Literarily Speaking...

The other Doc, Doc Arzt posts this essay on comparing Locke to Campbell's "hero" archetype.

There's a lot of good stuff there.  And it just plain works.  In particular check out the section where he outlines the steps of the "Hero's Journey" and how Locke fits into this.  I've often thought that Locke was the central figure of the story, and when I see it put into a framework like this, I'm convinced.

When Locke turned to Sawyer last night to answer the con man�??s
assumption that he was going �??back undercover�?� by saying �??I�??m on my own
journey now.�?� I let out a woot.  Not because Locke was clearly
operating on some larger than life mystical journey of understanding,
but because he had single handedly shined a light on hopes I have had
for some time, and may, just may, have given us some indication as to
what point of the story we are at and what will come next. I�??ve been
operating on a secret theory for quite a while, it�??s a bit off the deep
end but I think if you look at it for what it is you might find
yourself bopping to my groove.

Although I gotta take issue with his railing on the comparisons between LOST and literature, both classic and contemporary.

One side of LOST theorizing I have always abhorred was the efforts to
get at the �??DNA�?? of the LOST story, particularly which chromosome came
from which great work of literature.  Part of the reason I try to avoid
that kind of deconstruction is that it is, in some ways, disrespectful
to the storyteller.  The last thing a musician wants to hear when they
play you a new piece is the various other songs it �??sounds like�??. 
Other than that, dwelling too much on the influences is really just a
study in pigeonholing LOST into an amalgamation of literary techniques
and specific influences; a practice more suited to a grad student
desperately trying to demonstrate his chops on the conundrum Du Jour. 
I avoid the �??Lost Literary Genome Project�?� because it is like our
friend Ouroboros, a process that just winds up swallowing its own tail.

It'd be one thing to make these leaps, comparisons, and connections between LOST and the classics if they didn't throw the bait out there.  Titling episodes after Dickens, Carroll, and Heinlein.  Dropping major easter eggs in the form of Dickens books, naming characters so blatantly after major philosophers.  Referencing "wookiee prison gags..."

These things are not there by accident.  I think they're there to make us think and to draw the parallels, maybe not exactly with that intent on C&D's part. (Or maybe so, who knows?)

I think moreover that if nothing else it pins down that the story of LOST isn't a new one.  That these themes have all been touched upon before, and in different ways.  LOST is just giving us a new view on them, and by making such obvious hommage they remind us where we've been.

From Dante, Dickens, Heinlein, Carroll, to Stephen King and George Lucas, keep putting this stuff in there, C&D.  Keep reminding us why we watch.  Because it shows that you've thought about these things, and maybe aren't just making it all up as you go.

And its just plain fun to try and make these connections and dig up the parallels.  Whether they're intentional or not, even if it makes us look like we're reaching way, way too far. :)  Because, admittedly, we do.

Link: LOST - Is Locke the Primary Hero? A.K.A Don't Take Lost too Literarily