Lost's Why Problem

Now that I've caught up in my viewing, I'd like to associate myself with Peter Suderman's remark that the most persistently irritating thing about Lost is that "it asks 'why' but answers 'what' and 'how.'" This problem, obviously, is built into the show's architecture, since it's not knowing the "why" that keeps us coming back for more. But it was one thing to consistently withhold the why across the first two seasons, when all the characters were more or less just as in the dark about it as the audience. Now, though, the show has reached a point where certain characters know the why - or at least some of it - and others have good reasons to want to know the why; moreover, the in-the-dark characters often have the means to force the in-the-know characters to explain the why to them. Which means that to keep the audience guessing, the in-the-dark characters have to act ridiculously, implausibly satisfied when the explanations they get stop with the how and the what.

The show is still crackerjack, mind you, but only in those episodes when everybody's too busy doing things to ask questions - as at the end of last season, and the first few episodes of this one. When the pacing slows, as it inevitably must, and the characters have time to sit around and talk things out, things get really irritating really fast. This problem made the middle of last season an enormous drag, and I'm worried it's going to kill the middle of this one too.

Comments

Seriously, how do you young intellectuals have time to watch so much TV? The Wire, Lost, Sopranos, etc...

Posted by Derrick | March 25, 2008 3:30 PM

i'd like to associate myself with the view that the increasing frequency of ross's use of the phrase "i'd like to associate myself with" is really annoying and pretentious. why can't he just say "i agree with"?

Posted by zack | March 25, 2008 3:54 PM

i'd like to associate myself with the view that the increasing frequency of ross's use of the phrase "i'd like to associate myself with" is really annoying and pretentious. why can't he just say "i agree with"?

Posted by zack | March 25, 2008 3:56 PM

As long as frustrated viewers are merely
ranting "Why won't they give me any
answers," the producers of "Lost" have
nothing to worry about.

But they're in big trouble if and when
viewers start asking aloud if the producers really have any answers themselves.

And make no mistake, they're already startting to wonder.

Posted by astorian | March 25, 2008 4:08 PM

zack - point taken. I'll try to stop.

Posted by Ross Douthat | March 25, 2008 4:37 PM

It's ridiculous at this point. I think it's correct that it was tolerable when the majority if not all of the characters were also in the dark. But at this point it's impossible to believe most of their motivations.

Um, Michael, you should totally go back and fight off these baddies who want to kill your buddies on the island. Cmon.

NO ONE has decided to start breaking Daniel Faraday's fingers yet?? "It's complicated" is an ok answer?!?

Now I'm mad all over again. Thanks Ross!

Posted by Sebastian | March 25, 2008 4:56 PM

I watched the first two or three episodes of Lost and thought that it would be impossible for the series to end up anyway but with an incredibly contrived ending and explanation which would make me beat my head against the wall for having watched the series. In the past, that wouldn't have stopped me from watching. But this time, I let it go and haven't watched another minute. From the sound of things, I'm pleased with my decision.

Posted by Steven Donegal | March 25, 2008 5:17 PM

Never having watched "Lost", I can't say much about that show. But J.J. Abrams developed it, and before that he did "Alias"--another show that had long, involved, meandering, continually changing plotlines. "Alias" also never gave you a really good sense of why--you just knew that at the end of each season another turn-reality-upside-down cliffhanger was in store. I gave up after about 3 seasons of it--seemed manipulative in a not really fun anymore way.

Posted by Jim | March 25, 2008 6:01 PM

I think the problem with television writing is rooted in the fact that seasons always have a set number of episodes. It's a problem with quotas as a management tool. Sometimes in order to meet a quantitative quota, the quality of the product is compromised. I think this partially explains why a few network television shows, particularly Lost, tend to have really strong first seasons and strong season premiers and finales but very few high quality episodes.

Maintaining consistently good episodes under the current X episodes per season system is particularly difficult for a show like Lost that essentially has one overarching storyline throughout the whole series. It takes extra creativity to revamp the show (and, with the great season 3 finale, I think they did solve one problem, but I won't mention it in case there are folks here watching through the DVDs), as anything new has to tie into the larger plot-line. They can't just release Tony Soprano's cousin out of prison just to set things up for season 5.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | March 26, 2008 12:51 AM

Forgive me if this seems an uninvited question, but this week we lost Paul Scofield, and I think I expected, or maybe just wanted, some response from Mr. Douthat to the loss. Or might there be something in development?

Posted by Dr J | March 26, 2008 1:20 AM

"The show is still crackerjack, mind you, but only in those episodes when everybody's too busy doing things to ask questions - as at the end of last season, and the first few episodes of this one. When the pacing slows, as it inevitably must, and the characters have time to sit around and talk things out, things get really irritating really fast. This problem made the middle of last season an enormous drag, and I'm worried it's going to kill the middle of this one too."

The problem was also compounded last season with the dumb idea to separate Jack, Kate and Sawyer from the rest of the group into their love triangle island soap opera for half the season. It was just stupid. Now they're trying to pass off Juliet as a love interest. Ugh. If she cocks her head to the side and looks at Jack like she's going to cry again I'm going to scream. She's like an annoying puppy that's been kicked one too many times. Why couldn't Locke have thrown that knife into her back instead?

Locke's idiocy has become something of a contrived plot device. Linus runs circles around Locke and gets Locke to do whatever he wants, so Locke never figures out how to get enough answers from him. I'm surprised more characters haven't realized Locke just isn't that bright. Sawyer at least can con people, like how he ended up with all of the guns.

But I have to say, overall I'm enjoying this season a lot more than last season.

Posted by Reality Man | March 26, 2008 8:17 AM

"But I have to say, overall I'm enjoying this season a lot more than last season."

Me too. I think the new approach to the flashbacks introduced in the season three finale may have saved the series.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | March 26, 2008 8:28 AM

BattleStar Galactica had a similar problem last season. I described it as:
"The Cylons have a plan, and someday they're going to tell the writers."

Posted by wiredog | March 26, 2008 9:19 AM

I don't know - the only person who is completely in the know is Linus, and I think the writers have done a good job of giving him lots of motivations to withhold the "whys," as you call them. It may be a tad contrived that Locke keeps letting Linus go; on the other hand, a reasonable case can be made that Locke's acting perfectly consistently with his character: that is, he looks up to Ben with some awe and fear (Ben is in many ways the man Locke wants to be), even as he looks down on the other passengers. He also has good reason to keep Ben alive because Ben has access to the mysterious hut man, and Locke wants that access. As for Farraday and the people on the boat, the show has made it fairly clear that none of them know about each other's past and that each came to the island with his/her own motive. Given the nature of Farraday's research and his discoveries, I think he has very good reasons to keep everything to himself. Anyway, if the objection is that people have been acting implausibly, I think that has been true from the beginning.

Posted by aeo | March 26, 2008 10:17 AM

wiredog, the Cylons' plan was actually revealed somewhat early in the season: they are going to make Earth their new home, just like the humans from the 12 Colonies. However, season 3 was problematic for other reasons (the pressure on the writers to produce more individualized episodes a la Star Trek). Galactica is a lot like Lost in that the demands for X number of episodes per season hinders the ability to cleanly develope a really pronounced overarching plot. However, although season 3 was relatively weak, it wasn't that bad, and following Galactica's second season had to have been a very difficult task.

I'm stoked for the new season.

And yes, I'm a total nerd.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | March 26, 2008 5:19 PM

I'm still trying to figure out the finale of Jericho -- they save Cheyenne from being blown up just so they can launch a civil war that they hope will acomplish the same thing!

Posted by Rusty | March 27, 2008 5:37 PM

I'm still trying to figure out the finale of Jericho -- they save Cheyenne from being blown up just so they can launch a civil war that they hope will acomplish the same thing!

Posted by Rusty | March 27, 2008 5:37 PM

I think that the plot against Cheyenne, was a Macguffin. They made it look all through out the season, that Jennings & Rall, was responsible
for the 23 bombings, when in fact the mysterious
"John Smith" (the late George Mason from '24) was
the one responsible. They portray Texas as the antipode of Cheyenne, with the same actual actor who played the admiral on JAG. Even if the entire
Austin clique were to hold power, they're not sustantially different from the Cheyenne group.

Posted by narciso | March 27, 2008 10:48 PM