Hello again, however belated for my daily posts this might be.
One of the shows that really got me looking scathingly in fiction for how well-written things are is lost; essentially a series of very well written parables that everyone got very angry about the ending of. I was actually alright with the ending, and at the time quite liked it, but despite how well crafted the script might have been I have to look back on it now with a little twinge of… well, this face.
Because despite putting up a really bad argument for their point, and in fact probably demonstrating the opposite with brutal deaths for everyone who upheld the show’s ideal, there was an undercurrent, something that by the end of the series had become an overcurrent, of the idea that faith trumps science.
Now, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion and I don’t scald the writers for running with this theme, in fact disregarding my above objection it was pretty well executed, well, that and the fact that the characters live in a fictional world where talking to the dead is really possible and men can turn into smoke monsters after their corpses ride the rapids in a very well-lit cave.
Rather, I take issue with how overdone this theme is. How many times did your cartoons tell you that all you had to do is believe, that your heart/gut always knows what’s right. As opposed to your brain? It seems as if people are so concerned with the fact that secularism is growing that some feel the need to use whatever medium they can to stamp science in the face and proclaim that faith is good because it’s faith.
What lost did do right however, was (despite the main character’s stubbornness and overall douchebaggery) bring the science to faith conversion to the forefront by the main character actually seeing evidence that the faith-based approach to knowledge was actually working better than his science-based knowledge system. By now you’ll realise that by right, I mean right considering the fact that he was a man of science, but indeed this goes against the whole idea of faith. Surely by observing these things as evidence, he’s not become a man of faith at all, but remains a man of science albeit coming to the conclusion that some wacky ideas can be scientifically valid.
I don’t think this came about due to a misunderstanding of what faith is, but more by the way a story has to be told, it wouldn’t be as compelling a story of Jack Shephard waking up one day and realising that he believes without evidence. No, the story of conversion requires a journey that faith by definition doesn’t allow to be so complicated.
That being said, I did love the show despite the critics, and I have all the DVDs and more memorabilia besides. Whether that makes up for the fact that I’m a fan that disagrees with the basic premise of that theme in question I don’t know, I only know that it made me think; and despite the fact that I came to a different conclusion than the show’s characters, surely that’s what good writing should inspire?