire life and when he got to the island, he finally found a place where he was accepted and regarded as someone special. It's clear that he wants to stay on the island and protect it's people at whatever cost. I've felt this way up until we finally meet Ben and the Other's and Locke starts to assimilate into their group.

Ever since Ben, and more importantly Richard, I have noticed Locke reverting back to his old self that constantly believes whatever someone tells him. I know that with the information we've been given that Richard chooses the new leader on the island, and that he's been watching Locke since he's been born. I believe that Richard has nothing but his own interests in mind, or that of Jacob's,and that they have nothing to do with John Locke. Like someone mentioned before, John Locke is a "tragic hero" that in the end will be tricked for one final time. I believe we'll come to find out that Richard is the precursor to the real endgame in all of this and will do away with Locke, possibly in the scene at the end of season 4.

Wow this is pretty much the exact same thing JunieBun and LostMio said earlier, so sorry about that.

Your post made me think and I hope its not true, that Richard could possibly just be p*ssed off at being looked over for the leader position. I certainly hope that is not his motivation. I agree he is smarmy.

There is definitely more to Richard than meets the eye. We know that he chooses who the next island leader is and has been on said island for decades. We also know that he can travel to and from the island and has been watching Locke for a very long time. We've also seen that he became very impatient with Ben's pregnancy obsession and felt that his time as Other leader needed to come to an end. He is the only Other that has the same influence as Ben (travelling off-island, persuasive tendancies) and we also have theorized that he is immortal. Just a few things that lend itself to the discussion we've been having about Richards true role on the show.

All this talk about Richard...remember the episode 'The Man Behind the Curtain'? It was all about Ben. Richard was in two scenes with Ben in this epi: when Ben was a boy chasing his mother and after the gassing. To me, that episode was not about Ben being the man behind the curtain, it is RIchard who is behind everything. Richard does not seem to care about the illusion of power, he gives that to Ben, he cares about his island and his people and if he has to seem like the second in command, no biggie.

As for Locke, he is a flawed hero. He can be gullible, naive, too trusting, not trusting enough, wanting, lonely, intelligent. All in all, despite his very human mistakes, he does have the best interest of the others in his heart.

He killed Naomi-she bought bad people with her
He moved the island-the freighties were supposed to blow it up
He had Sawyer kill Cooper-his faith was strong enough for him to know that he had to join with the Others, but he still wants that family, he also has Sawyers file and knows that he has already killed.

The only thing that Locke as done wrong, imo, is involve Sawyer, but I don't think that is evidence for him being a double agent.

All this talk about Richard...remember the episode 'The Man Behind the Curtain'? It was all about Ben. Richard was in two scenes with Ben in this epi: when Ben was a boy chasing his mother and after the gassing. To me, that episode was not about Ben being the man behind the curtain, it is RIchard who is behind everything. Richard does not seem to care about the illusion of power, he gives that to Ben, he cares about his island and his people and if he has to seem like the second in command, no biggie.

As for Locke, he is a flawed hero. He can be gullible, naive, too trusting, not trusting enough, wanting, lonely, intelligent. All in all, despite his very human mistakes, he does have the best interest of the others in his heart.

He killed Naomi-she bought bad people with her
He moved the island-the freighties were supposed to blow it up
He had Sawyer kill Cooper-his faith was strong enough for him to know that he had to join with the Others, but he still wants that family, he also has Sawyers file and knows that he has already killed.

The only thing that Locke as done wrong, imo, is involve Sawyer, but I don't think that is evidence for him being a double agent.

If John could manipulate someone else to do his dirty work then that says volumns about his character. Murder is all over the world now under the guise of FAITH. So Locke knew that Naomi brought the bad guys because Walt told him? Why do we trust Walt? John is gullible. For sure not everything in LOST is as it seems :eek2:

If John could manipulate someone else to do his dirty work then that says volumns about his character. Murder is all over the world now under the guise of FAITH. So Locke knew that Naomi brought the bad guys because Walt told him? Why do we trust Walt? John is gullible. For sure not everything in LOST is as it seems :eek2:

I agree John is gullible. To me, that does not change the fact that his actions are based on having faith in the island. He trusted in what Walt told him about the freighties and...John was right, they were going to blow the island. He had faith that the button must be pushed and he was right. He has faith that the island will provide him with vision and instruction and he saved Eko from the polar bear. He is gullible, but most of what he has had faith in has turned out to be right.

Locke is flawed and getting Sawyer to kill Cooper was a nasty bit of work. However, it had to be that way. Remember when Alpert visited Locke as a boy and had him pick out three items. Richard was very excited until John chose the knife. Locke was not ready for the island at that point because he still had the warrior lust. Locke is not supposed to be the killer. It is not his destiny to. Richard made that clear.

I agree John is gullible. To me, that does not change the fact that his actions are based on having faith in the island. He trusted in what Walt told him about the freighties and...John was right, they were going to blow the island. He had faith that the button must be pushed and he was right. He has faith that the island will provide him with vision and instruction and he saved Eko from the polar bear. He is gullible, but most of what he has had faith in has turned out to be right.

Locke is flawed and getting Sawyer to kill Cooper was a nasty bit of work. However, it had to be that way. Remember when Alpert visited Locke as a boy and had him pick out three items. Richard was very excited until John chose the knife. Locke was not ready for the island at that point because he still had the warrior lust. Locke is not supposed to be the killer. It is not his destiny to. Richard made that clear.

Let me preface this by saying we are discussing the character but not neccesarily the way the show is going or not going. The message in LOST, to me, is the opposite of what Johns character is doing, so far, not knowing the finale. John is a killer, did John change his own destiny, for the worse? Johns motivation was not faith, it was a lack of faith in himself. John turned out to be right after the fact not before. In the simplist terms its like the 'worst kind of a------, thinks he knows everything and is sometimes right' Doing the wrong thing for the right reason, people through history have done the wrong things because someone told them to do it. We have no idea yet what Walt told John and how John understood it, all we can do is think Walt told him a good thing but how good is it if John has to kill? The only acceptable explanation might be that John was doing it for the greater good, to save mankind, then you have to wonder about that. :biggrin:

Johns motivation was not faith, it was a lack of faith in himself. John turned out to be right after the fact not before.

Being right after the fact is the hallmark of faith. Take religion...do any of us have proof in religion?No, it takes faith. You find if you were right after having faith in it. If John was right before the fact, he would be a man of science. To trust in the outcome, but only know if you were right after all is said and done requires faith.

Being right after the fact is the hallmark of faith. Take religion...do any of us have proof in religion?No, it takes faith. You find if you were right after having faith in it. If John was right before the fact, he would be a man of science. To trust in the outcome, but only know if you were right after all is said and done requires faith.


Is it still faith if things turn out wrong? Or is it science? Which way something turns out has nothing to do with faith. Your examples are like Monday morning quarterbacking. Faith does not change anything but it may change the way you think and not always for the best. Belief in the outcome has driven many people to do the wrong thing, in the name of faith. If John was right before the outcome he wouldn't need faith or science. Faith can't be used as an excuse. Belief is an individual thing. I have faith that I will win the $1million lottery, if I never win, what is that called? Unlucky? Luck has nothing to do with it. What I believe has nothing to do with anything, it's just my belief. What John WANTS to believe is what is driving him, not faith but the way he thinks. He is skewed!:biggrin: What will be will be

Is it still faith if things turn out wrong? Or is it science? Which way something turns out has nothing to do with faith. Your examples are like Monday morning quarterbacking. Faith does not change anything but it may change the way you think and not always for the best.

Changing the way we think may change the way we experience the world and even our behaviors.

Is it still faith if things turn out wrong? Or is it science? Which way something turns out has nothing to do with faith. Your examples are like Monday morning quarterbacking.

It does if the results are predicted accurately ahead of time. If a handicapper gave you the winning teams 10 weeks in a row, wouldn't you start having faith in his ability to pick games? Same thing for the island curing Locke's paralysis, leading Locke to the Beechcraft, to Eko, to the Flame, to the cabin, giving him a way to kill Cooper. The visions, dreams and voices. Why would Locke not have faith?

Faith does not change anything but it may change the way you think and not always for the best. Belief in the outcome has driven many people to do the wrong thing, in the name of faith.

Maybe so, but more often than not, faith changes people for the better and makes them do the right thing. Should all antibiotics be banned because some people are allergic to penicillin? Should you discredit all faith just because it can be exploited by unscrupulous people?

Self-interested, unethical people will grasp at any pretext to take advantage of others, including playing on people's faith. That faith could be in religion, nationalism, race, gender, social or economic strata, etc, any belief systems or ideal that one ascribes to. That abuse doesn't invalidate faith itself, it just shows there are risks in putting one's faith in someone or something. Of course, if you don't believe in any higher power, then all faith is misplaced.

If John was right before the outcome he wouldn't need faith or science. Faith can't be used as an excuse. Belief is an individual thing. I have faith that I will win the $1million lottery, if I never win, what is that called? Unlucky? Luck has nothing to do with it. What I believe has nothing to do with anything, it's just my belief. What John WANTS to believe is what is driving him, not faith but the way he thinks. He is skewed!:biggrin: What will be will be

Faith isn't wishing. If you have "faith" in winning the lottery, what is it you have faith in? That the statistics will fall your way? That some higher power will turn things your way at the expense of everyone else that also bought tickets? That, based on no particular reason or previous experience, you are "special" relative to those other entrants? That's not faith, that's just ignorance.

Faith is not wishing for a particular outcome. It is a belief in a higher power, destiny, purpose and a trust that the power's purpose is a worthy one. For a person to believe in that power, the power does not have to be divine but it does have to knowledge and abilities that the person lacks. Locke doesn't know the island's ultimate purpose, but given his experiences with the island, he trusts that the purpose is worth signing up for. There is also a sense of mutual responsibility. Locke feels that the island needs him to act in order to achieve certain results, so Locke needs to have faith to act, or his faith is for naught.

I suppose that Locke could be mistaken about being guided by an external power. Maybe some internal ability is allowing him to find what he seeks each time he looks for answers. However, Locke seems to act decisively when he is ostensibly being led, but equivocates when he is not. If Locke was being led "by the way he thinks", why would he vacillate so much between actions? That to me strongly suggests to me that he is being led by an outside force.

If so, then the question is still open as to whether power guiding Locke, is good, bad, or neither. Whatever is guiding him could be manipulating him down a wrong path. Either way, I think that Locke sincerely believes in the island and that is he is being directed in his actions.

I suppose that Locke could be mistaken about being guided by an external power. Maybe some internal ability is allowing him to find what he seeks each time he looks for answers. However, Locke seems to act decisively when he is ostensibly being led, but equivocates when he is not.

Is it possible that his sense of "being led" is misplaced? Perhaps he's being led by his subconscious mind and attributing that to "the Island", and hence his unflinching faith. Whereas he doesn't trust his conscious, rational mind, so he equivocates?

The message in LOST, to me, is the opposite of what Johns character is doing, so far, not knowing the finale. John is a killer, did John change his own destiny, for the worse? Johns motivation was not faith, it was a lack of faith in himself. John turned out to be right after the fact not before. In the simplist terms its like the 'worst kind of a------, thinks he knows everything and is sometimes right'.
That's certainly Jack's point of view, given he pointed a gun in Locke's face and pulled the trigger. Rose agreed. Yet Sawyer, Hurley, Claire were still willing to follow Locke. To me, the message is that where faith is concerned, those without faith see it the way you do. In Hurley and Claire's case, it was faith in Charlie, not in Locke, that motivated them to follow Locke.

Doing the wrong thing for the right reason, people through history have done the wrong things because someone told them to do it.
Yet people throughout history have also, because of uncertainty, failed to act to do the right thing. Is it worse to act and be wrong or to not act and be wrong? Jack was wrong to make call, Locke may have been wrong to shoot Naomi. Was Locke's action a bigger mistake than Jack because it was more extreme? Who did the most damage in the long run?

People make decisions based on imcomplete information and probabilities all the time. And even if the decision was a rational one based on that information, if the decision is remarkable (shooting someone) versus mundane (making a phone call), it is scrutinized far more carefully, and rightly so.

But we don't know what would have happened if Locke had not shot Naomi. Sure the freightees still came anyway, but maybe more Losties would have died if Naomi lived. Maybe, for example, the controversy over the shooting was needed to divide the Losties into camps in order to scoop up the freightee 4 before they could guide in Keamy's squad. We don't know if Locke's action was right or wrong, because the results we see were mixed and the alternative unknown. We do know that Jack's decision was absolutely wrong, but because his action was mundane (making a phone call), the tendency is to excuse it.

We have no idea yet what Walt told John and how John understood it, all we can do is think Walt told him a good thing but how good is it if John has to kill? The only acceptable explanation might be that John was doing it for the greater good, to save mankind, then you have to wonder about that. :biggrin:
If you had a choice of killing one person to save 40, would you do it? How about if killing one person gave a 50% chance of the 40 surviving? How about 10%? What if you only suspected, or were told, that it might save them? Where do you draw the line? At what point does killing that one person become a moral imperative? Obviously Locke thought he was across that line, right or wrong.
100%
Is it possible that his sense of "being led" is misplaced? Perhaps he's being led by his subconscious mind and attributing that to "the Island", and hence his unflinching faith. Whereas he doesn't trust his conscious, rational mind, so he equivocates?
That's certainly possible, as dreams are how the subconscious speaks to us. It would seem to John as if he was being led. And since for John the subconscious bleed-through seems to be associated with moments when he takes definitive action, his self-doubt is worse in passive periods when there are no actions to remember.

Still, if it is memory, what caused him to do things the first time around? I would love to see that sequence of events.

But we don't know what would have happened if Locke had not shot Naomi.
He threw a knife, but the point was that there had to be some way to make her appear to bleed and run away, both to satisfy their sense of humor (two literal blood lines) and to give the Freighties a reason to think she was in distress. I Locke hadn't done it, someone else would've had to -- and who else could plausibly have done so if not Locke? Maybe Bakunin could've snuck up.

[Locke] has faith that the island will provide him with vision and instruction and he saved Eko from the polar bear.
But did you notice that in that same episode, Juliet's placards proposed to Jack via video that they kill Benry, and that it be made to look like an accident, to look as if they were trying to save his life? And also in the same episode, Locke was arranging a "hunting accident", whereby he would do just that with Eddie? "Checkmate, Mr. Eko", indeed!

Robert

That's certainly Jack's point of view, given he pointed a gun in Locke's face and pulled the trigger. Rose agreed. Yet Sawyer, Hurley, Claire were still willing to follow Locke. To me, the message is that where faith is concerned, those without faith see it the way you do. In Hurley and Claire's case, it was faith in Charlie, not in Locke, that motivated them to follow Locke.


Yet people throughout history have also, because of uncertainty, failed to act to do the right thing. Is it worse to act and be wrong or to not act and be wrong? Jack was wrong to make call, Locke may have been wrong to shoot Naomi. Was Locke's action a bigger mistake than Jack because it was more extreme? Who did the most damage in the long run?

People make decisions based on imcomplete information and probabilities all the time. And even if the decision was a rational one based on that information, if the decision is remarkable (shooting someone) versus mundane (making a phone call), it is scrutinized far more carefully, and rightly so.

But we don't know what would have happened if Locke had not shot Naomi. Sure the freightees still came anyway, but maybe more Losties would have died if Naomi lived. Maybe, for example, the controversy over the shooting was needed to divide the Losties into camps in order to scoop up the freightee 4 before they could guide in Keamy's squad. We don't know if Locke's action was right or wrong, because the results we see were mixed and the alternative unknown. We do know that Jack's decision was absolutely wrong, but because his action was mundane (making a phone call), the tendency is to excuse it.


If you had a choice of killing one person to save 40, would you do it? How about if killing one person gave a 50% chance of the 40 surviving? How about 10%? What if you only suspected, or were told, that it might save them? Where do you draw the line? At what point does killing that one person become a moral imperative? Obviously Locke thought he was across that line, right or wrong.
100%

That's certainly possible, as dreams are how the subconscious speaks to us. It would seem to John as if he was being led. And since for John the subconscious bleed-through seems to be associated with moments when he takes definitive action, his self-doubt is worse in passive periods when there are no actions to remember.

Still, if it is memory, what caused him to do things the first time around? I would love to see that sequence of events.


Faith is not bad. Johns faith is not leading John, John is leading his faith. John is so damaged that he thinks he is doing the right thing because he wants to think that. Killing for the greater good is not Johns motivation. Jack did what he did for the greater good, Jack had faith and it led him to the right place for the right reasons. Only AFTER did Jack start questioning his choices. Jack was right to make the call, John was wrong. Belief without proof. John had proof when Walt talked to him, so John had faith in Walt and why was that? Where does faith draw the line? Was Johns faith in God or in Walt? did John think God was talking through Walt? All things being equal, who is the guilty-ist? Human nature will never change even when you have second chances.