Rewatching S3E20 I noticed a book that might indicate a time paradox.

During the Dharma Classroom scene, back in the 70s, when there's a close shot of a redhaired girl (clearly Charlotte I think we all know that already), we can see a book: The Coalwood Way by Homer H. Hickam.
Now this real life book has been published - as far as I know - in 2000. Actually is not a mistery anymore that people went back to the Dharma Golden Era, but could it mean something else? That someone brought the book or that maybe in the 70s the Dharma people already knew time travel?

Note also that the novel's main character is called Ginger, which appears to be the nick that Sawyer gives to Charlotte in S5E1. I think we should never stop pointing out the intriguing way by which Lost gives its information..

Well if I've said it once, and I did, if you wanna know when you are - check when the books were published.

LOL! like that works now if you're right. :biggrin: My seasons 3 & 4 returned to be this very day. I shall enjoy going through the classroom on slo mo looking to see what else catches the eye.

Hey Liplocked, I'm already digging that scene out as well.
As I far as I went, I've came out with a book from 1975 and a book from 1978. Now these dates seem fair to the plot, hence the year 2000 book grows even more ominous..

There are other anachronisms to note...

The Black Rock contains dynamite that wasn't invented until 1866, yet when Widmore buys the ledger, the auctioneer says that the BR was lost in 1845.

The 1957 Buddy Holly song playing before Locke's birth in 1956.

Either there are two similar planet Earths, slightly different in terms of when and what was invented, published, etc. Geronimo Jackson and Appolo bars exist in one world but not the other.... Or artifacts have traveled through time with time travelers, or neither or both.

Yeah that dynamite always bothered me; 'cept I got hung up on the font style of the stencil used on the box. :biggrin: ~ Really.

There are other anachronisms to note...

The Black Rock contains dynamite that wasn't invented until 1866, yet when Widmore buys the ledger, the auctioneer says that the BR was lost in 1845.

The 1957 Buddy Holly song playing before Locke's birth in 1956.

Either there are two similar planet Earths, slightly different in terms of when and what was invented, published, etc. Geronimo Jackson and Appolo bars exist in one world but not the other.... Or artifacts have traveled through time with time travelers, or neither or both.
We have time traveling involved so someone from the future could have put the dynamite in the Black Rock.
Yeah that dynamite always bothered me; 'cept I got hung up on the font style of the stencil used on the box. :biggrin: ~ Really.
You never know this might still come in useful. ;)

Wow!
That's got to be important! And I didn't know about the ginger girl, Im gonna watch it again...


You know what, looking through this kind of scenarios you can get a lot of answers.


There is another thing that has been bothering me ever since:
If you take a deep look on Harper Stanhope's office and furniture, you can realize there are really old stuff, like not according to the 2001 year.
She even has black and white pictures!
Is she "really old" like Richard?

What about those super new washer and dryer back in The Swan? They certainly hadn't been there since the 70's, or even the 80's for that matter. Those things were nice! Continuity error, or time traveling appliances?!?! :eek2:

Kind of reminds me of a Cecila Ahern book called 'A place called here'. Basically, this woman goes for a run one day and ends up in an alternative world where everything that is lost ends up. Single socks, people, books, luggage.....

Hmmmm. ;)

Rewatching S3E20 I noticed a book that might indicate a time paradox.

During the Dharma Classroom scene, back in the 70s, when there's a close shot of a redhaired girl (clearly Charlotte I think we all know that already), we can see a book: The Coalwood Way by Homer H. Hickam.
Now this real life book has been published - as far as I know - in 2000.
Great catch! It's a sequel to Rocket Boys (retitled October Sky after its movie adapt'n), and its author sometimes posts on Usenet group rec.pyrotechnics. I've read Rocket Boys (and seen the movie), but not the sequels, but from Mr. Hickam's a good enough writer that it'd be hard to imagine the latter as boring.

Actually is not a mistery anymore that people went back to the Dharma Golden Era, but could it mean something else? That someone brought the book or that maybe in the 70s the Dharma people already knew time travel?
It means the same that all the other anachronisms in the show mean: that the chronology is all fake. A book published in 2000 showed up a scene because that scene took place no earlier than that, no matter what year the characters of Lost pretend to be living in.

Robert in the Bronx

It means the same that all the other anachronisms in the show mean: that the chronology is all fake. A book published in 2000 showed up a scene because that scene took place no earlier than that, no matter what year the characters of Lost pretend to be living in.

Robert in the Bronx

Robert, so there seems to have been lots of anachronysm on the show so far right? I've seen other posts here as well (dynamite etc). So you think that it's a kind of constant 'easter-egging' that we should not consider when trying to sort out the 'mysteries' of the show? Did I got it right?

By the way, I'm going against myself now, because after 'LAFleur' epi I've made up my mind again about Charlotte. Are we sure that the redhaired girl in the DharmaClass is Charlotte? I mean that would make here the same age as Ben? Possible?
And again..
- In S4 Ben tells Charlotte that she was born in 1979 and she kind of nods
- If Charlotte is really 1979er, the Dharmaclass would be set around 1988, that would be impossibile because in the class Ben's a child
- In LaFleur we see a redhaired 3/4-yo girl in 1974 and we are brought to think she's Charlotte

..So.. something's messed up and for once I don't think is our beloved bug-blueyed villain telling lies..

Robert, so there seems to have been lots of anachronysm on the show so far right? I've seen other posts here as well (dynamite etc). So you think that it's a kind of constant 'easter-egging' that we should not consider when trying to sort out the 'mysteries' of the show? Did I got it right?
No, quite the reverse. The anachronisms are clues as to when things are really happening. I believe all the action of Lost took place within a much shorter time than it seemed, and that the makers of Lost, the characters, and even the intertitles & subtitles lie about the chronology.

So the present example means the Dharma scene took place no earlier than 2000, as I'd already deduced. Young Ben is a different person from older Benry, just pretending to be the same person. Richard Alpert seems about the same age because he is.

Robert in the Bronx

Originally Posted by Jangras
Robert, so there seems to have been lots of anachronysm on the show so far right? I've seen other posts here as well (dynamite etc). So you think that it's a kind of constant 'easter-egging' that we should not consider when trying to sort out the 'mysteries' of the show? Did I got it right?

Dr. Suds
No, quite the reverse.

..LOL, great of me :biggrin:..

Wow you have a very unique theory, Suds, never heard about that. I'm afraid that would be too much for the show, I mean getting to reveal that everything that happens it's pretty much set in contemporary years.. But I never thought about that option before..