Thursday, January 04, 2007

More Concise Griping About LOST

Well, I've gone and found myself a whole new blog entry to write easily. And to think that I wanted to cut down on how many entries I made this week. Oh well.

This entry inspired by Doris Egan's essay on difficult characters. Good read for people into narratives.

While reading through the comments there, though, I encountered a spot on criticism of LOST. In addition to what I wrote in More Griping about LOST about mysteries getting built and revealed, the following hits things on the head:


The whole character selling issue was what really turned me off Lost in the end. If I had to watch one more episode proving that Kate may be a fugitive BUT SHE HAS A HEART OF GOLD!! or that Sawyer was a con man but OMG HEART OF GOLD AND HE LOVES KATE!! I was going to vomit. It makes shows far too predictable and unrealistic - not everyone is likeable by everyone else!


Love the character selling point about LOST! I couldn't put my finger on why I started disliking the show other than they were or weren't revealing too much or not enough. But it makes sense that they wasted practically the first quarter of season 3 selling characters (especially Locke who I didn't like from the beginning. . .and why the need to sell Mr. Eko when everyone liked him already?)


I liked Mr. Eko from the beginning since he seemed to do what so many of the fans wanted to do themselves - march onto the set without a word and start hitting people.

The selling on Locke was really annoying, especially the trouble they went to to make him some sort of mystical figure (not answering questions is not the same as mysticism), but it was Kate and Sawyer that irked me the most. They were supposed to be outlaw figures of some kind, but they weren't believable criminals since the writers spent so much time trying to make them likeable. I liked Sawyer when he was an asshat - it added variety! But I half expect that when the show returns we'll discover that he became a con man solely to raise money for orphans in the Congo.

Egan's essay has also really gotten me thinking about the short story in development. Does the character have enough complication? Maybe not necessarily, but does he have to? Could the whole setting and interaction between characters betray enough complication? At the same time, it acts as somewhat of a satire of high school social life? I know the ending feels a little rushed, maybe I can get into more complication there? But, in addition, I need a good, catchy title. Argh!

No comments: