As an avid lost fan who watches and re watches episodes..not only for easter eggs but for the pure enjoyment of the show.:kiss: I am 39 years old and can't ever remember being this addicted to a TV show.:) :frown: I was GREATLY DISTRESSED AT WHAT I SAW ON THE TV LAST NIGHT. :frown: There have been times when I was frustrated with where we were on the show and I wanted questions answered faster than they were given to us, but I lived with it...lol :undecide:

We are looking at Locke on day 50 telling Jack "WHO ARE WE TO TELL ANYONE WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO"

And then Locke, day 51-53, I would think following the normal time line of the show, beating up on Charlie. Not letting Charlie follow his TEST!!!!

WHO ELECTED HIM JUDGE ...JUROR...AND EXECUTIONER??????????

JMO..but everything you have given us on John Locke and his belief in the island and how he is preaching about being tested. All the times Locke has stated to Jack, we are here for a reason, and all the other times you have had John Locke show us that he is a man of faith and there is a reason for everything. YOU DESTROYED THAT CHARACTER.....WHY WHY WHY??????????

All I can see now is Divide and Conquer....The camp will now be split...

As much as I love this show...I can truthfully say that Fire + Water was the ONLY episdoe I trully did NOT like at all (I doubt that ya'll will care about that, and since this is my first post here, but I really had to tell you my feelings)
Why did you NOT let Charlie finish his test...and why did LOCKE keep the crap?????? I trully believe Charlie was going to destroy it, and Locke wouldnt' let him..again...WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR MAN OF FAITH????????

Now what bothers me...if you are setting up Locke to be this person now...HE IS THE ONLY PERSON who has the combination to the safe..and the guns

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND??????? If he is now the judge and jury...

You took Locke and turned him into a lying, conniving, hypocrite!!!! :confused: :hypocrit:

Wow... that is quite over the top, eh?

If I were in that situation, I probably would have reacted exactly like Locke did. Despite the fact that WE know (as an audience) that Charlie was sincerely doing what he thought was best and wasn't using again, I can't imagine that anyone else would think too well of the way Charlie was acting, especially considering (a) Charlie's non-stop lies, (b) repeatedly taking the baby against Clare's wishes, and (c) him consistently aproaching Clare despite her asking him to leave her alone.

He isn't a hipocrite. Michael left because he wanted to, so going after him is much different than protecting Clare (which essentially asked for, and Charlie makes necessary by the way he acts)...

Yeah, WE know the dreams, flashbacks and situations that prompt Charlie to do what he does... but Locke does NOT. And sorry, but Charlie was stashing those statues away on his own... it wasn't the ISLAND testing him.

If nothing else, Locke showed that he believes in the islands ability to test those on it by not destroying the statues.

My $.02

Well I loved the line "Last time I let you make a choice, this time I am making the choice for you." I loved that. I was like GO LOCKE because I didn't want Locke trusting Charlie. About you not liking what Locke did, I think he snapped because Charlie was lying to everyone. And he was sick of it. I think we will have the same old Locke back soon once things settle down. I agree I would have done the same thing Locke did if Charlie was doing those things and I was Locke.

Locke still has faith in the island. He just doesn't have faith in Charlie anymore, which is why he took the drugs. When Locke helped him the first time, Charlie was only a danger to himself, this time he's a danger to others. Also, if Charlie had made the wrong choice the first time, he only had a tiny amount of the heroin left anyway. Charlie's renouncing it was symbolic, more than anything else.

Locke is still a 'man of faith', but that doesn't mean he's going to buy everything everyone says. Especially a drug addict. The man is misguided, he's not stupid.

I personally enjoyed Locke popping Charlie. For one, it was the only legitimate action on the show, and two, Charlie might be the most annoying character, imo. He's whiny, boring, and brings nothing. Maybe being ostracized from the group will lead to something, anything of interest. Ppl were b*tching a/b Jack's flashback last week, Charlie's this week was even more of a waste of time than "Everybody Hates Hugo".
Locke acted completely in character; he has his philosophies a/b choices and the mysticism of the island but remember, he's the same man that cracked Sayid in the head when he was attempting to use the radio. He's fallible, as they all are, and that's what makes them so damned intriguing as characters. Jack is more of a Man of Faith than even he realizes, just as Locke isn't purely a Man of Faith himself.
Charlie needs to die or betray the Losties as far as I'm concerned. That's the only way he'll hold my attention any longer.

Locke still has faith in the island. He just doesn't have faith in Charlie anymore, which is why he took the drugs. When Locke helped him the first time, Charlie was only a danger to himself, this time he's a danger to others. Also, if Charlie had made the wrong choice the first time, he only had a tiny amount of the heroin left anyway. Charlie's renouncing it was symbolic, more than anything else.

Locke is still a 'man of faith', but that doesn't mean he's going to buy everything everyone says. Especially a drug addict. The man is misguided, he's not stupid.

I see several of you disagree with me, but I think you missed my entire point...and maybe I am wrong...but.......

How many times have we heard Locke say..."Don't tell me what I CAN'T do??"
"We are here for a reason" "the island is testing us" "this is our fate" and the best yet "Who are we to tell anyone what they can or cannot do"

To me...his actions last night was hypocritable to all that. I believe he is playing Claire....and he went out of his way to make Charlie look worse...

sorry.. meant to add this....Why did he keep the herion...except to have it to HOLD over Charlie a way to control him, is that what he has been preaching that is what the island is about.....why not destroy it??????

Hey, I for one agree with you. I still liked the episode, and I still liked seeing Locke lose his cool and give Charlie a few to the face, but I do agree that he acted very hypocritically in his actions. Its not nearly as bad as how out of character Jack has acted recently, but I do feel Locke's actions in this episode were contradictory to his character.

What makes any viewer think that we know the "real" Locke? All we've seen is a bit of his past, and a bit of his time on the island. No one knows for sure (except the writers) just what is "out of character" for Locke. We can't tell by just the little we've seen what is real for Locke--or any of the LOST characters--and what isn't.

Just a little reality check, there.

locke's beating of charlie made sense to me. charlie was acting out of line. spare the rod...

I dont see what he did as a bad thing.

Charlie took his test, and failed it.

Since he failed it, he is now threatening other people's lives, and tests.

So locke must step in.

Just because he is our "Man of Faith" doesn't mean we can always have faith in the man. Locke is flawed just like the rest of the people on this island and cannot always be expected to act rationally. I am not sure why he acted the way he did on this episode. I have my theories, but since we still don't know a whole lot about who Locke really is, I am not sure we can say his actions tonight are completely out of character.

Also, dont forget Locke was fueled by anger at one point and had to get counseling for it via anger managment sessions. I think he can snap at any point. I just think the island (up until this point) has been giving him purpose and keeping him docile to a degree.

I dont see what he did as a bad thing.

Charlie took his test, and failed it.

Since he failed it, he is now threatening other people's lives, and tests.

So locke must step in.

Charlie didn't get to FAIL his test...he never got to finish it...Locke took it upon himself to finish it for him.....so he could hide it and then be able to HOLD it over Charlie and now control him

I believe he is playing Claire....and he went out of his way to make Charlie look worse...
I agree with this. I don't buy his grandpa act. I think that, even going back to his building that crib for her last season, he's had an ulterior motive that involves Aaron. It's therefore in his interests to get Charlie out of the way.

sorry.. meant to add this....Why did he keep the herion...except to have it to HOLD over Charlie a way to control him, is that what he has been preaching that is what the island is about.....why not destroy it??????
I'm with you here, too. He's not hoarding that stuff for any good reason.

Maybe I was missing your point. I don't think Locke is hypocritical but I don't think he's necessarily 'good' either. Locke has always been able to rationalize foolish risks and outright misdeeds in pursuit of goals which even he may not fully understand but which he's convinced himself are 'worthy' somehow.

Charlie was being a little bit cynical when he claimed to be keeping the heroin stash as a 'test', because he thought that argument would engender the most sympathy from Locke. Didn't work. I do think that Locke's "don't tread on me" libertarianism only goes so far. He's had no compunctions about thwarting others and bossing Boone around. Locke's 'reason' and 'test' may require him to act in conflict with his stated principles. Maybe that is hypocritical after all. But I don't think it's inconsistent given what we know of the character. He's in the grip of something and poor at seeing others' points of view.

Perhaps Locke really did believe Charlie, but didn't like the direction Charlie was going in. Let's not forget that there are two sides, "light and dark". Perhaps Charlie was being lead by the influence of the "wrong" side from Locke's perspective. And since Eko acted as a mentor for Charlie, this would be nicely congruent with the ideas that Eko is somehow another "Locke".

The last time Locke got violent was when he knocked out poor Sayid and destroyed his radio. When someone is about to do something that the "island" sees as a threat, Locke is there to lay some smack down.

It's possible that Locke sees Charlie as a stumbling block in his attempt to get closer to Claire and therefore Aaron.

Locke is still a man of faith, as far as we know, but his faith may be leading him down a darker path than you would like for a favorite character.

Um, Locke has always been a bit looney? We're talking about the guy who attacked Sayid and drugged Boone.Some people insisted that Locke couldn't possibly have hit Sayid in the head and then blamed it on Sawyer ("Locke is nice and gives people friendly advice" etc) but look where we are now. He was partially responsible for Boone's death (yeah, I know he didn't actually kill the guy, let's not go there) and then told Jack it was a sacrifice the island demanded.

His manipulative and hypocritical nature shouldn't really be new to people who have been following the show. Telling Charlie it's up to himself to quit the drugs and then taking the statues away (and not even destroying them) is typical Locke behavour. His speeches about not telling people what they can and cannot do are crap, but it's what makes him such a cool character, IMO.

I don't buy his (Locke's) grandpa act. I think that, even going back to his building that crib for her last season, he's had an ulterior motive that involves Aaron.

I found it interesting that when Claire asked Locke if she and the baby could move into the bunker, Locke quickly responded by telling her that she and Aaron should stay on the beach. He gave the very lame excuse that the buzzer in the bunker going off would disturb Aaron.

I've wondered all along why they didn't move Claire and the baby into the bunker almost immediately upon discovering it: To make the new mom more comfortable, and to protect the newborn Aaron from the sand, salt air, and weather, and from the Others who they know kidnap babies and children. Why would Locke want Claire to stay on the beach with Aaron? Is he working with the Others to keep Aaron easily assessable to them?

I agree with most of what's been said here about Locke having a reason to be violent against Charlie, since he really didn't have any reason to trust him and wanted to protect Claire for whatever reason, but what really bothered me about Locke in this episode was that up until now, Locke hasn't just been the "man of faith" in terms of his own actions and philosophies, he's always listented to other characters' problems and guided or helped them no matter who they were or what they had done. In this episode, though, he blatantly refused to give Charlie advice when Charlie asked for it, way before he found out that Charlie had lied about destroying the drugs, which seemed out of character to me, or at least out of the character that I normally see Locke as playing.

Locke's violence toward Charlie was consistent with his reference to Claire about Aaron as "our boy". He's trying to take over the roll as protector--as a husband or father figure. The punch in the jaw would not seem undue if Locke was indeed her husband or father. In fact we would expect it. View Locke as someone trying to win that position in Claires mind and his action makes sense. As does his desire to destroy Charlie, his rival.

I found it interesting that when Claire asked Locke if she and the baby could move into the bunker, Locke quickly responded by telling her that she and Aaron should stay on the beach. He gave the very lame excuse that the buzzer in the bunker going off would disturb Aaron.

I've wondered all along why they didn't move Claire and the baby into the bunker almost immediately upon discovering it: To make the new mom more comfortable, and to protect the newborn Aaron from the sand, salt air, and weather, and from the Others who they know kidnap babies and children. Why would Locke want Claire to stay on the beach with Aaron? Is he working with the Others to keep Aaron easily assessable to them?
Excellent point about the hatch.

What about him telling Claire that he wouldn't mind staying close to her and Aaron for a night or two? Definitely creeped me out a bit but I'm not going to say I didn't see it coming. :rolleyes:

Maybe Locke hates liars. Charlie bold faced lied to Claire and Eko and
Locke. Charlie set up his own distrust and his friends disgust. He only
has himself to blame. I felt bad for him and sad for him, but he did it
to himself and to them, too, really. I think Aaron is in danger and I
think Charlie senses it, but he was too involved in the statues to
be credible when he needed to be. That was the real test he failed.
He was the one to bring the message of danger to Aaron and he
blew it.

Locke took the position of keeping the guns out of the hands of those
who are not thinking clearly. They start grabbing the guns and off they
go, without any real plan, without knowing who/what the enemy is,
how many there are, or even which direction to go in and what
they will find when they get there.

They need to have a strategy, they need to think and plan and they
need to build up a defense. Ana said some thing about them not
being scared enough. Every one is acting like they are on a camping
trip. They really do need to build an "army"of sorts and get serious
about realizing how vulnerable they all are.

We are looking at Locke on day 50 telling Jack "WHO ARE WE TO TELL ANYONE WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO"




The thing that it seems like people are forgetting is that it's perfectly fine for someone to decide their own path an no, we shouldn't tell them what they can or can't do... as long as it's not hurting Anyone Else.

Charlie could choose on his own about the drugs the first time because it was just about him... now he already has hurt Claire and he Physically hurt the baby if he's allowed to use, so that choice has to be taken from him.
Let Michael run off after his son if he wants, he risks hurting no one besides himself.
Don't Chase after Michael with other people because The Others may hurt the people you travel with (Kate).

I don't consider Locke hypocritical or think that he's changed much at all... I just think that if it comes down to other people possibly being hurt then he ammends his "don't tell me what I can or can't do" thing. Probably learned that from the Boone thing...

To play devil's advocate: What if he kept the statues so that later on, Charlie can destroy them? He had the perfect chance to tell Claire the Charlie had even more statues hidden, but didn't...why not?

To play devil's advocate: What if he kept the statues so that later on, Charlie can destroy them? He had the perfect chance to tell Claire the Charlie had even more statues hidden, but didn't...why not?

Because that would Completely destroy any faith that Claire had in him. I thought that it was classy that he didn't tell her. he knew she would never trust Charlie again.

:angry: As an avid lost fan who watches and re watches episodes..not only for easter eggs but for the pure enjoyment of the show.:kiss: I am 39 years old and can't ever remember being this addicted to a TV show.:) :frown: I was GREATLY DISTRESSED AT WHAT I SAW ON THE TV LAST NIGHT. :frown: There have been times when I was frustrated with where we were on the show and I wanted questions answered faster than they were given to us, but I lived with it...lol :undecide:

We are looking at Locke on day 50 telling Jack "WHO ARE WE TO TELL ANYONE WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO"

And then Locke, day 51-53, I would think following the normal time line of the show, beating up on Charlie. Not letting Charlie follow his TEST!!!!

WHO ELECTED HIM JUDGE ...JUROR...AND EXECUTIONER??????????

JMO..but everything you have given us on John Locke and his belief in the island and how he is preaching about being tested. All the times Locke has stated to Jack, we are here for a reason, and all the other times you have had John Locke show us that he is a man of faith and there is a reason for everything. YOU DESTROYED THAT CHARACTER.....WHY WHY WHY??????????

All I can see now is Divide and Conquer....The camp will now be split...

As much as I love this show...I can truthfully say that Fire + Water was the ONLY episdoe I trully did NOT like at all (I doubt that ya'll will care about that, and since this is my first post here, but I really had to tell you my feelings)
Why did you NOT let Charlie finish his test...and why did LOCKE keep the crap?????? I trully believe Charlie was going to destroy it, and Locke wouldnt' let him..again...WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR MAN OF FAITH????????

Now what bothers me...if you are setting up Locke to be this person now...HE IS THE ONLY PERSON who has the combination to the safe..and the guns

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND??????? If he is now the judge and jury...

You took Locke and turned him into a lying, conniving, hypocrite!!!! :confused: :hypocrit:


Oh, meh. Locke didn't do anything to Charlie that I haven't wanted to do to him myself. Charlie is a self-absorbed pipsqueak!

I complety agree with Greeneyespy, Locke is usually the wise one of the island, the one who is calm and rational, the one who seems to KNOW the island, but here on this episode he went in to a jealous rage over Claire and her baby!
Locke certainly has intentions with Claire and her baby, whether they be good or bad will shall soon see...

I kind of agree with Greeneyespy in some ways. I felt after the episode that wasn't the Locke we have come to know for the last season and a half. But how much of him do we really know like another poster stated. IMO , Locke was acting like an a$$, and Charlie didn't deserve that beat down. Something is definately up with Locke and the other Losties. Could the sickness be creeping in?

I kind of agree with Greeneyespy in some ways. I felt after the episode that wasn't the Locke we have come to know for the last season and a half. But how much of him do we really know like another poster stated. IMO , Locke was acting like an a$$, and Charlie didn't deserve that beat down. Something is definately up with Locke and the other Losties. Could the sickness be creeping in?

I just think that Locke was being very protective of Claire.
As for the "beatdown" he was taking a baby out into the ocean... for the second time. I think that it was deserved... and I think that the other Lostaways did also since none of them event ried to stop it.

Maybe Locke hates liars. Charlie bold faced lied to Claire and Eko and
Locke. Charlie set up his own distrust and his friends disgust. He only
has himself to blame. I felt bad for him and sad for him, but he did it
to himself and to them, too, really. I think Aaron is in danger and I
think Charlie senses it, but he was too involved in the statues to
be credible when he needed to be. That was the real test he failed.
He was the one to bring the message of danger to Aaron and he
blew it.

Locke took the position of keeping the guns out of the hands of those
who are not thinking clearly. They start grabbing the guns and off they
go, without any real plan, without knowing who/what the enemy is,
how many there are, or even which direction to go in and what
they will find when they get there.

They need to have a strategy, they need to think and plan and they
need to build up a defense. Ana said some thing about them not
being scared enough. Every one is acting like they are on a camping
trip. They really do need to build an "army"of sorts and get serious
about realizing how vulnerable they all are.

mmmm..and Locke NEVER LIED about anything...hummmmm:lipsseal:

mmmm..and Locke NEVER LIED about anything...hummmmm:lipsseal:

Sure he did. Every body lies, that's not the point. It keeping with the
story line, Charlie open faced lied about the drugs which set him
up to not be credible when he needed to be. Hopefully, he will
prove himself, the whole thing will blow over and they will listen
to him. Listen to him? why the heck have they not listened to
Ana and Eko about the children being taken? as if Walt being
taken wasn't enough! , but I digress.................

Locke acted like a guy in love with claire, I what does a guy in love?? Eleminate the competition.
I think he didn't destroy the drugs cuz he wants to fram Charlie later on!

I think he didn't destroy the drugs cuz he wants to fram Charlie later on!

If he wanted to fram Charlie then he would have frammed him when he was trying to put that bottle in his bag in front of Claire... all he had to do was show her the statues and Charlie would have been sufficently frammed. :)

Locke was never a true "Man of Faith." Sure, he has faith in the Island and hatch, but the TPTB have always gone out of the way to show that it's a false faith. In DEM, every piece of religious symbolism they could and twisted it upside down as if to say that Locke's faith is misplaced.

What happened on the Island between Charlie and Locke is a direct result of Locke feeling threatened by Eko, a true "Man of Faith." Locke's afraid of losing his status as the "mystical wise man of Craphole Island" and the seat at the "cool" table that comes along with the title.

I have always enjoyed Locke as a character, but I think the writers are making it clear that he seems to think that he knows what is best for the group and is willing to do whatever it takes to make sure they follow him. He did it before with hiding the hatch and now with hiding the guns.

His growing relationship with Claire is odd. Remember, the psychic told Claire that she had to be the one to raise Aaron and she alone. Maybe that is a foreshadowing of problems with Locke down the road.

Also, as an alternate theory as to why Locke kept the statues. Showing them to Claire at that point would have served no purpose at this point. Why not save them to hold over Charlie or later on to put an end to things if Charlie tries to get back into Claire's good graces.

Yeah, I don't really see what has changed so much about him.

He whacked Sayid in the head with a stick, he knocked out Boone with the butt of a knife and tied him up, he lit the fuse of the dynamite when Hurley was telling him to stop and was still in explosion range, and now people complain when he punches a guy who not only set a fire right near the camp, but kidnapped a baby.

Every time Locke does something it's so he can show them his point of view. The only way he could show Charlie his point of view in the state he was in, was...well, with his fists.

sorry.. meant to add this....Why did he keep the herion...except to have it to HOLD over Charlie a way to control him, is that what he has been preaching that is what the island is about.....why not destroy it??????

I always wondered if the heroin could be used as some sort of medicine. I would think that John would give it to Jack.

I think the point being, it kind of pushed some peoples character opinion on Locke over the edge, that hes not exactly who we've thought.

I must admit, so far in season two, Locke isent at least seemingly faith driven in the island and predestination. I mean, did you see that 360 pan they did from Charlie trying to get to Claire but being blocked by Kate? They fully did a huge pan to Locke, and he most certanly did not look kind. The music also promoted that.
And then a cut to commercial!

It seemed pretty blantat to me, Locke was totally cast in a shadowy light this episode.
But hey thats just me.

Yep. Locke is off model.

I don't think Locke acted out of character. He supports the idea of each determining his or her own path, unless that interferes with another's path.

He hit Sayid over the head because he thought it would endanger the group--Sayid says,"You ruined my chance to find the source." Locke replies,"The source of a distress call that kept saying they're dead, it killed them all, over and over? Is that a place you really want to lead people to?"

In "Hearts and Minds" Boone got knocked in the head, tied up and left in the jungle for several reasons, he was interfering in the potential relationship developing between Sayid and Shannon, he felt he should be able to control Shannon's relationships (or lack thereof), he felt he had to tell her about the hatch--and he didn't even know which way west was... Locke said, "I'm doing this, Boone, because it's time for you to let go of some things. Because it's what's best for you. And, I promise, you're going to thank me for this later." How did Boone feel after he thought Shannon died? Relieved. And he figured out which way west was.

Charlie, while sleepwalking took the baby and was found at the water's edge holding the baby. That time, Claire decked him. He may not have known what he was doing, and we know this, but Claire and the rest of the survivors didn't. No one else interfered.

After speaking with Eko he decided to tell Claire what she HAS TO DO. Kate tries to tell him Claire needs some space, to tell her and she'll pass it along. Charlie not only doesn't listen to Claire's wishes, through Kate, but pushes Kate out of the way--an argument ensues. It is at this point that the camera pans to Locke and we see him watching this go on, and we get the creepy music. He sees Charlie ignoring Claire's wishes, pushing Kate out of the way, and telling Claire what she's supposed to do.

He then intentionally sets fire to the jungle, which endangered all their shelters, planning and executing a kidnapping of Aaron in order to baptize him. Everyone saw him running towards the water with the baby (Don't forget Charlie doesn't know how to swim--See White Rabbit), so they all had to think he was crazy.

Charlie refused to give the baby back to Claire, she's pleading, crying and he's insisting that this is what must be done with her baby. I think if anything made Locke angry it was Charlie intentionally endangering the group, and telling Claire what she had to do.

One person's freedom ends where another's begins. The live and let live attitude is fine as long as someone isn't being subjugated to another's will. If Charlie had done this in civilization he'd be in jail for a long time. He's lucky all he got was three punches. I really don't understand why everyone thinks that Locke was overreacting--I mean ARSON and KIDNAPPING. In essence, Charlie got spanked.

Locke isn't doing things because of some new-found self-empowerment, or benevolance for others around him, but rather, working to advance an agenda of some sort that he was prepared for before getting to the island. Someone prepared him to think he was going to go on self-discovery walkabout, but really set him up on a dancin-with-himself-date-with-destiny on Craphole Island instead. When he realized the island was where he was really supposed to be, the strange hints and information he was previously given started to make sense. Now he's fitting the clues together as he finds them and is following the agenda to a tee regardless of the impact of those around him.

He was a bit in amazement during the first few days, but now he's getting serious about the mission he was prepped for, and it's all starting to click into place. Either he is playing for the dark team and everthing is expendable, or the stakes are so high that you can claim to be on the good side yet still mislead, lie, assault, connive and ultimately sacrifice those around you to reach your objective.

The whole question of why Locke acted like a dick to Charlie and didn't even care to listen to his side about the vivid lifelike dreams tells me that Locke already knows the score and Charlie is expendable. Locke has an interest in Aaron, and needs to get Charlie out of the way. There were so many things that didn't add up with Locke in the last two episodes I can't even count them all. What was that crap about not bringing Aaron to the hatch? Mr. smarty pants who taught Claire about swaddling should know that at less than one month old, the baby probably needs to get up, oh, about every 108 minutes to be fed, right?? And why the dodge about Baptism, and insist that Charlie be using when he had absolutely no reason to think that?

On separate thoughts about Charlie, I find it interesting that Charlie has been called upon time after time in his backstory to save everyone around him, yet backs get turned on him when he needs the help. Locke acted to Charlie just like Liam had. It was Locke who led Charlie back to the drugs by finding the beechcraft full of them. Locke also doesn't get any credit for helping Charlie kick the first time, because Charlie really did it himself. Now, after Locke's actions have placed a ton of heroin within his grasp, to have five statues full, and to have sat on them for 10 or more days, says a couple of things: 1: "I've beaten it", or 2: "Here's a security blanket, just in case" like a reformed smoker who keeps a 5-year old pack of squares in the junk drawer. Both situations are full of righteousness, yet the addict, will never have credibility, although Locke of all people should have had enough faith in Charlie to at least listen to his story, but he didn't.

In the end, Charlie was victim of a pre-meditated character assasination in front of the whole collection of survivors, and Locke set it all into motion.

-Mad.Matt

ExistentialAngel, you are forgetting that not only did Locke knock out Sayid brutally from behind but he also completely destroyed the transceiver AND fingered Sawyer to be the fall guy for his actions. He set up Sayid to suspect Sawyer and handed him a knife, sowing mistrust and inciting paranoia. He manipulated events so that Sawyer took the blame. How can you justify that as benevolent?

ExistentialAngel, you are forgetting that not only did Locke knock out Sayid brutally from behind but he also completely destroyed the transceiver AND fingered Sawyer to be the fall guy for his actions. He set up Sayid to suspect Sawyer and handed him a knife, sowing mistrust and inciting paranoia. He manipulated events so that Sawyer took the blame. How can you justify that as benevolent?

I remember him knocking Sayid out... I thought I'd said that in my post, but I checked and I just said, "hit Sayid over the head."

I'm not justifying Locke as benevolent. I never said he was. My whole point was that Locke is not acting out of character, and that I don't think he overreacted. He does have a concern for the good of the group (maybe it's not always consistent, but it's there), and one of his hot-button issues is "don't tell me what I can't do"--Apparently that extends to others too, as in not telling Michael he can't go after Walt, and Charlie not telling Claire what to do with Aaron.

He seems to believe in the concept of "the end justifies the means" which he has in common with Jack, Sayid, Kate, Charlie, Jin, Sun, Sawyer, etc. They have all lied, or allowed a misconception to further their own personal agendas. Jack allowed Sayid to torture Sawyer, Sayid lied to his friend in order to get information about Nadia, Kate allowed two (or was it three?) fights to occur over who the fugitive was before admitting to the group that it was she, Charlie lied to Claire in order to keep his friendship with her, Jin never told Sun what he did for Sun's father, Sun kept learning English a secret...

Personally I don't feel that Locke is entirely benevolent, just as I feel he's not entirely malevolent. He was never a god or a saint, he's human with flaws and issues like everyone else.

ok why hasnt locke given the heroin to jack for med purposes ??... at least 6 people know of it but not one has said ...hey ... if morphine is legal heroin then surely heroin is illegal morph..

just a thought

seems a bit jump on the bandwagon that men are guilty untill proven.... nope they are guilty full stop .

pack it in or be reported


Wow... that is quite over the top, eh?

If I were in that situation, I probably would have reacted exactly like Locke did. Despite the fact that WE know (as an audience) that Charlie was sincerely doing what he thought was best and wasn't using again, I can't imagine that anyone else would think too well of the way Charlie was acting, especially considering (a) Charlie's non-stop lies, (b) repeatedly taking the baby against Clare's wishes, and (c) him consistently aproaching Clare despite her asking him to leave her alone.

He isn't a hipocrite. Michael left because he wanted to, so going after him is much different than protecting Clare (which essentially asked for, and Charlie makes necessary by the way he acts)...

Yeah, WE know the dreams, flashbacks and situations that prompt Charlie to do what he does... but Locke does NOT. And sorry, but Charlie was stashing those statues away on his own... it wasn't the ISLAND testing him.

If nothing else, Locke showed that he believes in the islands ability to test those on it by not destroying the statues.

My $.02

now why would an old boy who had been stuck in a wheelchair for years suddenly develop such an interest in such a young lady as clair .... i would be watching this person very closely . he has used his knowledge and influence to remove charlie and get his ugly old *** as close as he can to the sweet nubile etc


***MOD-EDITED - Please don't reply to your own posts, but EDIT them and/or use the MULTIQUOTE FUNCTION!***

Locke isn't doing things because of some new-found self-empowerment, or benevolance for others around him, but rather, working to advance an agenda of some sort that he was prepared for before getting to the island. Someone prepared him to think he was going to go on self-discovery walkabout, but really set him up on a dancin-with-himself-date-with-destiny on Craphole Island instead. When he realized the island was where he was really supposed to be, the strange hints and information he was previously given started to make sense. Now he's fitting the clues together as he finds them and is following the agenda to a tee regardless of the impact of those around him.

He was a bit in amazement during the first few days, but now he's getting serious about the mission he was prepped for, and it's all starting to click into place. Either he is playing for the dark team and everthing is expendable, or the stakes are so high that you can claim to be on the good side yet still mislead, lie, assault, connive and ultimately sacrifice those around you to reach your objective.

The whole question of why Locke acted like a dick to Charlie and didn't even care to listen to his side about the vivid lifelike dreams tells me that Locke already knows the score and Charlie is expendable. Locke has an interest in Aaron, and needs to get Charlie out of the way. There were so many things that didn't add up with Locke in the last two episodes I can't even count them all. What was that crap about not bringing Aaron to the hatch? Mr. smarty pants who taught Claire about swaddling should know that at less than one month old, the baby probably needs to get up, oh, about every 108 minutes to be fed, right?? And why the dodge about Baptism, and insist that Charlie be using when he had absolutely no reason to think that?

On separate thoughts about Charlie, I find it interesting that Charlie has been called upon time after time in his backstory to save everyone around him, yet backs get turned on him when he needs the help. Locke acted to Charlie just like Liam had. It was Locke who led Charlie back to the drugs by finding the beechcraft full of them. Locke also doesn't get any credit for helping Charlie kick the first time, because Charlie really did it himself. Now, after Locke's actions have placed a ton of heroin within his grasp, to have five statues full, and to have sat on them for 10 or more days, says a couple of things: 1: "I've beaten it", or 2: "Here's a security blanket, just in case" like a reformed smoker who keeps a 5-year old pack of squares in the junk drawer. Both situations are full of righteousness, yet the addict, will never have credibility, although Locke of all people should have had enough faith in Charlie to at least listen to his story, but he didn't.

In the end, Charlie was victim of a pre-meditated character assasination in front of the whole collection of survivors, and Locke set it all into motion.

-Mad.Matt

Thats good stuff man. I think that makes alot of sense.

Im just scared, (not literally) but just the way Locke has really turned out this season. I'm seriously quesitoning whether he just may have the sickness.

Its really aquard how since fire and water all of Lockes actions, previous and current seemingly have become tainted. Im sure of it, they were insinuating at it this episode. The way the ep portrayed Locke, the music, somethings more drastic.

But, regardless of speculation, only time will tell.... :confused:

Sorry ExistentialAngel, if I misread your comments, because I also feel that Locke has not been acting severely out of character, although I do think he may have overreacted a tad. From season one I have never seen him as a completely benevolent, mellow, shamany wiseman who knows best. I don't see him as being entirely malevolent or evil either, but I do see him as an opportunist with an agenda that makes complete and perfect logical sense to himself. In his own mind he may be working for the good of all. He must have a destiny, and needs to feel like his life has a purpose. I agree that he is a 'the ends justify the means' kind of guy, I also think that at times he has acted selfishly/ruthlessly to protect his own agenda. That doesn't preclude him from also doing apparently selfless, helpful and even empowering things for other people, as well. It just makes it harder for me to trust his motives when he does.

Not sure that I see him as an opportunist and I don't think he overreacted, but I agreed with everything else you just posted... well said.

Locke isn't doing things because of some new-found self-empowerment, or benevolance for others around him, but rather, working to advance an agenda of some sort that he was prepared for before getting to the island. Someone prepared him to think he was going to go on self-discovery walkabout, but really set him up on a dancin-with-himself-date-with-destiny on Craphole Island instead. When he realized the island was where he was really supposed to be, the strange hints and information he was previously given started to make sense. Now he's fitting the clues together as he finds them and is following the agenda to a tee regardless of the impact of those around him.

He was a bit in amazement during the first few days, but now he's getting serious about the mission he was prepped for, and it's all starting to click into place. Either he is playing for the dark team and everthing is expendable, or the stakes are so high that you can claim to be on the good side yet still mislead, lie, assault, connive and ultimately sacrifice those around you to reach your objective.

The whole question of why Locke acted like a dick to Charlie and didn't even care to listen to his side about the vivid lifelike dreams tells me that Locke already knows the score and Charlie is expendable. Locke has an interest in Aaron, and needs to get Charlie out of the way. There were so many things that didn't add up with Locke in the last two episodes I can't even count them all. What was that crap about not bringing Aaron to the hatch? Mr. smarty pants who taught Claire about swaddling should know that at less than one month old, the baby probably needs to get up, oh, about every 108 minutes to be fed, right?? And why the dodge about Baptism, and insist that Charlie be using when he had absolutely no reason to think that?

On separate thoughts about Charlie, I find it interesting that Charlie has been called upon time after time in his backstory to save everyone around him, yet backs get turned on him when he needs the help. Locke acted to Charlie just like Liam had. It was Locke who led Charlie back to the drugs by finding the beechcraft full of them. Locke also doesn't get any credit for helping Charlie kick the first time, because Charlie really did it himself. Now, after Locke's actions have placed a ton of heroin within his grasp, to have five statues full, and to have sat on them for 10 or more days, says a couple of things: 1: "I've beaten it", or 2: "Here's a security blanket, just in case" like a reformed smoker who keeps a 5-year old pack of squares in the junk drawer. Both situations are full of righteousness, yet the addict, will never have credibility, although Locke of all people should have had enough faith in Charlie to at least listen to his story, but he didn't.

In the end, Charlie was victim of a pre-meditated character assasination in front of the whole collection of survivors, and Locke set it all into motion.

-Mad.Matt

Excellent Post...I enjoyed reading every bit of it :kiss:

Locke is benevolent when people follow his "wise" advise and do what he thinks they should. When they don't he has no trouble bonking them on the head, tying them up, ignoring their warnings, keeping stuff secret etc. That hasn't changed at all from the start.

He has been a lair from the beginning. He has lied by ommision about himself, eg the wheelchair, seeing the monster.

His attack on Charlie was way out of line and from his expression very personal. One punch would have stopped Charlie. He didn't give the guy a chance, just kept hitting him.

I agree with others also about Locke not letting Charlie prove himself. I was annoyed that he didn't wait to see what Charile was going to do with the statues before he interrupted. Saying he has lied in the past still doesn't wash since John has too. It reeked of a set up.

I used to like Locke and thought he was an interesting character but just like people have stopped liking Jack, Kate, Charlie or whoever I have stopped liking Locke. He's on my bad list at the moment and yes I would feel the same had he treated Sawyer (of whom I am NOT a fan) in the same way. Its not a Charlie thing.

I also think Charlie is spoiling for revenge.

So Charlie probably deserved a beating
So Locke has been manipulative and hypocritical in the past

This was still a break in character for Locke, and an unfortunate one, because he become emotionally invested in what was going on Locke's always been the cool detached one, even when he's plotting something. The only time he gets emotional are in moments relating to his tragic past, and even those he tries to mask.

Yet here he is acting as huffy as Jack, as rude as Sawyer, and as vengeful as Sayid. Over what? A failed drug recovery? His new love interest?

That's the thing. There better be a big reason why he's getting so caught up with Aaron and Claire. Cause otherwise its a big break in character for a man that isn't phased by tree-eating monsters, irritable dyanmite or guns pointed at his head.

That's the thing. There better be a big reason why he's getting so caught up with Aaron and Claire. Cause otherwise its a big break in character for a man that isn't phased by tree-eating monsters, irritable dyanmite or guns pointed at his head.

Yeah; I agree here. Be it something positive or nagative, I don't think it's 100% simply out of protective instinct.

So Charlie probably deserved a beating
So Locke has been manipulative and hypocritical in the past

This was still a break in character for Locke, and an unfortunate one, because he become emotionally invested in what was going on Locke's always been the cool detached one, even when he's plotting something. The only time he gets emotional are in moments relating to his tragic past, and even those he tries to mask.

Yet here he is acting as huffy as Jack, as rude as Sawyer, and as vengeful as Sayid. Over what? A failed drug recovery? His new love interest?

That's the thing. There better be a big reason why he's getting so caught up with Aaron and Claire. Cause otherwise its a big break in character for a man that isn't phased by tree-eating monsters, irritable dyanmite or guns pointed at his head.

Locke was given up for adoption by his mother. We know from episode sixteen that he lost his sister, and lived with a foster mother for at least five years during his childhood. That foster mother died (so he was moved away from his foster brother too), and we know that he lived in several foster homes during his childhood (DEM). So he lost two mothers... and then was betrayed by his biological mother--in a way, losing her again.

His father put his mother up to helping scam him for his kidney. We know he stalked his father out of rage for that betrayal, but perhaps since his mother had mental (and financial problems) Locke doesn't bear her as much ill will... maybe he blames Anthony for his mother's part in the con.

I think some of his actions were personal in this episode in regards to interference in a mother-child relationship. Claire loves Aaron, and has a positive relationship with him. I can see how it would anger Locke that someone would be interfering with the bond between mother and child. Not that Charlie was intending to sever that, but simply taking Aaron away from Claire twice without her permission would be enough to trigger those old wounds.

Locke have no intresst in clair what so ever. He is after aaron only. He's the most selfish no-good character on the show. Still tho i think he rocks. Trust me, he will do something bad to aaron, charlie will save aaron. Charlie will be the one people blame. And be forced to join up with desmond in the woods. Eko and Locke are the same but opposite. Locke never was a man of faith. He's on a mission, has been since he met the monster. He's been wierd since that. Sneaky bastard... hope he succeed with thatever he want tho. Else 5 seasons will get boooring.

Greeneyespy, I think you've missed the point of that incident.

Locke says that we don't tell others what to do but he was speaking of Michael going after Walt. That involves only a father and his son ... a son that is in danger. What Charlie did involved not just Charlie but Aaron, Claire and anyone else that he could endanger. Remember that none of the characters know what we know (and even we don't know if Charlie is lieing ... again ... about not using, only that we haven't seen him use) and believed that Charlie might have been using again. And even if he hasn't, he had been told more than once to stay away from Claire and Aaron and then he's found with Aaron, at night, by the ocean (and Charlie can't swin)! Locke reacted out of a natural instict to protect Claire and Aaron. He's no saint ... never has said he was. He had an attack of anger-out-of-control but because he was protecting the baby and Claire. He also felt that Charlie was out of control, a punch to bring him "around." But then he lost his temper.

He's still the same man of faith that he's always been but even the best men of faith can have a lapse. I say give him a break. He is human after all. :smile:

Greeneyespy, I think you've missed the point of that incident.

Locke says that we don't tell others what to do but he was speaking of Michael going after Walt. That involves only a father and his son ... a son that is in danger. What Charlie did involved not just Charlie but Aaron, Claire and anyone else that he could endanger. Remember that none of the characters know what we know (and even we don't know if Charlie is lieing ... again ... about not using, only that we haven't seen him use) and believed that Charlie might have been using again. And even if he hasn't, he had been told more than once to stay away from Claire and Aaron and then he's found with Aaron, at night, by the ocean (and Charlie can't swin)! Locke reacted out of a natural instict to protect Claire and Aaron. He's no saint ... never has said he was. He had an attack of anger-out-of-control but because he was protecting the baby and Claire. He also felt that Charlie was out of control, a punch to bring him "around." But then he lost his temper.

He's still the same man of faith that he's always been but even the best men of faith can have a lapse. I say give him a break. He is human after all. :smile:

If that was the ONLY thing that Locke had said that lead me to my original post..then yes I would have to agree with you...but its not only that....its EVERYTHING that has come out of the mouth of John Locke...its okay for him to lie...lead to Boone's death...he is using everything for his own purposes at this point...JMO....and I believe he is PLAYING Claire...he wants Aaron.....

Locke's actions in this episode were definitley surprising. I mean, this wasn't completely unforseeable. We all Locke's got anger problems. We all know Locke's got lying father issues-- and charlie in this instance HAD set himself up to be Aaron's father, but (in locke's mind) used drugs and lied about it. But still-- busting up charlie to the extent that he needed stitches was pretty intense, and inexplicable.


Delicious idea:

I would LOVE to see the next Locke flashback episode explain his actions in this episode. I think Locke's actions seem so awful because we saw things from Charlie's point of view during this episode. A flashback may explain what happened in Locke's past that made this such a touchy subject for him.

Probably this flashback will be set back before the island, but wouldn't it be cool if they did a flashback that shows all the events of THIS episode but from Locke's point of view?

If that was the ONLY thing that Locke had said that lead me to my original post..then yes I would have to agree with you...but its not only that....its EVERYTHING that has come out of the mouth of John Locke...its okay for him to lie...lead to Boone's death...he is using everything for his own purposes at this point...JMO....and I believe he is PLAYING Claire...he wants Aaron.....

I agree with this part of your argument - that he has done things in the past on the island that don't match his stated philosophy. He has consistently told people that they shouldn't interfere, yet HE interferes. Most of the time his actions have led to the greater good - but not always. And he often takes it upon himself to teach lessons.

Now, I agree with Locke taking control of the Charlie situation. Only we know that Charlie was telling the truth about not using while his behavior appeared otherwise. Bottom line, it's one thing to let someone be tested as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Whether Charlie was using or not he was taking Aaron without permission - kidnapping really - and couldn't even remember doing it. That is in itself putting Aaron in danger, and it was hurting Claire.

Charlie's an addict. He shouldn't have horded the statues. The fact that he did means he still has the behavior of an addict even without using and that is a danger to everyone - not just himself.

(and Charlie can't swim)!

Yeah, about that... any significance in him being able to swim in his dream/vision to save Aaron out in the ocean?

We don't know that Charlie can't swim. He said "I don't swim' ..not 'I can't swim'.

Now why the writers chose to write it that way I have no idea.

I agree that Locke should have slapped (slapped..not punched out) Charlie silly for the fire. It was dangerous..it was dumb.

But he lost me when he said Charlie had given up the right to be believed. I mean after all the things Locke has said to people who is he to sit in judgement on Charlie for LYING? After that I'm afraid nothing he did set right with me for the rest of the episode...

Locke has lost his cool over the hatch (when Boone was hurt, and the plane did not lead him to any hatch revelations), and also with regard to finding Desmond down the hatch with the push the button reveal (remember that?). And while the events are linked with his past - they also related to his faith in the island and the idea he has a destiny. I wonder if, along with the whole baby/mother/betrayal issue, Charlie possibly having similar visions (induced by the island) made him a bit jealous as well?

Ok, so let's say Charlie prefers not to swim... then he preferred not swimming to the point that he would waste time running to get Jack while Boone and Joanne (?) were drowning. I'm sorry, Charlie doesn't strike me as the type of person to go get someone else to save a drowning person just because he doesn't want to get wet.

If he didn't feel he was a good enough swimmer to save Boone or Joanne, then he'd have said, "I don't swim well."

Well, my opinion about this is alot different then everybody elses I guess. This is Locke for once showing his true face. Locke is not a good person, he is using the people on the island for his own end. Lets look at some of Locke's past deeds shall we? Smashing Sayid over the head and destroying the radio. Sayid could have easily been killed by that blow to the head, or damaged in some way that is irrepairable with the lack of technology that Jack has on the island. He ended up getting Boone killed climbing up into that plane. Granted he did tell Boone to get out of the plane as soon as he started to hear the plane shift before it fell. But still, after it fell and he carried the gravely wounded Boone back to Jack, instead of telling him the truth and possibly saving Boone's life, he lied to cover up what he found. Then he left Boone to die while he went and cried to the hatch, "Why are you doing this to me!?"

Dont get me wrong, I sympathize for the character John Locke, but facts are facts. The lostaways are a means to a end for him, and I'm not sure that he doesnt have a more devious and sinister motive then we know. The actions of Locke in Fire + Water were not out of character for him, we just saw more of the real John Locke then we have in the past. Lets not forget that all of the actors & actresses of Lost were pretty much in agreement when they said they saw the character of John Locke as a bad person. We just havent really seen that side of his come to the surface except for in certin situations.

Dont get me wrong, I sympathize for the character John Locke, but facts are facts. The lostaways are a means to a end for him, and I'm not sure that he doesnt have a more devious and sinister motive then we know. The actions of Locke in Fire + Water were not out of character for him, we just saw more of the real John Locke then we have in the past. Lets not forget that all of the actors & actresses of Lost were pretty much in agreement when they said they saw the character of John Locke as a bad person. We just havent really seen that side of his come to the surface except for in certin situations.

I haven't made up my mind about Locke as to whether or not he has sinister motives. But I would be sure to keep my distance if I were one of the group. Locke is one of the most interesting characters to watch. He certainly seems to be motivated by something other than what motivates the other lostaways. Sometimes he ends up giving someone what they need, sometimes taking it away. I remember the episode where he drugged Boone in order to allow Boone to have a vision about Shannon and I remember thinking " no matter what the result I would have wanted to have permission"! Taking the drugs away from Charlie and treating him as an outcast is not really any different in the sense that Locke is making the decisions for everyone. Incidentally, I agree with Locke's decision, but I think it is interesting that he is taking control.

Ok, so let's say Charlie prefers not to swim... then he preferred not swimming to the point that he would waste time running to get Jack while Boone and Joanne (?) were drowning. I'm sorry, Charlie doesn't strike me as the type of person to go get someone else to save a drowning person just because he doesn't want to get wet.

If he didn't feel he was a good enough swimmer to save Boone or Joanne, then he'd have said, "I don't swim well."

Some have wondered if he was afraid he'd lose his drugs. This was before he threw them away..he probably had them in his pocket. He couldn't risk losing them in the water and he couldn't very well empty his pockets in front of Jack (although all things considered it might have been better all around had Jack found out first!) so he said simply "I don't swim!"

Regardless of whether or not it was out of character, I'm really hoping Charlie gets some revenge in the future. I'd like to see him creep into Locke's tent at night and smash him in the head a few dozen times with a big rock, but I'll settle for Charlie leaving Locke in a ditch during a monsoon after his legs give out again.

That may seem a bit drastic, but I hate seeing defenseless people getting beat up for no good reason. Charlie was absolutely in the wrong, but there were plenty of good ways to deal with the situation. Charlie already gave the baby back. The other islanders could have restrained him easily and put him in a make-shift prison. Instead they let the mentally-unstable bald dude beat him in the face and then... what? Let him go again? Champions of justice, those folks.

The part that really bothered me is that nobody tried to stop Locke. I expected Jack to hold him back or something, but everyone seemed to think it was ok. Bunch of savages on this island.

i think Greeneyespy is on to something with this, what confuses me is how no one seems to really listen to what another dreams or sees. eko is immediately curious about the dream and locke who had a prophetic dream himself dismisses charlie too easily. something weird seems to be brewing about claire, aaron and locke, i've felt it coming for a while now seeing how creepy he acts around them.

what i still find in what we know of as his character is that he locks the heroin in the weapons room which leads me to believe he will be using it at a later time. sure this is a safe room but if just wanted to hide it from charlie i'm sure he could find some place on the island that was safe from everybody but himself.

locke is obviously in league with the others for several reasons:

1. he has actively tried to separate the group (destroying the transciever, letting michael go, didn't he also support the raft and/or not going after claire's baby the first time? (i can't remember), allowing boone to go to the plane despite seeing visions of his death which also allowed him to get to the plane/destroy the radio before anyone else found it, etc.).

2. he has the creepy kid obsession with walt and now with aaron (both of whom probably have supernatural mental acuity ie walt's stepdad saying that weird things happen around him, and the psychic freaking out when claire sees him), and i believe he has tried to get in between the father figure for both of the kids, but was only successful with getting charlie out of the way.

3. he does things behind everyone's back all the time (the hatch, changing the lock on the safe, moving guns, training michael in weapons, teaching walt to throw knives, probably meeting with the others in the woods, visiting the plane, following people)

4. he was recognized by zeke in the hunting party, and he probably led the group to the others there to size up the situation vis a vis the most influential characters of the cast on overall decisions, as well as a great opportunity for the others to get some of the supplies from the hatch on the sly (ie instead of locke stealing supplies and giving them away, thereby causing panic as the group figures out that a hatch burglary had to be an inside job).


Locke feels a connection to the others because they are the ultimate survivalists: they are everything locke wishes he was, and he probably first made contact when ethan was found out. The others also have an understanding of the island's motivations, which locke believes he understands as well. if it makes you locke fans feel any better, he probably thinks he's doing the right thing for the group in doing things in secret, as he has done before.

This is how I feel until the island shows me otherwise.

I think some of his actions were personal in this episode in regards to interference in a mother-child relationship. Claire loves Aaron, and has a positive relationship with him. I can see how it would anger Locke that someone would be interfering with the bond between mother and child. Not that Charlie was intending to sever that, but simply taking Aaron away from Claire twice without her permission would be enough to trigger those old wounds.


You're definitely on to something here. Except I'd go in a slightly different direction and say its more about the father/son relationship. Locke's actions make complete sense, and are justifyible, if he was Aaron's real father. Of course he's not, but you've got to think that being so profoundedly scarred by not having a father figure would make him yearn to become the Dad he never had.
While losing his mother was no doubt painful, it didn't seem to send Locke into a rage the way his dad did. The last thing Locke could tolerate was seeing anything resembling another deadbeat Dad.

You're definitely on to something here. Except I'd go in a slightly different direction and say its more about the father/son relationship. Locke's actions make complete sense, and are justifyible, if he was Aaron's real father. Of course he's not, but you've got to think that being so profoundedly scarred by not having a father figure would make him yearn to become the Dad he never had.
While losing his mother was no doubt painful, it didn't seem to send Locke into a rage the way his dad did. The last thing Locke could tolerate was seeing anything resembling another deadbeat Dad.

Yeah, and since Locke was so good relating to Walt and also since he worked in a Toys R Us type store, I think that Locke just loves children and is very protective of them.

Is anyone disturbed by the fact that Locke hasn't told anyone that he was crippled before the plane crash ? I know that I would have been shouting and screaming ," WTF !?!?! I CAN WALK , I CAN WALK !!! "

IMO , our man of fate, is nothing more then a calculated manipulator . Playing a game with certain individuals much like chess pieces . He is deceptive and not forthcoming hiding behind a veil of philisophical reasoning . He doesn't just want control , he needs control . His whole life has been about lies and being manipulated to do what others want . Now that he is on the island , it's like he has been given a "tabula rasa" (clean slate).
He doesn't want to be the person he was before (generally good and helpful , but taken advantage of ). He is re-inventing himself before our very eyes to become the opposite of what he once was . Yet another instance and example of the Yin and the Yang. Read about the I Ching , it can be directly related to the events unfolding on the island and it also involves numerology . Very interesting stuff .

TBB :vampire:

Is anyone disturbed by the fact that Locke hasn't told anyone that he was crippled before the plane crash ? I know that I would have been shouting and screaming ," WTF !?!?! I CAN WALK , I CAN WALK !!! "



No more disturbed than I am by the fact that Jack has not told people that he healed his wife, or that his father's body is missing from his coffin.
Or that Hurley has only told one person that he won the lottery and told no one about the source of the numbers.
Or that Sawyer, Ana Lucia and Kate haven't told anyone that they are murderers.
Or that Eko hasn't told anyone about his previous occupation.
Or that Claire has only told one person about the psychic and what he said regarding her baby.

Everyone on that island has secrets, so I can't blame one person for not revealing his secret, without blaming everyone else.

Oh, and as far as Locke getting a clean slate on the island... so does everyone else. And they are All being mysterious and in a lot of ways acting the opposite as they did back home. It's one of the themes of the show.

No more disturbed than I am by the fact that Jack has not told people that he healed his wife, or that his father's body is missing from his coffin.
Or that Hurley has only told one person that he won the lottery and told no one about the source of the numbers.
Or that Sawyer, Ana Lucia and Kate haven't told anyone that they are murderers.
Or that Eko hasn't told anyone about his previous occupation.
Or that Claire has only told one person about the psychic and what he said regarding her baby.

Everyone on that island has secrets, so I can't blame one person for not revealing his secret, without blaming everyone else.

Oh, and as far as Locke getting a clean slate on the island... so does everyone else. And they are All being mysterious and in a lot of ways acting the opposite as they did back home. It's one of the themes of the show.


I agree with the exception that those examples given are occurrences preceding the crash .
Locke's being able to walk happens after the crash . Most people . I'm sure , would be besides themselves with joy and jubilation . Yet Locke is subdued and secretive .
There is a difference between Locke's secret and the rest of the survivor's no matter how trivial that difference might be .

TBB
:vampire:

I agree with the exception that those examples given are occurrences preceding the crash .

TBB
:vampire:

Jack's doesn't.
Eko found his brother and only Charlie knows.
Hurley found the source of the numbers and told no one.

I know that I would have been shouting and screaming ," WTF !?!?! I CAN WALK , I CAN WALK !!! "



I should hope not. I hope that you would have done like Locke did and got up and Helped people that were trapped under the burning wreckage.

But I understand where you are coming from... I think the rest of this season will be very interesting as it will reveal whether Locke is evil or not.

Jack's doesn't.
Eko found his brother and only Charlie knows.
Hurley found the source of the numbers and told no one.



I should hope not. I hope that you would have done like Locke did and got up and Helped people that were trapped under the burning wreckage.

But I understand where you are coming from... I think the rest of this season will be very interesting as it will reveal whether Locke is evil or not.


Agreed . As far as the good/evil goes . I think it all depends upon whose you are looking through . I can see that Locke's viewpoint is that he has been taken advantage of by people he trusted his entire life . Not a good feeling at all . He doesn't want this to happen all over again and is going about his business in a way that I feel is a re-invention of himself .
He is striving to become the 'yang (commanding) , whereas , before he was the yin (obeying).

TBB
:vampire:

Agreed . As far as the good/evil goes . I think it all depends upon whose you are looking through . I can see that Locke's viewpoint is that he has been taken advantage of by people he trusted his entire life . Not a good feeling at all . He doesn't want this to happen all over again and is going about his business in a way that I feel is a re-invention of himself .
He is striving to become the 'yang (commanding) , whereas , before he was the yin (obeying).

TBB
:vampire:

And we need to find out what happened to put him in a wheelchair. There's a lot of killing going around on this show, so if he ended up killing his father... then he wouldn't really be a Yin or a Yang. I'd be very confused.

Just because he is our "Man of Faith" doesn't mean we can always have faith in the man. Locke is flawed just like the rest of the people on this island and cannot always be expected to act rationally. I am not sure why he acted the way he did on this episode. I have my theories, but since we still don't know a whole lot about who Locke really is, I am not sure we can say his actions tonight are completely out of character.


Good post. Good -first- post, at that.

Everyone on that island has secrets, so I can't blame one person for not revealing his secret, without blaming everyone else.

Oh, and as far as Locke getting a clean slate on the island... so does everyone else. And they are All being mysterious and in a lot of ways acting the opposite as they did back home. It's one of the themes of the show.

True. The first few episodes after the crash in season 1 showed Locke doing a lot of reflecting which made a good deal more sense after we found out about Locke's legs. I saw him as a man in a state of awe and wonder at this "miracle"; he may have felt that to talk about it too much was to question it and possible have it "taken away".

This of course does not mean I think that everything that Locke does has altruistic motives. I think he feels indebted somehow... to the island, to whatever powers he perceives are working on it..and that is what motivates him.