Web TheFuselage.com

View Full Version : Is 3 years long enough to forget about somebody


Cocophone
03-05-2009, 02:33 PM
Does anybody have a transcript of the conversation between Horace and Sawyer when Horace was talking about the fight with is wife.

I could have sworn that Horace was surprised that his wife had forgotten about and moved on from Paul.

I thought Horace said something like "its only been a little while since Paul was killed..... how could Paul be forgotten about."

lostspacemonkey
03-05-2009, 02:46 PM
Horace: (Holding the ankh-necklace) I found this in the back of her drawer, it was Paul's.
Sawyer: You got into a fight over a necklace?
Horace: I know. But, it's only been three years, Jim. Just three years that he's been gone. Is that really long enough to get over someone?
Sawyer: I had a thing for a girl once...

one
03-05-2009, 03:07 PM
Horace: (Holding the ankh-necklace) I found this in the back of her drawer, it was Paul's.
Sawyer: You got into a fight over a necklace?
Horace: I know. But, it's only been three years, Jim. Just three years that he's been gone. Is that really long enough to get over someone?
Sawyer: I had a thing for a girl once...Horace is Jack, Amy is Kate, and Paul is Sawyer.

Amy's hidden necklace, is paralleled with Kate's hidden promise.

Sawyer trying to say, 'Absolutely!' with conviction, to the question 'is three years enough time to get over someone?' and failing, proved one of his biggest cons will have been on himself.

Cocophone
03-05-2009, 03:36 PM
Horace: (Holding the ankh-necklace) I found this in the back of her drawer, it was Paul's.
Sawyer: You got into a fight over a necklace?
Horace: I know. But, it's only been three years, Jim. Just three years that he's been gone. Is that really long enough to get over someone?
Sawyer: I had a thing for a girl once...

That's what I remember. So, I'm thinking it was Horace that was upset that Amy had gotten over Paul and NOT that she still had feelings for Paul.

beema
03-05-2009, 03:41 PM
That's what I remember. So, I'm thinking it was Horace that was upset that Amy had gotten over Paul and NOT that she still had feelings for Paul.

No, Horace was unsure of whether she was over Paul or not. Finding a possession of Paul's hidden away from him by Amy led him to wonder if she was truly over him after only three years.

In Sawyers case, I should hope three years would be enough for him to get over Kate, considering they were only with eachother for a few weeks at most.

Andromeda Irulan
03-05-2009, 03:42 PM
That's what I remember. So, I'm thinking it was Horace that was upset that Amy had gotten over Paul and NOT that she still had feelings for Paul.

Then why would he get angry about finding the ankh? If he was upset that she had gotten over Paul, then wouldn't he be angry that he couldn't find the ankh? Finding it, in this case, would have assuaged his feelings, not intensified them.

No, he's upset that she hasn't gotten over him.

KNJ
03-05-2009, 03:44 PM
Umm well the thing is Amy was probably married to Paul longer than three months.
Sawyer was with Kate for three months, she treated him like crap, used him because she was jealous of Jack and Juliet, and even though she admitted to Jack that he's alive she refuses to go back for him even though he may die. James has been with Juliet for three years in a healthy loving relationship. Why is he supposed to be falling over himself for Kate again? Sorry, but I don't get it.

Bella
03-05-2009, 03:54 PM
I honestly don't believe that TPTB would use Horace (a character we've already met and who clearly has importance in the history of the DI) to further the agenda of a ship. It's just so silly. Whatever the case with Horace/Amy/Paul, I believe their relevance is not in relation to the triangle/quadrangle.

1DocLover
03-05-2009, 04:03 PM
I honestly don't believe that TPTB would use Horace (a character we've already met and who clearly has importance in the history of the DI) to further the agenda of a ship. It's just so silly. Whatever the case with Horace/Amy/Paul, I believe their relevance is not in relation to the triangle/quadrangle.

There is no more triangle. :biggrin: Sawyer is in love with Juliet and the fact that it's still being discussed is funny. He is happy with her. Did no-one else see the huge change in him since he's been with Juliet? He's moved on.**edited** If you remember the conversation with Horace, then let's hope you remember the exhchange of ILY's between Sawyer and Juliet who are living together. :kiss: And not to mention, that Kate and Sawyer had NO commitment to one another. Three years...........yep, he's clearly moved on. And what is so wrong with Juliet that everyone is soooo quick to simply dismiss it?? If you really like Sawyer, you would be happy for him.**edited**

And just about EVERY review I've read today is happy he's with Juliet and also the good way she has helped him change!!

maxaholic
03-05-2009, 04:07 PM
my god, yes. it would be about time that he'd get over her. he has a beautiful woman to keep him company, not to mention he loves her. i think he was kidding himself that he's forgotten her face, but yes, i think it is healthy to be over someone after 3 years. if not, maybe a trip to the therapist is in order!

**edited**

JHM
03-05-2009, 04:10 PM
There is no more triangle. :biggrin: Sawyer is in love with Juliet and the fact that it's still being discussed is funny. He is happy with her. Did no-one else see the huge change in him since he's been with Juliet? He's moved on. **edited** If you remember the conversation with Horace, then let's hope you remember the exhchange of ILY's between Sawyer and Juliet who are living together. :kiss: And not to mention, that Kate and Sawyer had NO commitment to one another. **edited** And what is so wrong with Juliet that everyone is soooo quick to simply dismiss it?? If you really like Sawyer, you would be happy for him. **edited**

And just about EVERY review I've read today is happy he's with Juliet and also the good way she has helped him change!!

First of all let me say that I like Juliet and Sawyer together. But if he was COMPLETELY over Kate, he would have told Juliet where he was going when Jin called him...

Bella
03-05-2009, 04:17 PM
First of all let me say that I like Juliet and Sawyer together. But if he was COMPLETELY over Kate, he would have told Juliet where he was going when Jin called him...

This theory holds no water.

1) We don't know for a fact that Jin relayed all the information during the phone call; perhaps he simply said there was an urgent matter that Sawyer needed to see.

2) Has anyone considered that maybe Sawyer was concerned about Juliet's reunion with Jack?

:rolleyes:

LostMyMarbles
03-05-2009, 08:19 PM
If Sawyer weren't self-destructive, of course he would stay with the awesome Juliet.

But he's still Sawyer, and this is LOST. Not telling Juliet what was going on--and leaving without her--was his first breach of trust. Things will get worse.

I don't understand Kate's mystical power to addle men's brains. That woman is just bad news--for everybody who has the misfortune of coming into contact with her.

And I used to be a Skater.

Pauly
03-05-2009, 10:59 PM
It would be funny if Sawyer and Juliet end up together and Jack and Kate the original ship of the show end up alone.

Bella
03-05-2009, 11:21 PM
It would be funny if Sawyer and Juliet end up together and Jack and Kate the original ship of the show end up alone.

LOL... that would suck.

GettinLost
03-05-2009, 11:40 PM
It depends on the person.

Some people can move on in their lives quicker than others. Some it takes much longer.

It depends on the circumstances.

Sometimes it's just right person, wrong time or vice versa.

Sawyer hasn't stopped loving Kate. It's just that she's not around for him to "love". It could also be he is still in love with the idea of her. He's held onto it for 3 years. He thinks he's almost past it - but he's not.

Pythagoras99
03-05-2009, 11:53 PM
No, he's upset that she hasn't gotten over him.

This is far from an untypical situation. He's not angry that she hasn't gotten over him. He's angry that she's pretending to be over him when she's not. He's angry that she's hiding things. He wants her to be over him obviously, but he's saying, how could she possibly be.

When someone you love deeply is gone a long time it is also very typical to not be able to picture their face. You can maybe picture their brother or sister or friends, but not them. I've heard many instances of this. I believe the reason is because when you look at them you are not looking at their physical features, but at their soul.

When it's that kind of love, convince yourself whatever you like.. form whatever kind of close bond with whomever you like... three years is a flash in the pan. 20 years is a flash in the pan. That kind of love is a natural time traveler.

TRoss
03-06-2009, 12:57 AM
Horace is Jack, Amy is Kate, and Paul is Sawyer.

Amy's hidden necklace, is paralleled with Kate's hidden promise.

I agree. They dropped Sawyer's character in a situation that paralleled his own. And if that isn't clear throughout the show, the end was a dead giveaway. Shortly after Sawyer assures Horace not to worry, three years is enough time to get over someone, we see Sawyer's face when he sees Kate again for the first time, and it's obvious that wasn't true. Foreshadowing. Dramatic irony. It was definitely intended to be a parallel.



When someone you love deeply is gone a long time it is also very typical to not be able to picture their face. You can maybe picture their brother or sister or friends, but not them. I've heard many instances of this. I believe the reason is because when you look at them you are not looking at their physical features, but at their soul.

Well now, that was beautiful.

maxaholic
03-06-2009, 09:46 AM
This is far from an untypical situation. He's not angry that she hasn't gotten over him. He's angry that she's pretending to be over him when she's not. He's angry that she's hiding things. He wants her to be over him obviously, but he's saying, how could she possibly be.




i'm sorry, i have to ask. please, tell me where you're getting all this information.

Cocophone
03-06-2009, 10:20 AM
Maybe Horace is angry because she did get over Paul and that means that she would get over Horace that quickly too. Its a blow to Horace's ego.

maxaholic
03-06-2009, 10:31 AM
but when someone dies, like paul did, it's a different type of "getting over". just breaking up with someone is totally different that losing someone in death. she should love paul for the rest of her life. i have a friend who's husband died in the gulf war. she never remarried since she had three children to care for and bring up, but she did have boyfriends. to this day, almost 18 years later, she still talks of him fondly and with love. i know having children keeps her husband alive in some ways, but i think losing someone to death and breaking up with someone is so very different. really, horace needs to get a grip. it's a necklace!