I have been thoroughly enjoying a new Showtime original, "Dexter." The main character, Dexter, is Hannibal Lecter meets Dirty Harry as a blood-spatter forensics expert in the Miami PD who moonlights as a serial killer. Far from being unoriginal or simply an amalgamation of past film and literary characters (as my references might suggest), I find the show to be intriguing, well-written, and well-acted. Well, well-acted by the main character, anyway. At least one of the supporting actors, Dexter's whiny, insecure, and total-lack-of-confidence-or-ability sister, could use some help.
One of the more intriguing and original elements in the show is Dexter's background. You'd think that, as a serial killer, a depraved, abusive homelife would have been rather instrumental in making him the monster that we might think he is. But, although he grew up in a foster home, he had a great homelife with loving foster parents. And he's not exactly a monster, which, in Tarantino-like fashion, makes you recoil a bit at liking the guy. His foster father, a Miami PD cop himself, recognized in young Dexter a certain emotion Stoicism and an urge to kill things. But rather than give up on him, his father decided that these urges, which seem (and are) rather heinous, could be channeled for some "good." He taught Dexter to play along with societal demands to fit in, to cover his tracks so that he wouldn't get caught, and to set his serial killer sights on those who, as his father routinely witnessed, fell through the hands of justice.
Dexter plays a bad guy who acts as a good guy by killing the bad guys that the good guys can't catch. One of the things that fascinates me about his character is how good he is at it and how likable he is. It's like watching a heist film, along the lines of, say, Ocean's Eleven, where the bad guys do such a good job of stealing money from other bad guys that you can't help but admire them. And, like Ocean's Eleven or Pulp Fiction, the bad guys are just funny enough, just human enough, that you end up rooting for them in some strangely perverted way.
10.30.2006
LOST (3x04) "Every Man For Himself"
I was wrong about the Colleen/Pickett relationship. She called him "Danny," not "Daddy."
As Jack wakes up on the cutting table, Mr. Friendly is saying to Ben:
Juliet and Jack
Juliet is a fertility doctor (assuming she's telling the truth). Why would They need one of those? More insight into what They might be doing on the island? It would connect with Their taking pregnant Claire, but what were they trying to do?
And Juliet says, "We haven't had anything happen before," as she and Jack are trying to save Colleen. They're not in the business of killing people (or, probably, doing Dr. Moreau experiments on people as well), I think she said in a previous episode. Fine, but then (1) what are they up to? and (2) under what authority did Ethan threaten the LOSTies' lives (and one of them was killed) in order to get Claire back? He was certainly with Them, getting orders (of some kind) from Ben; how much was he acting alone?
More insight into the Others' authority structure. Juliet: "I don't answer to him [Ben]," in response to Jack's doing some psychological manipulation of his own. Jack really hit on an inconsistency: Juliet keeps saying that they decide things as a group, suggesting that there isn't just one person who has overriding authority, and yet she, and everyone else it seems, does what Ben says. Mr. Friendly, at least, seems to be a Benite.
Do we also have further insight into why They picked Jack, Sawyer, and Kate out of the bunch? Jack hit on a reason why They wanted him: someone (Ben, it seems from the preview) has a tumor on the spine, and Jack's a spinal surgeon. Was this just happy coincidence for Them to have a spinal surgeon crash on the island (and survive)? They seem intent on gaining Sawyer's respect with that nice con on him; do they want his skills for something? Who knows why Kate's there, except to look good (which she does a nice job of, so I'm not complaining).
The Other Island
I'll go ahead and assume that Ben is telling Sawyer the truth and that he is not able to make an island appear out of nowhere. The Hydra station is on its own island. What counts against this is that, so far as we know, no one has seen this Hydra island. If Danielle has been on the island for as long as she has, and has scoped it out to the extent that she has, then it seems she knows about the Hydra island. But (1) she hasn't mentioned it (then again, no one has asked her, and she seems to only offer information in response to queries or to situations that demand it) and (2) her map (that Sayid saw/took), although showing outlying formations, doesn't seem to show another island. Sayid also took a stroll around the island and (in addition to Hurley) found a cable heading out to sea, apparently to nowhere in particular. One would think that this cable goes to the Hydra island, presumably in as straight a line as possible, but there just isn't an island out from the beach where the cable was found.
How did the Colleen group that went to get Desmond's boat get over there? Well, when Ben interrupts Juliet and Jack's back-and-forth, he says something to the effect of, "The sub is back. We have a situation." The "sub" could be a submarine that They use(d) to get to the island. The Pearl orientation film mentioned a ferry for the "researchers" to use in order to get to their living quarters. The place where They hooded J, K, and S was called "Pala Ferry." So, the idea that a ferry is needed to get from one place to another seems undeniable. Whether the ferry was needed because the living quarters were on another island or because there is too big of an inlet to have to hike around, I'm not sure. But maybe the ferry is the submarine. If so, and if this is how J, K, and S were transported to the Hydra island, it seems like they would have noticed climbing down into a submarine (unless they were drugged/knocked out beforehand).
It may be that the Swan incident has something to do with (1) why no one saw the Hydra island before (if this is the case) and (2) why it can be seen now. If, as Desmond thought, the island was in a snow globe sort of thing, and if the snow globe effect was controlled by the Swan, and if Ben's claim that not even God could see the island refers to the snow globe effect, it makes sense that the island can be seen from the Hydra island and vice versa. A lot of "if"s, but there you have it.
The season premier showed the LOSTies' crash site as being situated so that the place where Otherville is could be seen from the beach, but I don't recall any such place being seen from the crash site beach. I doubt that Otherville is on the Hydra island, since Ethan and whats-his-name could reach the crash sites in an hour or so (by foot, presumably), but then why couldn't that island be seen from the crash site?
This Hydra island is a mystery to me. The producers, in today's podcast, seem to assume that there is another island and that Ben is telling the truth about it. But why does it suddenly show up now? The only major thing that has happened that would possibly have the effect of revealing it (if it has been hidden) is the Swan incident. Dang it.
As Jack wakes up on the cutting table, Mr. Friendly is saying to Ben:
... two days since the sky turned purple, we've been blind, the coms are all down and I can't get them back up again, and in case you've forgotten Colleen's still in critical [condition].Sky turning purple: implosion of the Swan hatch, Desmond turns the key, etc. The trouble at the Swan messed up some of their communications. They're blind -- they can't "see" what they used to; but blind in what way, to what degree, with regard to what? It can't be with regard to all of their communications, since they can still see and hear what's going on in the cages, so I'm guessing it has to do with their communications to the outside world (and possibly to what's happening on the other island, but more on the "other island" in a bit).
Juliet and Jack
Juliet is a fertility doctor (assuming she's telling the truth). Why would They need one of those? More insight into what They might be doing on the island? It would connect with Their taking pregnant Claire, but what were they trying to do?
And Juliet says, "We haven't had anything happen before," as she and Jack are trying to save Colleen. They're not in the business of killing people (or, probably, doing Dr. Moreau experiments on people as well), I think she said in a previous episode. Fine, but then (1) what are they up to? and (2) under what authority did Ethan threaten the LOSTies' lives (and one of them was killed) in order to get Claire back? He was certainly with Them, getting orders (of some kind) from Ben; how much was he acting alone?
More insight into the Others' authority structure. Juliet: "I don't answer to him [Ben]," in response to Jack's doing some psychological manipulation of his own. Jack really hit on an inconsistency: Juliet keeps saying that they decide things as a group, suggesting that there isn't just one person who has overriding authority, and yet she, and everyone else it seems, does what Ben says. Mr. Friendly, at least, seems to be a Benite.
Do we also have further insight into why They picked Jack, Sawyer, and Kate out of the bunch? Jack hit on a reason why They wanted him: someone (Ben, it seems from the preview) has a tumor on the spine, and Jack's a spinal surgeon. Was this just happy coincidence for Them to have a spinal surgeon crash on the island (and survive)? They seem intent on gaining Sawyer's respect with that nice con on him; do they want his skills for something? Who knows why Kate's there, except to look good (which she does a nice job of, so I'm not complaining).
The Other Island
I'll go ahead and assume that Ben is telling Sawyer the truth and that he is not able to make an island appear out of nowhere. The Hydra station is on its own island. What counts against this is that, so far as we know, no one has seen this Hydra island. If Danielle has been on the island for as long as she has, and has scoped it out to the extent that she has, then it seems she knows about the Hydra island. But (1) she hasn't mentioned it (then again, no one has asked her, and she seems to only offer information in response to queries or to situations that demand it) and (2) her map (that Sayid saw/took), although showing outlying formations, doesn't seem to show another island. Sayid also took a stroll around the island and (in addition to Hurley) found a cable heading out to sea, apparently to nowhere in particular. One would think that this cable goes to the Hydra island, presumably in as straight a line as possible, but there just isn't an island out from the beach where the cable was found.
How did the Colleen group that went to get Desmond's boat get over there? Well, when Ben interrupts Juliet and Jack's back-and-forth, he says something to the effect of, "The sub is back. We have a situation." The "sub" could be a submarine that They use(d) to get to the island. The Pearl orientation film mentioned a ferry for the "researchers" to use in order to get to their living quarters. The place where They hooded J, K, and S was called "Pala Ferry." So, the idea that a ferry is needed to get from one place to another seems undeniable. Whether the ferry was needed because the living quarters were on another island or because there is too big of an inlet to have to hike around, I'm not sure. But maybe the ferry is the submarine. If so, and if this is how J, K, and S were transported to the Hydra island, it seems like they would have noticed climbing down into a submarine (unless they were drugged/knocked out beforehand).
It may be that the Swan incident has something to do with (1) why no one saw the Hydra island before (if this is the case) and (2) why it can be seen now. If, as Desmond thought, the island was in a snow globe sort of thing, and if the snow globe effect was controlled by the Swan, and if Ben's claim that not even God could see the island refers to the snow globe effect, it makes sense that the island can be seen from the Hydra island and vice versa. A lot of "if"s, but there you have it.
The season premier showed the LOSTies' crash site as being situated so that the place where Otherville is could be seen from the beach, but I don't recall any such place being seen from the crash site beach. I doubt that Otherville is on the Hydra island, since Ethan and whats-his-name could reach the crash sites in an hour or so (by foot, presumably), but then why couldn't that island be seen from the crash site?
This Hydra island is a mystery to me. The producers, in today's podcast, seem to assume that there is another island and that Ben is telling the truth about it. But why does it suddenly show up now? The only major thing that has happened that would possibly have the effect of revealing it (if it has been hidden) is the Swan incident. Dang it.
10.23.2006
LOST (3x03) "Further Instructions"
The best thing about this episode? The trailer for the next one! The "unpleasantness" is coming...
Locke still creeps me out. The poor guy just keeps getting hoodwinked everywhere he turns: his dad, his girlfriend, Eddie, the walkabout. A peek into his past suggests mental instability (e.g., the phone conversation with that girl -- was that his ex-girlfriend? -- while sitting in bed); is he still unstable? I tend to think so. More information about his past might change my mind, but based on what's been revealed so far...
But at least he's back to his old tracker, sweat lodge building, polar bear fighting, knife wielding self, which is what I liked about his character from the beginning. He's a hunter, not a farmer. He's hunted boar, but he also seems to be hunting for something while on the island -- answers, mysteries, redemption, identity. How far can we take the metaphor?
Eddie was wearing a Geronimo Jackson t-shirt. There was a Geronimo Jackson LP in the Swan hatch. However, take a look here for reasons to think that it wasn't a real band (even though the LOST producers claim it is on a podcast).
The Vision
Is there a significance to why he built the sweat lodge in the middle of Ecko's church? A "man of faith" in a place of faith. And how about the sweat lodge visions? Very cool.
Locke finds an old toy dump truck. It was all-metal, like the ones I used to play with way back when in the 70s. Do they still make them like that now? That might suggest a timeline. It might also suggest that there are children's bones among those in the cave.
Among the bones was something -- a piece of clothing, a cloth bag -- that had a Dharma station logo on it. It looked like the Pearl station logo.
Ecko had a broken stick with blood on the end of it in his hand. Looks like the bear got a little taste of Mr. Ecko!
Desmond
To Hurley: "The failsafe key must have detonated the electromagnetic anomaly, made the hatch implode." How does he know about an electromagnetic anomaly? Seems like I've heard of this before on the show, but I can't remember from where. Has Desmond mentioned it before?
Why are his clothes gone but not Locke's or Ecko's? Desmond was the only one under the hatch, where the key hole was...
To Hurley: "Don't worry. Locke's going to go after them [Jack, Sawyer, and Kate]. He said so in his speech." Whoa, a speech that wasn't made until the end of the episode. When Hurley corrects him, Desmond responds in a way that I can't figure out. He explains it away by saying how shook up he is from what just happened, but his facial language might indicate something else. What that something else is, if anything, I don't know, but I'll be looking out for it in the future. How could he have been privy to something that hadn't happened yet?
Locke still creeps me out. The poor guy just keeps getting hoodwinked everywhere he turns: his dad, his girlfriend, Eddie, the walkabout. A peek into his past suggests mental instability (e.g., the phone conversation with that girl -- was that his ex-girlfriend? -- while sitting in bed); is he still unstable? I tend to think so. More information about his past might change my mind, but based on what's been revealed so far...
But at least he's back to his old tracker, sweat lodge building, polar bear fighting, knife wielding self, which is what I liked about his character from the beginning. He's a hunter, not a farmer. He's hunted boar, but he also seems to be hunting for something while on the island -- answers, mysteries, redemption, identity. How far can we take the metaphor?
Eddie was wearing a Geronimo Jackson t-shirt. There was a Geronimo Jackson LP in the Swan hatch. However, take a look here for reasons to think that it wasn't a real band (even though the LOST producers claim it is on a podcast).
The Vision
Is there a significance to why he built the sweat lodge in the middle of Ecko's church? A "man of faith" in a place of faith. And how about the sweat lodge visions? Very cool.
Boone: "I'm here to help you find your way again, so you can bring the family back together."What family? I'm guessing this refers to the LOSTies who are left, including Jack et al., since at the end of the episode Locke says he's going to save them. The notion of a family for Locke is repeated in the episode flashback, where Locke says about the marijuana growing commune folks that that family is better than the one he used to have. Boone tells Locke he needs to save someone. We know now that it is Ecko, but he says some interesting things about the others.
Concerning Charlie, Claire, and Aaron: "They'll be fine. For a while." For a while? Oh, man, what's going to happen to them?The Bear Cave
Concerning Sayid, Jin, and Sun: "I think Sayid's got it." Darn right!
Concerning Hurley: "Not Hurley."
Concerning Desmond: "He's helping himself."
Concerning Jack, Sawyer, and Kate: "There's nothing you can do for them. Not yet. First you have to clean up your own mess." So, will he be doing something for them in the future? Does his saving Ecko constitute cleaning up his own mess? Will Ecko help Locke with doing something for them?
Concerning Ecko: "They've got him. You don't have much time." Interesting that Boone said "they" -- not how one would expect to address a polar bear.
Locke finds an old toy dump truck. It was all-metal, like the ones I used to play with way back when in the 70s. Do they still make them like that now? That might suggest a timeline. It might also suggest that there are children's bones among those in the cave.
Among the bones was something -- a piece of clothing, a cloth bag -- that had a Dharma station logo on it. It looked like the Pearl station logo.
Ecko had a broken stick with blood on the end of it in his hand. Looks like the bear got a little taste of Mr. Ecko!
Desmond
To Hurley: "The failsafe key must have detonated the electromagnetic anomaly, made the hatch implode." How does he know about an electromagnetic anomaly? Seems like I've heard of this before on the show, but I can't remember from where. Has Desmond mentioned it before?
Why are his clothes gone but not Locke's or Ecko's? Desmond was the only one under the hatch, where the key hole was...
To Hurley: "Don't worry. Locke's going to go after them [Jack, Sawyer, and Kate]. He said so in his speech." Whoa, a speech that wasn't made until the end of the episode. When Hurley corrects him, Desmond responds in a way that I can't figure out. He explains it away by saying how shook up he is from what just happened, but his facial language might indicate something else. What that something else is, if anything, I don't know, but I'll be looking out for it in the future. How could he have been privy to something that hadn't happened yet?
10.20.2006
Application Of The Sacraments
A month or so ago I came across a really interesting, and somewhat compelling, argument in response to a criticism made by paedocommunionists of common sacramental practices in the Reformed church at large. The common practice is to baptized our infants, bringing them into the covenant community, but to withhold communion until a profession of faith. The criticism is that this sends a mixed message: we tell our little ones that they are in the covenant community, but they don't get to partake of the covenant meal until they show some understanding of the Gospel. They are in, but not completely; a profession of faith is needed to prove that they're really in. The point of this criticism is not that a profession of faith is unnecessary or unimportant. It is extremely important, for it shows that God is at work in the lives of our baptized little ones. We look for evidence of God's work in both children and adults alike, and rightly so as we make judgments about covenantal membership. We excommunicate, for instance, when we see evidence that God is not, in fact, at work in the life of the excommunicated. The point of the criticism, rather, has to do with the requirements of covenant inclusion, and the message our common practice sends is that more than baptism is required.
The response to this criticism focuses on what the application of the sacraments says about covenantal inclusion. To the extent that PCists make comparisons between the new covenant baptism-communion pair and the old covenant circumcision-passover pair, they end up being inconsistent. With the old covenant pair, it was not the case that only those who received the sacrament were included in those covenanted with God. Only males were circumcised, but females were incontrovertably included in God's people. The little ones (namely, infants) were not able to partake of the Passover, but they also were certainly included in those whom God looked after and cared for. So, we can claim that those to whom the sacraments were applied did not exhaust who was included in the people of God; the latter group is bigger than the former. If we want to draw comparisons from this with the new covenant sacraments, particularly communion, we have a similar conclusion. Taking into consideration only the males under the old covenant, they could have been circumcised (at a very young age) and yet were unable to partake of the Passover; the former group is larger than the latter, and it is the former who are included in the people of God. The idea here is that participation in the sacraments, as signs and seals of covenant, does not determine inclusion in that covenant. The sacraments are signs and seals rooted as much in, and primarily in, the redemptive-historical context in which they occur. They take their form from just such a context and, thus, their application may not accurately reflect covenant inclusion.
Drawing a comparison with the new covenant sacraments, we could have a situation in which some who have been baptized, and, consequently, are really and completely included in the people of God, are not able to partake of communion. That they don't partake has no effect on whether or not they are included -- really included -- in the people of God. The redemptive-historical change in the institution of new covenant sacraments is that they are meant not just for Israel (and those suitably attached to Israel, such as foreigners living in their midst) but for all the nations, for Jew and Gentile alike. The sacraments are now meant for all who are in Christ and for those suitably attached to Christ's Church (e.g., by being born to believing parents or by profession of faith). Yet, despite this broadening of sacrament application, it is argued, the hermeneutical principle remains: not all who participate in the covenant participate in the sacraments that are signs and seals of that covenant, in the case at hand the focal sacrament is the Lord's Supper.
If there is to be a difference in who participates in the sacraments, it seems there should be a difference in the nature of the sacraments that determines participation. The nature of baptism is union with Christ, and this union includes infants in the NT. It is a passive sacrament, signifying our passive participation salvation. What is the nature of the LS that would exclude children who have not made a profession of faith? It is an active sacrament that involves commemoration and proclamation. We see this in 1 Cor. 11:24-26: "do this in remembrance of me," "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." But for this to have its proper force in excluding certain members of the covenant from partaking (namely, children), we must take commemoration and proclamation to assume an intellectual understanding (or however rudimentary a form) of what the elements signify. Is it appropriate for someone to remember Christ and proclaim His death without even a rudimentary understanding of Christ's work?
I have a feeling that this question, and the line of reasoning leading up to it, is beside the point of 1 Cor. 11, anyway. It seems to me that the point of Paul's injunctions of remembering and proclaiming point to 11:29: "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly." What does it mean to "judge the body rightly" in this case? Whenever his reference is to the sacrament in 1 Cor. 10 and 11, he includes both eating and drinking, making reference to the elements of the sacrament. Here, however, he includes only "the body." Is this significant? I think so.
The PCist is sometimes thought to make too much of the context of 1 Cor. 10 and 11, but, then, I tend to think not enough is made of it. Paul is very much concerned with the Corinthians' sense of community in Christ in these chapters. He makes much of it in 10:1-4, 16-17. In that chapter he emphasizes that the cup and bread point to Christ, urging them to therefore cease to partake in food sacrificed to idols (which point to gods other than Christ). In chapter 11, he emphasizes the unity that the cup and bread signify. Paul is very concerned about the Corinthians' lack of unity when they come together and the consequent factions that are at work when they partake of the sacrament, 11:17-22. So, when he urges them to remember what the sacrament signifies and what they proclaim when the partake, he is pointing them to their unity with each other through Christ. What are they not judging rightly when they come together at odds with one another rather than in unity? They are not judging rightly that in eating and drinking they are remembering and proclaiming that they are sharing in the blood and body of Christ (10:16-17). They are one Body in Christ, not unconnected bodies. They are losing touch with what their participation assumes (and signifies): that they are all one in Christ. So, when they come together to eat and drink, they are not judging this union and connectedness through Christ rightly. Paul is not so much concerned with their knowledge of what the sacrament signifies concerning Christ's work; he is concerned that they aren't taking due note of the fact that Christ's work signifies their union with one another.
It could be argued that the pronouns in 11:26-29 ("you," "whoever," "he who") have an unlimited reference, that is, their reference is not limited only to the immediate context of Paul's concern with their demonstrated lack of unity in their participation but instead includes anyone anywhere at any time who participates in the sacrament. I find this a little hard to accept, if for no other reason than that in 11:27, when Paul uses mentions "whoever," he is speaking of the whoevers who eat and drink in an "unworthy manner," the unworthy manner being their demonstrated lack of unity and failure to recognize what Christ's work signifies in terms of their relationship to one another. That this is the context of Paul's instruction throughout the passage is even clearer when he sums up his thoughts on the matter in 11:33-34: "So the, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another" (v. 33). His concern throughout is that they demonstrate the unity that their participation in the sacrament signifies.
This just isn't a good place to go in order to show that participation in the Lord's Supper per se requires an intellectual understanding of what the elements signify. Paul is not doing a bit of systematic theology here on the nature of the LS abstracted from his pastoral concern for the Corinthians. Is he saying something about the nature of the LS? Sure he is. But it is always directed at the Corinthians' apparent lack of understanding not just of what the elements signify, but primarily of what that signification means for their understanding of who they are as members of the body of Christ. He is not talking about the LS in order to give them direction on who gets to partake and who doesn't in terms of intellectual understanding, and I think it is a stretch to put the passage to that sort of work.
So, what is the implication for the PC question? Only that I fail to see how this passage can be used as a prooftext to bar baptized children who fall short of the intellectual maturity (of however rudimentary a form) we require from the Table. I suspect that our baptized children judge the unity of the Body more rightly than we do when they expect to be able to share the bread and cup with us. Paul, at least, is not talking to them in 1 Cor. 11. Does this mean that we don't want them to gain an understanding of the sacrament's significance, that we aren't concerned whether or not they remember and proclaim? Of course not. The issue isn't what we require of them in order to grow in grace; the issue is what is required of them in order to participate in the LS. I suspect that we place an unneccessary obstacle in their way by requiring intellectual maturity.
Is the redemptive-historical principle that was mentioned before touched by my line of argument regarding 1 Cor. 11? Perhaps not. It might be argued that since baptism, unlike circumcision, is in fact to be applied to all who are in covenant with God, we should expect a similar broadening with regard to the LS. This would, of course, involve defending the claim that those who participate in baptism are also participants in the NC, that both groups include exactly the same members. I suspect that an orthodox defense could be made. One obvious counterexample would be someone who professed faith in Christ, and is therefore united to Him, but who wasn't baptized. For this to be a counterexample, we would need to take the profession as an instance of being in covenant with God, of being in "the people of God," of being one of His elect, etc. The problem with this is that we are now delving into the secret things of God, who is in the "invisible church," whereas the point of the sacraments is to show who is in covenant with God in terms of the "visible church." Grounding one's position on something that we cannot know with certainty seems like a dead end; at the very least, it doesn't seem all that productive of a line to follow. So, there is at least this much of a chance that it wouldn't be a counterexample after all, not to mention (though I'm doing it!) that anyone who professes faith in Christ is required (read: strongly urged) to be baptized.
There is no "prooftext" in favor of PC; my point with 1 Cor. 11 is that there is also no prooftext against it. I think it would be the wrong approach to argue from ignorance that scripture (in the form of prooftexts) supports PC. So, we have to look elsewhere, such as to appeals to the redemptive-historical context of participation in the sacraments, continuities and discontinuities between the OC and NC, family meal analogies, drawing "good and necessary consequences" from what is said in scripture about the sacrament, etc. And because prooftexts do not abound, the disagreements do abound.
The response to this criticism focuses on what the application of the sacraments says about covenantal inclusion. To the extent that PCists make comparisons between the new covenant baptism-communion pair and the old covenant circumcision-passover pair, they end up being inconsistent. With the old covenant pair, it was not the case that only those who received the sacrament were included in those covenanted with God. Only males were circumcised, but females were incontrovertably included in God's people. The little ones (namely, infants) were not able to partake of the Passover, but they also were certainly included in those whom God looked after and cared for. So, we can claim that those to whom the sacraments were applied did not exhaust who was included in the people of God; the latter group is bigger than the former. If we want to draw comparisons from this with the new covenant sacraments, particularly communion, we have a similar conclusion. Taking into consideration only the males under the old covenant, they could have been circumcised (at a very young age) and yet were unable to partake of the Passover; the former group is larger than the latter, and it is the former who are included in the people of God. The idea here is that participation in the sacraments, as signs and seals of covenant, does not determine inclusion in that covenant. The sacraments are signs and seals rooted as much in, and primarily in, the redemptive-historical context in which they occur. They take their form from just such a context and, thus, their application may not accurately reflect covenant inclusion.
Drawing a comparison with the new covenant sacraments, we could have a situation in which some who have been baptized, and, consequently, are really and completely included in the people of God, are not able to partake of communion. That they don't partake has no effect on whether or not they are included -- really included -- in the people of God. The redemptive-historical change in the institution of new covenant sacraments is that they are meant not just for Israel (and those suitably attached to Israel, such as foreigners living in their midst) but for all the nations, for Jew and Gentile alike. The sacraments are now meant for all who are in Christ and for those suitably attached to Christ's Church (e.g., by being born to believing parents or by profession of faith). Yet, despite this broadening of sacrament application, it is argued, the hermeneutical principle remains: not all who participate in the covenant participate in the sacraments that are signs and seals of that covenant, in the case at hand the focal sacrament is the Lord's Supper.
If there is to be a difference in who participates in the sacraments, it seems there should be a difference in the nature of the sacraments that determines participation. The nature of baptism is union with Christ, and this union includes infants in the NT. It is a passive sacrament, signifying our passive participation salvation. What is the nature of the LS that would exclude children who have not made a profession of faith? It is an active sacrament that involves commemoration and proclamation. We see this in 1 Cor. 11:24-26: "do this in remembrance of me," "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." But for this to have its proper force in excluding certain members of the covenant from partaking (namely, children), we must take commemoration and proclamation to assume an intellectual understanding (or however rudimentary a form) of what the elements signify. Is it appropriate for someone to remember Christ and proclaim His death without even a rudimentary understanding of Christ's work?
I have a feeling that this question, and the line of reasoning leading up to it, is beside the point of 1 Cor. 11, anyway. It seems to me that the point of Paul's injunctions of remembering and proclaiming point to 11:29: "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly." What does it mean to "judge the body rightly" in this case? Whenever his reference is to the sacrament in 1 Cor. 10 and 11, he includes both eating and drinking, making reference to the elements of the sacrament. Here, however, he includes only "the body." Is this significant? I think so.
The PCist is sometimes thought to make too much of the context of 1 Cor. 10 and 11, but, then, I tend to think not enough is made of it. Paul is very much concerned with the Corinthians' sense of community in Christ in these chapters. He makes much of it in 10:1-4, 16-17. In that chapter he emphasizes that the cup and bread point to Christ, urging them to therefore cease to partake in food sacrificed to idols (which point to gods other than Christ). In chapter 11, he emphasizes the unity that the cup and bread signify. Paul is very concerned about the Corinthians' lack of unity when they come together and the consequent factions that are at work when they partake of the sacrament, 11:17-22. So, when he urges them to remember what the sacrament signifies and what they proclaim when the partake, he is pointing them to their unity with each other through Christ. What are they not judging rightly when they come together at odds with one another rather than in unity? They are not judging rightly that in eating and drinking they are remembering and proclaiming that they are sharing in the blood and body of Christ (10:16-17). They are one Body in Christ, not unconnected bodies. They are losing touch with what their participation assumes (and signifies): that they are all one in Christ. So, when they come together to eat and drink, they are not judging this union and connectedness through Christ rightly. Paul is not so much concerned with their knowledge of what the sacrament signifies concerning Christ's work; he is concerned that they aren't taking due note of the fact that Christ's work signifies their union with one another.
It could be argued that the pronouns in 11:26-29 ("you," "whoever," "he who") have an unlimited reference, that is, their reference is not limited only to the immediate context of Paul's concern with their demonstrated lack of unity in their participation but instead includes anyone anywhere at any time who participates in the sacrament. I find this a little hard to accept, if for no other reason than that in 11:27, when Paul uses mentions "whoever," he is speaking of the whoevers who eat and drink in an "unworthy manner," the unworthy manner being their demonstrated lack of unity and failure to recognize what Christ's work signifies in terms of their relationship to one another. That this is the context of Paul's instruction throughout the passage is even clearer when he sums up his thoughts on the matter in 11:33-34: "So the, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another" (v. 33). His concern throughout is that they demonstrate the unity that their participation in the sacrament signifies.
This just isn't a good place to go in order to show that participation in the Lord's Supper per se requires an intellectual understanding of what the elements signify. Paul is not doing a bit of systematic theology here on the nature of the LS abstracted from his pastoral concern for the Corinthians. Is he saying something about the nature of the LS? Sure he is. But it is always directed at the Corinthians' apparent lack of understanding not just of what the elements signify, but primarily of what that signification means for their understanding of who they are as members of the body of Christ. He is not talking about the LS in order to give them direction on who gets to partake and who doesn't in terms of intellectual understanding, and I think it is a stretch to put the passage to that sort of work.
So, what is the implication for the PC question? Only that I fail to see how this passage can be used as a prooftext to bar baptized children who fall short of the intellectual maturity (of however rudimentary a form) we require from the Table. I suspect that our baptized children judge the unity of the Body more rightly than we do when they expect to be able to share the bread and cup with us. Paul, at least, is not talking to them in 1 Cor. 11. Does this mean that we don't want them to gain an understanding of the sacrament's significance, that we aren't concerned whether or not they remember and proclaim? Of course not. The issue isn't what we require of them in order to grow in grace; the issue is what is required of them in order to participate in the LS. I suspect that we place an unneccessary obstacle in their way by requiring intellectual maturity.
Is the redemptive-historical principle that was mentioned before touched by my line of argument regarding 1 Cor. 11? Perhaps not. It might be argued that since baptism, unlike circumcision, is in fact to be applied to all who are in covenant with God, we should expect a similar broadening with regard to the LS. This would, of course, involve defending the claim that those who participate in baptism are also participants in the NC, that both groups include exactly the same members. I suspect that an orthodox defense could be made. One obvious counterexample would be someone who professed faith in Christ, and is therefore united to Him, but who wasn't baptized. For this to be a counterexample, we would need to take the profession as an instance of being in covenant with God, of being in "the people of God," of being one of His elect, etc. The problem with this is that we are now delving into the secret things of God, who is in the "invisible church," whereas the point of the sacraments is to show who is in covenant with God in terms of the "visible church." Grounding one's position on something that we cannot know with certainty seems like a dead end; at the very least, it doesn't seem all that productive of a line to follow. So, there is at least this much of a chance that it wouldn't be a counterexample after all, not to mention (though I'm doing it!) that anyone who professes faith in Christ is required (read: strongly urged) to be baptized.
There is no "prooftext" in favor of PC; my point with 1 Cor. 11 is that there is also no prooftext against it. I think it would be the wrong approach to argue from ignorance that scripture (in the form of prooftexts) supports PC. So, we have to look elsewhere, such as to appeals to the redemptive-historical context of participation in the sacraments, continuities and discontinuities between the OC and NC, family meal analogies, drawing "good and necessary consequences" from what is said in scripture about the sacrament, etc. And because prooftexts do not abound, the disagreements do abound.
10.15.2006
Three Mile Nut Brown Island
The good news is that my nut brown is fermenting like a madman. The yeast is very happy right now eating away at all the sugars. The bad news is that I created a meltdown that I spent part of this morning and this afternoon cleaning up. You see, there are several by-products of fermentation, the most relevant being alcohol. CO2 is also released during fermentation, and this helps to gauge when fermentation is complete. Usually, an airlock (see picture) is filled with water and inserted into the top of the fermentation vessel, which for me is a 6-gallon glass carboy.
The CO2 causes bubbling in the airlock; when the bubbling stops, the fermentation is done. Another by-product of fermentation is foam; sometimes it is a lot, sometimes it is a little. I haven't had a problem with it...until now. You see, I had a LOT of beer in the carboy, but I thought it wouldn't foam enough to cause a problem. I thought wrong. I woke up this morning to the sound of a "thick" bubbling, not the sound that usually occurs in the airlock. When the CO2 enters the tube inside the airlock, it knocks the little open-ened dome-shaped thingy you see inside the airlock against the airlock cap and makes the water around the tube bubble, making a "thin" plastic ticking sound. Well, apparently there was a lot of foam produced during the night, and the pressure of the CO2 being released knocked the cap off the top of the airlock along with the dome-shaped thingy. Once it filled the airlock (which wouldn't take very long), the foam had nowhere else to go except out of the tube, down the side of the carboy, and onto the carpet, which it then decided to get drenched with its bad yeast-smelling self.
I was already pressed for time this morning, but I decided to clean up a bit before church. I put the carboy in the kitchen and inserted another (sterilized) airlock. This was not very smart, granted, since the foam would keep making its way out of the carboy, but I didn't have my coffee, had a headache, and wasn't thinking straight. This afternoon, I cleaned up what came of THAT mess, and attached one end of a blowoff hose to the airlock tube (taking out the dome-shaped thingy) and put the other end in a container of water. The hose is pretty long, so there was plenty of space for the foam to go. Silly me didn't sterilize the end of the hose attached to the airlock tube, so there is the possibility of contamination if any of the foam residue makes its way into the fermenter; but, that's not all that likely to happen at this point. I'll probably sterilize it later tonight.
This beer is really getting on my nerves. It better be good.
The CO2 causes bubbling in the airlock; when the bubbling stops, the fermentation is done. Another by-product of fermentation is foam; sometimes it is a lot, sometimes it is a little. I haven't had a problem with it...until now. You see, I had a LOT of beer in the carboy, but I thought it wouldn't foam enough to cause a problem. I thought wrong. I woke up this morning to the sound of a "thick" bubbling, not the sound that usually occurs in the airlock. When the CO2 enters the tube inside the airlock, it knocks the little open-ened dome-shaped thingy you see inside the airlock against the airlock cap and makes the water around the tube bubble, making a "thin" plastic ticking sound. Well, apparently there was a lot of foam produced during the night, and the pressure of the CO2 being released knocked the cap off the top of the airlock along with the dome-shaped thingy. Once it filled the airlock (which wouldn't take very long), the foam had nowhere else to go except out of the tube, down the side of the carboy, and onto the carpet, which it then decided to get drenched with its bad yeast-smelling self.I was already pressed for time this morning, but I decided to clean up a bit before church. I put the carboy in the kitchen and inserted another (sterilized) airlock. This was not very smart, granted, since the foam would keep making its way out of the carboy, but I didn't have my coffee, had a headache, and wasn't thinking straight. This afternoon, I cleaned up what came of THAT mess, and attached one end of a blowoff hose to the airlock tube (taking out the dome-shaped thingy) and put the other end in a container of water. The hose is pretty long, so there was plenty of space for the foam to go. Silly me didn't sterilize the end of the hose attached to the airlock tube, so there is the possibility of contamination if any of the foam residue makes its way into the fermenter; but, that's not all that likely to happen at this point. I'll probably sterilize it later tonight.
This beer is really getting on my nerves. It better be good.
10.14.2006
Flight 812
As you LOST fanatics know, this is the Oceanic Air flight that crashed on the island. But it also has something of cult classic history. I was watching Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space this afternoon and noticed that the pilots of flight 812 were the first in the film to spot the spaceship of the aliens that came to carry out Plan 9 on Earth. Coincidence? I think not.
Retraction (10/15): Silly, silly, silly me. Apparently, I don't know my LOST trivia like I should. The Oceanic Air flight was 815 (two of The Numbers), not 812. The flight number on Plan 9 was, in fact, 812. I would like nothing else than to delete this embarrassing post, but I'll keep it up for humility's sake. Sorry, Scott, but this won't be getting into the Lostpedia information bank.
Retraction (10/15): Silly, silly, silly me. Apparently, I don't know my LOST trivia like I should. The Oceanic Air flight was 815 (two of The Numbers), not 812. The flight number on Plan 9 was, in fact, 812. I would like nothing else than to delete this embarrassing post, but I'll keep it up for humility's sake. Sorry, Scott, but this won't be getting into the Lostpedia information bank.
Nut Brown Ale Damage Control
Dadgum it. Apparently I haven't brewed enough to where the small (yet important) details don't get overlooked. There are three ingredients that didn't make it into the wort boil: bicarbonate, irish moss, and brown sugar. The first two aren't crucial for a nut brown ale; the third is. The first is highly recommended for any pale ale: it hardens the water giving the ale a nice edge. With pilsners, for example, you would want a softer beer with low hardness.
The second is highly recommended for any beer: it helps clump together all the stuff from the boil that you don't won't in your beer. If irish moss isn't used, the stuff settles out anyway, but the sediment also has beer mixed in; since what you want is a clear beer as a finished product, the beer mixed in with the sediment is lost. Usually it's not a huge loss and allowances are typically made for such, but, hey, I want all the beer I can get if I'm going to spend six hours making the stuff!
The third missing ingredient, brown sugar, is crucial for the beer to be called a nut brown ale. These ales have a nice sweetness, in addition to the nuttiness (which I took care of with my toasting experiment last night) to them that the brown sugar (or molasses) imparts. Without this ingredient, it really isn't going to be a nut brown ale. I had to have the brown sugar. When I got the beer home, before pitching the yeast, I boiled up a brown sugar concentrate, brought it down to the same temperature as what was in the fermenter, and added it to the fermenter with the rest of the beer. (Technically, it's not beer until there is fermentation from the yeast, so I'm being a bit loose with terminology here. I'm sure there is a correct term for this pre-beer, but, alas, I don't know what it is.) Hopefully this will correct the problem. It'll be a good beer, regardless. I just want it to be the beer I set out to brew.
It's just so frustrating to put precious time and effort in something only to misstep and potentially mess up the fruits of your labor. Ack.
The second is highly recommended for any beer: it helps clump together all the stuff from the boil that you don't won't in your beer. If irish moss isn't used, the stuff settles out anyway, but the sediment also has beer mixed in; since what you want is a clear beer as a finished product, the beer mixed in with the sediment is lost. Usually it's not a huge loss and allowances are typically made for such, but, hey, I want all the beer I can get if I'm going to spend six hours making the stuff!
The third missing ingredient, brown sugar, is crucial for the beer to be called a nut brown ale. These ales have a nice sweetness, in addition to the nuttiness (which I took care of with my toasting experiment last night) to them that the brown sugar (or molasses) imparts. Without this ingredient, it really isn't going to be a nut brown ale. I had to have the brown sugar. When I got the beer home, before pitching the yeast, I boiled up a brown sugar concentrate, brought it down to the same temperature as what was in the fermenter, and added it to the fermenter with the rest of the beer. (Technically, it's not beer until there is fermentation from the yeast, so I'm being a bit loose with terminology here. I'm sure there is a correct term for this pre-beer, but, alas, I don't know what it is.) Hopefully this will correct the problem. It'll be a good beer, regardless. I just want it to be the beer I set out to brew.
It's just so frustrating to put precious time and effort in something only to misstep and potentially mess up the fruits of your labor. Ack.
10.13.2006
Nut Brown Ale Preparation
I'll be brewing another nut brown ale tomorrow. I want it to have a nice, distinct nutty toffee flavor and aroma to it, and I've heard that the best way to do that is to toast the pale malt grain yourself. So, that's what I did tonight. I put about a pound of grains in a foil-lined baking pan in the oven at 350F for about 30 minutes. Let me say that my apartment smells incredible right now! I've got another one-pound batch in there right now. For this second batch, I made sure to wet the grains down better than the first batch to see what effect it might have on the outcome. I'm very much looking forward to what the toasting will do for my beer.
People occasionally ask me what the "malt" is that is used for the beer. I never know just what to say, except that it's barley malt. But that is rarely satisfying either for me or for the person asking. For those of you interested in a more in-depth, and ultimately more satisfying, answer, check out this webpage. It's got pictures and everything. The barley malt, however, is not straight-up barley from the field. It's barley that has been malted. So, here is a quickie on the malting process.
People occasionally ask me what the "malt" is that is used for the beer. I never know just what to say, except that it's barley malt. But that is rarely satisfying either for me or for the person asking. For those of you interested in a more in-depth, and ultimately more satisfying, answer, check out this webpage. It's got pictures and everything. The barley malt, however, is not straight-up barley from the field. It's barley that has been malted. So, here is a quickie on the malting process.
LOST (3x02) "The Glass Ballerina"
This will likely be something of a let-down based on commented expectations, but here goes...
Really, I'm not all that interested in the Sun/Jin/Jae story. We saw Jae before. She was on a blind date with him a while back. Wasn't he also giving her English (and, apparently, other) lessons? The side story is a sidetrack for me. What really interests me is what's going on with the Others.
The Boat
They didn't know about Desmond's boat until Colleen told them about it from the recon mission. So, they don't know everything. Weakness in the Others: 1.
Juliet dismisses the boat find: "So they have a boat. Sailing in circles will keep them busy." This comment (and the tone of the discussion among Ben, Juliet, and Colleen) highlights a few things. First, they seem to be behind, or at least have working knowledge of, something we know from Desmond's escape attempt: you can't get off the island by boat. Perhaps something is purposely jamming the ability for the instruments to work properly. Regardless, Desmond was right: you'll always come back to the island*. Second, the possibility of factions (at the very least, differences) among the Others has more proof. Ben to Juliet: "You never made soup for me." Implication: Juliet and Ben aren't on the best of terms, but as Juliet's boss Ben is in the position to make jokes like that about it. Colleen: "Am I interrupting something?" Juliet: "Would it really matter if you were?" Cat fight! Where is this tension coming from? Weakness in the Others: 2. Third, piggy-backing on the second point, Juliet's casual dismissal shows that she's with them on the surface (the LOSTies are not getting away) but it could also be taken as a sly attempt to push the little thorn in their foot a bit deeper. Perhaps even to minimize the potential problem (danger?) it poses to the Others.
Ben wants that boat bad. But why? Presumably, not to get off the island. He dangles the "If you cooperate, we send you home" carrot in front of Jack. So, unless he's lying to Jack, they have a way to get off the island. There is, of course, a pretty high probability that he is lying. It would be common practice to win Jack's trust through introducing truths, such as his real name and the fact that the Red Sox won the World Series, mixed in with really tempting lies, such as getting of the island, in order to gain Jack's cooperation. And if the Others have contact with the outside world, which they undoubtedly do based on the information they've acquired on the LOSTies and news from the outside world they have on videotape, they would likely know how to get off the blasted thing.
Is Jack Cracked?
Jack: "If you could leave this island, why would you still be here?"
Ben: "Yes, Jack, why would we be here?"
Nice. There is a reason why They're on the island. I'm just not sure what that reason is...
Ben to Jack: "If you listen to me, if you trust me. If you do what I tell you when the time comes, I'll take you there. I will take you hom."
Wow, they are really breaking Jack with this. Has he cracked? Did they know about the inside joke between him and his dad about the Red Sox? What a mind game!
Family Ties
Ben claims that he's lived on that island all of his life. Colleen calls one of the men in charge of Sawyer, "Daddy." She doesn't look all that much younger than him, though. It seems likely that Ethan grew up there, as well, given what he seemed to know about living in the jungle. This just might have some connection to why they wanted the children from the plane crash. Remember that Ecko killed two (?) of Them in Their attempt to kidnap the two kids from the tail section, they wanted Claire's baby, and the fact that Walt was "special" seemed something of an added bonus to getting him. But they decided not to keep Walt. Why? Because of his special nature? Because his dad was still around?
This also seems to discredit the idea that Ben's "team" of Others were sent to the island. Perhaps they are hold-overs from an original group. Perhaps they can't procreate quickly enough and are set on getting youngsters where they can, namely, from planes that just happen to crash in their vicinity. There at least seems to be some sort of notion of the continuation of the family/clan going on among the Others.
The Karl thing might also have a connection here, but that remains to be seen. The producers say this about Karl in their most recent podcast:
Speaking of children, Alex made a return! And she was asking about Karl. Love interest? Ack, probably. Anyway, point being that Alex is snooping around, which is good for the LOSTies.
Who Are These People?
Those Others are still a stealthy bunch. How did they get past the invincible Sayid? Dang them.
But, as Sawyer so intelligently found out, they aren't all paratroopers. Weakness in the Others: 3. This would be expected, if they were there for research purposes. But such purposes seem to recede further and further into the background. They are a mixed bunch, and this is perplexing. Scott has some good things to say in this regard: "Not all of them are the same, in terms of their strength. Not sure what to make of this, except that we should not interpret the actions of single Other individuals as though they represent the entire group. Apparently, while it's possible Ethan single-handedly hung Charlie and beat the crap out of Jack, that doesn't mean that the rest can do that. Some of them can, hence Sawyer's comment that that one guy had fight in him and another had martial arts training, but some cannot. And Sawyer's not convinced he couldn't beat them if he had too." And, to add to the perplexity, Sawyer thought that Juliet really would have shot Kate. This just seems to go against what I've been thinking (or have been led to think) about Juliet.
*What about Walt and Michael? Ben tells Jack that he sent them "home," but how could that happen if the instruments were messed up? (1) It was the Others' boat. (2) Ben told Michael what to set his bearings on. There is at least the possibility that Walt and Michael did, in fact, get away from the island.
Really, I'm not all that interested in the Sun/Jin/Jae story. We saw Jae before. She was on a blind date with him a while back. Wasn't he also giving her English (and, apparently, other) lessons? The side story is a sidetrack for me. What really interests me is what's going on with the Others.
The Boat
They didn't know about Desmond's boat until Colleen told them about it from the recon mission. So, they don't know everything. Weakness in the Others: 1.
Juliet dismisses the boat find: "So they have a boat. Sailing in circles will keep them busy." This comment (and the tone of the discussion among Ben, Juliet, and Colleen) highlights a few things. First, they seem to be behind, or at least have working knowledge of, something we know from Desmond's escape attempt: you can't get off the island by boat. Perhaps something is purposely jamming the ability for the instruments to work properly. Regardless, Desmond was right: you'll always come back to the island*. Second, the possibility of factions (at the very least, differences) among the Others has more proof. Ben to Juliet: "You never made soup for me." Implication: Juliet and Ben aren't on the best of terms, but as Juliet's boss Ben is in the position to make jokes like that about it. Colleen: "Am I interrupting something?" Juliet: "Would it really matter if you were?" Cat fight! Where is this tension coming from? Weakness in the Others: 2. Third, piggy-backing on the second point, Juliet's casual dismissal shows that she's with them on the surface (the LOSTies are not getting away) but it could also be taken as a sly attempt to push the little thorn in their foot a bit deeper. Perhaps even to minimize the potential problem (danger?) it poses to the Others.
Ben wants that boat bad. But why? Presumably, not to get off the island. He dangles the "If you cooperate, we send you home" carrot in front of Jack. So, unless he's lying to Jack, they have a way to get off the island. There is, of course, a pretty high probability that he is lying. It would be common practice to win Jack's trust through introducing truths, such as his real name and the fact that the Red Sox won the World Series, mixed in with really tempting lies, such as getting of the island, in order to gain Jack's cooperation. And if the Others have contact with the outside world, which they undoubtedly do based on the information they've acquired on the LOSTies and news from the outside world they have on videotape, they would likely know how to get off the blasted thing.
Is Jack Cracked?
Jack: "If you could leave this island, why would you still be here?"
Ben: "Yes, Jack, why would we be here?"
Nice. There is a reason why They're on the island. I'm just not sure what that reason is...
Ben to Jack: "If you listen to me, if you trust me. If you do what I tell you when the time comes, I'll take you there. I will take you hom."
Wow, they are really breaking Jack with this. Has he cracked? Did they know about the inside joke between him and his dad about the Red Sox? What a mind game!
Family Ties
Ben claims that he's lived on that island all of his life. Colleen calls one of the men in charge of Sawyer, "Daddy." She doesn't look all that much younger than him, though. It seems likely that Ethan grew up there, as well, given what he seemed to know about living in the jungle. This just might have some connection to why they wanted the children from the plane crash. Remember that Ecko killed two (?) of Them in Their attempt to kidnap the two kids from the tail section, they wanted Claire's baby, and the fact that Walt was "special" seemed something of an added bonus to getting him. But they decided not to keep Walt. Why? Because of his special nature? Because his dad was still around?
This also seems to discredit the idea that Ben's "team" of Others were sent to the island. Perhaps they are hold-overs from an original group. Perhaps they can't procreate quickly enough and are set on getting youngsters where they can, namely, from planes that just happen to crash in their vicinity. There at least seems to be some sort of notion of the continuation of the family/clan going on among the Others.
The Karl thing might also have a connection here, but that remains to be seen. The producers say this about Karl in their most recent podcast:
"Karl is not a plant. He is legitimately an Other, who is legitimately trying to escape, and who has legitimately been beaten up. The reasons why are yet to be discovered.... You'll have a very good idea about who Karl is and why he was caged by the end of the 6th episode."Sweet. Perhaps the light to be shed on Karl will also shed light on some of these other things, if there is a connection there at all.
Speaking of children, Alex made a return! And she was asking about Karl. Love interest? Ack, probably. Anyway, point being that Alex is snooping around, which is good for the LOSTies.
Who Are These People?
Those Others are still a stealthy bunch. How did they get past the invincible Sayid? Dang them.
But, as Sawyer so intelligently found out, they aren't all paratroopers. Weakness in the Others: 3. This would be expected, if they were there for research purposes. But such purposes seem to recede further and further into the background. They are a mixed bunch, and this is perplexing. Scott has some good things to say in this regard: "Not all of them are the same, in terms of their strength. Not sure what to make of this, except that we should not interpret the actions of single Other individuals as though they represent the entire group. Apparently, while it's possible Ethan single-handedly hung Charlie and beat the crap out of Jack, that doesn't mean that the rest can do that. Some of them can, hence Sawyer's comment that that one guy had fight in him and another had martial arts training, but some cannot. And Sawyer's not convinced he couldn't beat them if he had too." And, to add to the perplexity, Sawyer thought that Juliet really would have shot Kate. This just seems to go against what I've been thinking (or have been led to think) about Juliet.
*What about Walt and Michael? Ben tells Jack that he sent them "home," but how could that happen if the instruments were messed up? (1) It was the Others' boat. (2) Ben told Michael what to set his bearings on. There is at least the possibility that Walt and Michael did, in fact, get away from the island.
10.08.2006
New Sidebar for the Blog
I added a section on previous LOST posts. I mainly did it so that I could easily refer to what I said once upon a time without laboriously going through all of my archives...which, interestingly enough, I just finished doing. Anyway, I figure why keep all that work to myself? Don't know if it'll be of any interest, but there it is.
LOST (3x01), Part II: Theories
Scott and I had a quick yet penetrating discussion yesterday about the episode and also about how it might be connected with the Sri Lanka video (the end product of the LOST Experience). I thought I'd include in this post some of the things that we talked about. Scott had some really interesting ideas about what is going on within the Others' organization. What follows is our collaboration (individual parts of which either one of us might disagree with).
Juliet's ambiguity
I can't believe I didn't mention this in the previous LOST post. Juliet's involvement with the Dharma Initiative is ambiguous: is she or is she not with the Others (philosophically speaking). When Jack asks her if the station is one of the DI's, she says, "They called it the Hydra." Not, "we called it the Hydra" but "they". Maybe not a big deal, but she seems to conceive of herself (at least) as distinct from the original Dharma project. But then later in the conversation, she uses "we" when Jack asks her who they are: "It doesn't matter who we were. It only matters who we are." So, which is it? Does she think of herself as with the Others or not?
Another ambiguity lies more specifically in Juliet's loyalties to the present group, and this is what goes back to the opening scene of the episode. She looks like she's trying hard to cheer herself up, to fake a good mood, and not have a breakdown by listening to the music. [NOTE: it's a CD player, not a record player as in the Swan station.] She's having a bad day, burns her hands on the muffin pan, has to host a bunch of people for a book club (not always the least stressful thing, I'm sure), and her plumbing is STILL not fixed. Where does this lead? When Adam opens his mouth about how Ben wouldn't read this book even in the bathroom and no wonder why Ben isn't here and Ben this and Ben that, she lights into him (to the humor of the older lady). "Excuse me for thinking that free will still exists on this--" then the tremor. She seems down to her last straw about how Ben is held up on this pedestal. It seems that his opinion is so highly valued that (perhaps) Juliet seems to think it's cutting into the Others' freedom of individual thought (in some sense). Perhaps the Others are in danger of a sort of groupthink? This would be incredibly ironic, given how adept they seem to be at psychological manipulation. Ben later gets the hint when they are all outside after the tremor: "So, I guess this means I'm out of the book club." Perhaps there's some tension there that goes back a bit.
This initial look at Juliet's disenchantment with Ben is bookmarked by their exchange at the very end of the episode. The exchange seems forced in its politeness. "Good work, Juliet." "Thank you, Ben," but the way she says it, and the way she looks when she says it, is more like "F*** you, Ben." I'm thinking that maybe she'll be like Alex was with Claire and help the Losties out a bit.
This talk of how disgruntled Juliet seems to be with how things are going is pretty solid evidence for their being factions among the Others. Interestingly, this claim about factions among the Others has been corroborated by the producers Lindelof and Cuse in their most recent video podcast. (It is not always easy figuring out when they're giving a straight answer and when they're being facetious, but it seemed like this was a straight answer.)
The question is the nature of the faction(s). First, there appears to be some history between Juliet and Ben. It could be romantic or professional or both or something else entirely, but it appears to exist and that the current situation is one of distrust but a common goal. Second, some of the people in Otherville have allegiances to either Ben or Juliet (some may not have any at all). For instance, Amelia (the old woman) appears aligned to Juliet, but the man with glasses who disapproves of the book choice appears aligned with Ben. As does Goodwin and Ethan, for that matter, evidenced by their complicity to his orders. So, assume there were two groups -- an original DHARMA Initiative team with a purpose to alter the environmental and human factors in the Valenzetti Equation and a second Hanso Foundation team with a more radical agenda. It could be that Juliet is the leader from the first mission, and Ben the leader from the second mission, and since the second mission is the new mission, he may have manipulated her and the Others in such a way as to take control away while simultaneously creating a new group. Hence why she says "it doesn't matter who we were, it only matters who we are."
DHARMA then and DHARMA now
Does the faction (I'll just put it in the singular from here on out) rest on a philosophical difference? Perhaps Juliet doesn't like what Ben is doing under the DHARMA label. Is the difference personal? Perhaps Juliet is just jealous of Ben's position. Perhaps she once held that position, or one like it, once upon a time and was ousted. Is the difference historical? DHARMA seems to have been doing things on the island for decades: The Swan hatch contains lots of old records and stereo equipment, the old weight set, and the old stationary bike, which suggests that it's been there for a while. (True, it's also got a pretty new washer/dryer set, but so do the Others, so there's a possible explanation along those lines (though I don't know what the actual explanation would look like).) Many, if not all, of the stations we've seen look like they've been there for a long time -- rusty and worn looking. All of this strongly suggests that the original Dharma team(s) came a long time ago.
Is Ben (and Juliet) part of the original DHARMA group? Are the Others a new group with a new plan that came in after an original DHARMA group realized failure? Is Juliet part of an original group with one plan, and Ben part of a different more recent group with a different plan (which would also explain the Juliet-Ben tension)?
The Sri Lanka Video
When I first saw the video, I didn't know whether it was legit or not. Apparently, it is. Fans have put forth a bunch of theories connecting the content of the video with what is going on in the LOST episodes. It makes sense that there would be a connection, but before discussing some possibilities, I should mention that Lindelof and Cuse acknowledge in their latest video podcast that you aren't missing anything if you only know about the episodes and not all of the LOST Experience stuff. That there is a tight, meaningful connection between the Sri Lanka video and the episodes suddenly doesn't seem as likely, interesting, or important. So, I'll let other people spend their time on the connection. Nonetheless...
The video is in two parts. The first part is a DI film with Hanso talking about the Valenzetti Equation and its core values (4 8 15 16 23 42). The idea is that Valenzetti thinks this equation predicts the end of the world (in some unspecified sense) and that unless the core values can be changed, the outcome of total annihilation is certain to happen. The DI was set up to change the core values. Hanso describes the researchers going to a remote place (as in, the island?) where they would have a place to work (as in, the stations?) and a radio tower that would broadcast the numbers. This radio tower part pretty strongly connects the video with the episodes. It was just such a tower broadcasting the numbers that brought Rousseau and her crew to the island; what the LOSTies heard by the time they picked up the tower transmission was Rousseau's new message. Did the Others know about the transmission change? They didn't appear too worked up about it if they were having book clubs...
The second part of the video describes Mittelwerk, one of the board members of the Hanso Foundation, showing the video to some folks in white lab coats. He notes to the group that the DI failed in its mission to alter the core values of the Valenzetti equation and that more radical (and seemingly unethical) actions need to be taken. This sets up a DI-now/DI-then contrast similar to the possible contrast set up above regarding events on the island. How closely the two contrasts are related is, IMO, up in the air. See the Sri Lanka video link for theories on this.
Mittlewerk talks about an outbreak and a "vaccine" that those he is talking to will take to the affected villages. (Some theorize that the villages mentioned by Mittelwerk are Othervilles on the island.) The "vaccine" is actually some sort of virus with a death rate of 30%; as people begin dying, they are to bring the specimens to research facilities in order to pinpoint some sort of genetic factor that the "vaccine" will uncover. Presumably, the video was shot recently; so it is unlikely that the vaccine M. is talking about is the same vaccine that Desmond was shooting up and that was given to Claire's baby while she was at the Staff station. (In both of these cases, they were shot up with a substance that was clearly labeled as DHARMA property and as a vaccine.) But the fact that M. mentions an outbreak and the fact that one apparently happened on the island suggests a connection. But this connection, unlike the radio tower connection, seems pretty tenuous given the probable time distances between the DHARMA island outbreak and the outbreak M. describes, which seems to be ongoing, unlike the island outbreak. (Kelvin's suit, for example, was a ploy and no one who has been exposed to the island environment, so far as we know, has been affected in an adverse way.)
Superhuman Powers
Juliet knocks Jack out cold. Ethan lifts Charlie off the ground pretty easily...and also kicks Jack's butt. Juliet says that the button in the Hydra station room is yellow when it is quite obviously (to us) red. Does this suggest that the DI were conducting experiments on themselves in order to alter physiological/psychological factors that might change a core value of the Valenzetti equation? Do they kidnap the LOSTies and Tailies in order to get new experimental specimens?
Juliet's ambiguity
I can't believe I didn't mention this in the previous LOST post. Juliet's involvement with the Dharma Initiative is ambiguous: is she or is she not with the Others (philosophically speaking). When Jack asks her if the station is one of the DI's, she says, "They called it the Hydra." Not, "we called it the Hydra" but "they". Maybe not a big deal, but she seems to conceive of herself (at least) as distinct from the original Dharma project. But then later in the conversation, she uses "we" when Jack asks her who they are: "It doesn't matter who we were. It only matters who we are." So, which is it? Does she think of herself as with the Others or not?
Another ambiguity lies more specifically in Juliet's loyalties to the present group, and this is what goes back to the opening scene of the episode. She looks like she's trying hard to cheer herself up, to fake a good mood, and not have a breakdown by listening to the music. [NOTE: it's a CD player, not a record player as in the Swan station.] She's having a bad day, burns her hands on the muffin pan, has to host a bunch of people for a book club (not always the least stressful thing, I'm sure), and her plumbing is STILL not fixed. Where does this lead? When Adam opens his mouth about how Ben wouldn't read this book even in the bathroom and no wonder why Ben isn't here and Ben this and Ben that, she lights into him (to the humor of the older lady). "Excuse me for thinking that free will still exists on this--" then the tremor. She seems down to her last straw about how Ben is held up on this pedestal. It seems that his opinion is so highly valued that (perhaps) Juliet seems to think it's cutting into the Others' freedom of individual thought (in some sense). Perhaps the Others are in danger of a sort of groupthink? This would be incredibly ironic, given how adept they seem to be at psychological manipulation. Ben later gets the hint when they are all outside after the tremor: "So, I guess this means I'm out of the book club." Perhaps there's some tension there that goes back a bit.
This initial look at Juliet's disenchantment with Ben is bookmarked by their exchange at the very end of the episode. The exchange seems forced in its politeness. "Good work, Juliet." "Thank you, Ben," but the way she says it, and the way she looks when she says it, is more like "F*** you, Ben." I'm thinking that maybe she'll be like Alex was with Claire and help the Losties out a bit.
This talk of how disgruntled Juliet seems to be with how things are going is pretty solid evidence for their being factions among the Others. Interestingly, this claim about factions among the Others has been corroborated by the producers Lindelof and Cuse in their most recent video podcast. (It is not always easy figuring out when they're giving a straight answer and when they're being facetious, but it seemed like this was a straight answer.)
The question is the nature of the faction(s). First, there appears to be some history between Juliet and Ben. It could be romantic or professional or both or something else entirely, but it appears to exist and that the current situation is one of distrust but a common goal. Second, some of the people in Otherville have allegiances to either Ben or Juliet (some may not have any at all). For instance, Amelia (the old woman) appears aligned to Juliet, but the man with glasses who disapproves of the book choice appears aligned with Ben. As does Goodwin and Ethan, for that matter, evidenced by their complicity to his orders. So, assume there were two groups -- an original DHARMA Initiative team with a purpose to alter the environmental and human factors in the Valenzetti Equation and a second Hanso Foundation team with a more radical agenda. It could be that Juliet is the leader from the first mission, and Ben the leader from the second mission, and since the second mission is the new mission, he may have manipulated her and the Others in such a way as to take control away while simultaneously creating a new group. Hence why she says "it doesn't matter who we were, it only matters who we are."
DHARMA then and DHARMA now
Does the faction (I'll just put it in the singular from here on out) rest on a philosophical difference? Perhaps Juliet doesn't like what Ben is doing under the DHARMA label. Is the difference personal? Perhaps Juliet is just jealous of Ben's position. Perhaps she once held that position, or one like it, once upon a time and was ousted. Is the difference historical? DHARMA seems to have been doing things on the island for decades: The Swan hatch contains lots of old records and stereo equipment, the old weight set, and the old stationary bike, which suggests that it's been there for a while. (True, it's also got a pretty new washer/dryer set, but so do the Others, so there's a possible explanation along those lines (though I don't know what the actual explanation would look like).) Many, if not all, of the stations we've seen look like they've been there for a long time -- rusty and worn looking. All of this strongly suggests that the original Dharma team(s) came a long time ago.
Is Ben (and Juliet) part of the original DHARMA group? Are the Others a new group with a new plan that came in after an original DHARMA group realized failure? Is Juliet part of an original group with one plan, and Ben part of a different more recent group with a different plan (which would also explain the Juliet-Ben tension)?
The Sri Lanka Video
When I first saw the video, I didn't know whether it was legit or not. Apparently, it is. Fans have put forth a bunch of theories connecting the content of the video with what is going on in the LOST episodes. It makes sense that there would be a connection, but before discussing some possibilities, I should mention that Lindelof and Cuse acknowledge in their latest video podcast that you aren't missing anything if you only know about the episodes and not all of the LOST Experience stuff. That there is a tight, meaningful connection between the Sri Lanka video and the episodes suddenly doesn't seem as likely, interesting, or important. So, I'll let other people spend their time on the connection. Nonetheless...
The video is in two parts. The first part is a DI film with Hanso talking about the Valenzetti Equation and its core values (4 8 15 16 23 42). The idea is that Valenzetti thinks this equation predicts the end of the world (in some unspecified sense) and that unless the core values can be changed, the outcome of total annihilation is certain to happen. The DI was set up to change the core values. Hanso describes the researchers going to a remote place (as in, the island?) where they would have a place to work (as in, the stations?) and a radio tower that would broadcast the numbers. This radio tower part pretty strongly connects the video with the episodes. It was just such a tower broadcasting the numbers that brought Rousseau and her crew to the island; what the LOSTies heard by the time they picked up the tower transmission was Rousseau's new message. Did the Others know about the transmission change? They didn't appear too worked up about it if they were having book clubs...
The second part of the video describes Mittelwerk, one of the board members of the Hanso Foundation, showing the video to some folks in white lab coats. He notes to the group that the DI failed in its mission to alter the core values of the Valenzetti equation and that more radical (and seemingly unethical) actions need to be taken. This sets up a DI-now/DI-then contrast similar to the possible contrast set up above regarding events on the island. How closely the two contrasts are related is, IMO, up in the air. See the Sri Lanka video link for theories on this.
Mittlewerk talks about an outbreak and a "vaccine" that those he is talking to will take to the affected villages. (Some theorize that the villages mentioned by Mittelwerk are Othervilles on the island.) The "vaccine" is actually some sort of virus with a death rate of 30%; as people begin dying, they are to bring the specimens to research facilities in order to pinpoint some sort of genetic factor that the "vaccine" will uncover. Presumably, the video was shot recently; so it is unlikely that the vaccine M. is talking about is the same vaccine that Desmond was shooting up and that was given to Claire's baby while she was at the Staff station. (In both of these cases, they were shot up with a substance that was clearly labeled as DHARMA property and as a vaccine.) But the fact that M. mentions an outbreak and the fact that one apparently happened on the island suggests a connection. But this connection, unlike the radio tower connection, seems pretty tenuous given the probable time distances between the DHARMA island outbreak and the outbreak M. describes, which seems to be ongoing, unlike the island outbreak. (Kelvin's suit, for example, was a ploy and no one who has been exposed to the island environment, so far as we know, has been affected in an adverse way.)
Superhuman Powers
Juliet knocks Jack out cold. Ethan lifts Charlie off the ground pretty easily...and also kicks Jack's butt. Juliet says that the button in the Hydra station room is yellow when it is quite obviously (to us) red. Does this suggest that the DI were conducting experiments on themselves in order to alter physiological/psychological factors that might change a core value of the Valenzetti equation? Do they kidnap the LOSTies and Tailies in order to get new experimental specimens?
10.06.2006
Week In Review
Somehow it came up in one of my smaller classes that I was the spotlight guy for my hometown show choir. "Dr. Baird, my image of you has been completely changed," she said with a look of bewilderment, knotting her brow.
I caught a guy digging in his nose during my large lecture class. Not picking. Digging. I kept on with the lecture without missing a beat, though I had to fight back the incredible urge to say or do something to him. After a couple of seconds, I scanned over to him again and...the boy was still digging! I gave up. I don't know if he thought I couldn't see him or what. Sometimes students act like they are invisible to me in those large classes -- passing notes, talking to one another, reading the paper. Weird.
In another class I usually bring a travel mug that I drink from. I didn't bring it for Wednesday's class. "Where's your coffee today?" "I don't usually have coffee in it. It's usually water." "My image of you is completely changed," she said with a look of exasperation. I'm bursting bubbles all over the place this week, I guess.
Been feeling under the weather a bit the past few days. Sore throat, runny nose, etc. I think I'm getting better.
I've got to get back to exercising. I've gained five pounds in the last couple of weeks.
Received the two copies of the journal that my article appears in, plus a bunch of nice-looking extra copies of just the article. Maybe I'll send them out to some of the places I'll be applying to this year. Speaking of, Covenant College, where I interviewed before I got my Ph.D., is looking for a philosophy prof again. I'll apply again and see what happens. If I don't get an interview this time, at least I'll be pretty sure that they didn't want me for some reason other than my academic progress.
Sometimes before class (and sometimes at the beginning of class), I'll chat with the students about music, movies, etc. Usually when they ask me what kind of music I like, my answers are met with blank stares and furrowed brows. After one of the classes, a student came up to me, "A friend of mine has been trying to get me to listen to all of the stuff that you're talking about. It's really great!" Another convert.
On my walk home from the office, I met a student who was in my existentialism class last spring. "Dr. Baird, I just wanted to thank you for introducing me to Camus and Sartre." Man, don't put the blame on me! I've got enough to worry about as it is.
Today in class, some of my students were astounded and impressed that I saw the original Star Wars in the theater. And that none of my Star Wars figures were in pristine condition. And that I used to have (still have?) three Han Solos, most of which are missing major body parts. "Why do some of your Star Wars figures have burn marks on them?" "Firecrackers. I actually played with my toys."
I caught a guy digging in his nose during my large lecture class. Not picking. Digging. I kept on with the lecture without missing a beat, though I had to fight back the incredible urge to say or do something to him. After a couple of seconds, I scanned over to him again and...the boy was still digging! I gave up. I don't know if he thought I couldn't see him or what. Sometimes students act like they are invisible to me in those large classes -- passing notes, talking to one another, reading the paper. Weird.
In another class I usually bring a travel mug that I drink from. I didn't bring it for Wednesday's class. "Where's your coffee today?" "I don't usually have coffee in it. It's usually water." "My image of you is completely changed," she said with a look of exasperation. I'm bursting bubbles all over the place this week, I guess.
Been feeling under the weather a bit the past few days. Sore throat, runny nose, etc. I think I'm getting better.
I've got to get back to exercising. I've gained five pounds in the last couple of weeks.
Received the two copies of the journal that my article appears in, plus a bunch of nice-looking extra copies of just the article. Maybe I'll send them out to some of the places I'll be applying to this year. Speaking of, Covenant College, where I interviewed before I got my Ph.D., is looking for a philosophy prof again. I'll apply again and see what happens. If I don't get an interview this time, at least I'll be pretty sure that they didn't want me for some reason other than my academic progress.
Sometimes before class (and sometimes at the beginning of class), I'll chat with the students about music, movies, etc. Usually when they ask me what kind of music I like, my answers are met with blank stares and furrowed brows. After one of the classes, a student came up to me, "A friend of mine has been trying to get me to listen to all of the stuff that you're talking about. It's really great!" Another convert.
On my walk home from the office, I met a student who was in my existentialism class last spring. "Dr. Baird, I just wanted to thank you for introducing me to Camus and Sartre." Man, don't put the blame on me! I've got enough to worry about as it is.
Today in class, some of my students were astounded and impressed that I saw the original Star Wars in the theater. And that none of my Star Wars figures were in pristine condition. And that I used to have (still have?) three Han Solos, most of which are missing major body parts. "Why do some of your Star Wars figures have burn marks on them?" "Firecrackers. I actually played with my toys."
10.04.2006
Lost (3x01)
The game is afoot.
Tonight we got something of a flashback to the plane crash, but from the Others' perspective.
The Others
Otherville. Well, well, quite a nice little community they had there, huh? Complete with book clubs discussing Stephen King's Carrie. When HG (now, Ben*) was locked up in the hatch and Locke (I think?) give him a copy of The Brothers Karamozov, didn't he ask if they had any Stephen King? He wasn't part of the book club, anyway...
There were quite a few houses, suggesting quite a few people involved in island goings on. They had a nice setup, obviously getting goods from the outside. From a plane drop, like with the Swan station?
The Others looked genuinely surprised by the "earthquake" and the plane's appearance, but they sure had a definite contingency plan. No sooner did the pieces of the plane hit the ground than you've got Ben barking out a very specific plan of action. I would think that they knew what caused the earthquake, or at least had a good idea of the possible causes. Did they immediately look up into the sky when they came running out of their homes? I can't recall (and, gasp, I didn't tape it). They could have been expecting the white light we saw at the end of Season 2 and yet were genuinely surprised to see the plane overhead. But even if they weren't expecting the light, there really aren't many others places to look when you're in the middle of the jungle! Nonetheless, that they were surprised by the turn of events, even though they had a definite plan of action, suggests that the survivors were unexpected guests. That Ben told them to get names suggests that they didn't know who was on the plane. All of which goes against the theory that the Others somehow orchestrated events to bring those particular people to the island.
One of the reasons for that theory is that they know a lot about the survivors. We saw that Juliet had a LOT of information on Jack, conveniently bound in a file folder. Presumably they've got a lot of information on the others. A few questions: Where did they get the information? What purpose have/will they put the information to? Did this information figure in the reasons for specifically taking Jack, Kate, and Sawyer? As for where they got it, they must be very connected high up in the outside world.
Dharma
New Dharma station: the Hydra. Hydra is a many-headed creature from Greek mythology who guarded the underwater entrance to Hades. Connection to previous episode: Cerberus, the three-headed dog of Greek mythology that guards another entrance to Hades, is mentioned on the blast door map. At first I thought that Jack, Kate, and Sawyer were in different locations, but they seemed to be in the same place. Kate and Sawyer obviously were, since they ended up in cages across from one another. Jack was in an underwater hold, he thought some kind of an acquarium, which would go along with the Hydra motif (and the fact that at the beginning of Season 2, there was a shark with a Dharma logo on its tail fin), and we can see the Hydra logo on a tank next to Sawyer's cage. What's up with that station? Is it still "in use"?
Juliet suggests that the Dharma group now is different from what it was when it started (on the island). What were they up to then? What are they up to now? Are they still engaged in scientific research? Mr. Friendly mentioned two bears having been in the cage that Sawyer was in -- an oversized Skinner box for oversized...polar bears? At least one of the bears got loose; are there others?
Both Jack and Kate pull taped gauze from their arms. Was something put in them? Was blood taken out? Was that from being drugged so that they wouldn't know where they were when they awoke? I don't recall Sawyer taking taped gauze from his arm... Also, Kate's boo-boo looked more like an infection whereas Jack's looked pretty normal. Is there anything to that?
One thing is for certain: those Dharma people absolutely thrive on pscyhological manipulation. What in the world are they up to with Jacke, Kate, and Sawyer? Juliet was hitting Jack hard with the psychological torture, but she seemed quite unenthused about it when she and Ben met in the hallway. Because she's not loyal, like Alex? Because Ben left her with Jack to drown in the hold?
Breakfast
Kate gets a shower, a nice sun dress, and treated to breakfast on the beach...in handcuffs. What the heck?! I wonder what the "unpleasantness" is that she (they?) will undergo over the next two weeks. Ben made a point of her mentioning Sawyer's name before Jack's. In keeping with the pscyhological factor (rather than the physical fear factor), will she be forced to choose between the boys? Will the loser be put in a bad situation, thereby creating pscyhological distress for Kate?
She certainly didn't have much to say to Sawyer when they were caged, and this really surprised me. I figured she'd be offering up as much info as she could to Sawyer. Why the closed lips? The chaffing on her wrists from the handcuffs suggests physical trauma of some sort -- you wouldn't get those marks just from wearing them, even tightly. I suspect that Ben filled her in on what the next couple of weeks will be about -- she had that sort of look. Perhaps she's not telling Sawyer what's coming up because it involves him, in a bad way. Perhaps because she was "encouraged" not to (hence the chaffed wrists). Perhaps both.
Ben mentioned that they had burned Kate's clothes. Why not just throw them away? Is this a metaphorical way of suggesting some sort of new life she will be leading on the island?
*I don't know that I could get used to calling him Ben. I've grown quite fond of "Henry Gale" by now. I kinda like "Benry" as a compromise.
Tonight we got something of a flashback to the plane crash, but from the Others' perspective.
The Others
Otherville. Well, well, quite a nice little community they had there, huh? Complete with book clubs discussing Stephen King's Carrie. When HG (now, Ben*) was locked up in the hatch and Locke (I think?) give him a copy of The Brothers Karamozov, didn't he ask if they had any Stephen King? He wasn't part of the book club, anyway...
There were quite a few houses, suggesting quite a few people involved in island goings on. They had a nice setup, obviously getting goods from the outside. From a plane drop, like with the Swan station?
The Others looked genuinely surprised by the "earthquake" and the plane's appearance, but they sure had a definite contingency plan. No sooner did the pieces of the plane hit the ground than you've got Ben barking out a very specific plan of action. I would think that they knew what caused the earthquake, or at least had a good idea of the possible causes. Did they immediately look up into the sky when they came running out of their homes? I can't recall (and, gasp, I didn't tape it). They could have been expecting the white light we saw at the end of Season 2 and yet were genuinely surprised to see the plane overhead. But even if they weren't expecting the light, there really aren't many others places to look when you're in the middle of the jungle! Nonetheless, that they were surprised by the turn of events, even though they had a definite plan of action, suggests that the survivors were unexpected guests. That Ben told them to get names suggests that they didn't know who was on the plane. All of which goes against the theory that the Others somehow orchestrated events to bring those particular people to the island.
One of the reasons for that theory is that they know a lot about the survivors. We saw that Juliet had a LOT of information on Jack, conveniently bound in a file folder. Presumably they've got a lot of information on the others. A few questions: Where did they get the information? What purpose have/will they put the information to? Did this information figure in the reasons for specifically taking Jack, Kate, and Sawyer? As for where they got it, they must be very connected high up in the outside world.
Dharma
New Dharma station: the Hydra. Hydra is a many-headed creature from Greek mythology who guarded the underwater entrance to Hades. Connection to previous episode: Cerberus, the three-headed dog of Greek mythology that guards another entrance to Hades, is mentioned on the blast door map. At first I thought that Jack, Kate, and Sawyer were in different locations, but they seemed to be in the same place. Kate and Sawyer obviously were, since they ended up in cages across from one another. Jack was in an underwater hold, he thought some kind of an acquarium, which would go along with the Hydra motif (and the fact that at the beginning of Season 2, there was a shark with a Dharma logo on its tail fin), and we can see the Hydra logo on a tank next to Sawyer's cage. What's up with that station? Is it still "in use"?
Juliet suggests that the Dharma group now is different from what it was when it started (on the island). What were they up to then? What are they up to now? Are they still engaged in scientific research? Mr. Friendly mentioned two bears having been in the cage that Sawyer was in -- an oversized Skinner box for oversized...polar bears? At least one of the bears got loose; are there others?
Both Jack and Kate pull taped gauze from their arms. Was something put in them? Was blood taken out? Was that from being drugged so that they wouldn't know where they were when they awoke? I don't recall Sawyer taking taped gauze from his arm... Also, Kate's boo-boo looked more like an infection whereas Jack's looked pretty normal. Is there anything to that?
One thing is for certain: those Dharma people absolutely thrive on pscyhological manipulation. What in the world are they up to with Jacke, Kate, and Sawyer? Juliet was hitting Jack hard with the psychological torture, but she seemed quite unenthused about it when she and Ben met in the hallway. Because she's not loyal, like Alex? Because Ben left her with Jack to drown in the hold?
Breakfast
Kate gets a shower, a nice sun dress, and treated to breakfast on the beach...in handcuffs. What the heck?! I wonder what the "unpleasantness" is that she (they?) will undergo over the next two weeks. Ben made a point of her mentioning Sawyer's name before Jack's. In keeping with the pscyhological factor (rather than the physical fear factor), will she be forced to choose between the boys? Will the loser be put in a bad situation, thereby creating pscyhological distress for Kate?
She certainly didn't have much to say to Sawyer when they were caged, and this really surprised me. I figured she'd be offering up as much info as she could to Sawyer. Why the closed lips? The chaffing on her wrists from the handcuffs suggests physical trauma of some sort -- you wouldn't get those marks just from wearing them, even tightly. I suspect that Ben filled her in on what the next couple of weeks will be about -- she had that sort of look. Perhaps she's not telling Sawyer what's coming up because it involves him, in a bad way. Perhaps because she was "encouraged" not to (hence the chaffed wrists). Perhaps both.
Ben mentioned that they had burned Kate's clothes. Why not just throw them away? Is this a metaphorical way of suggesting some sort of new life she will be leading on the island?
*I don't know that I could get used to calling him Ben. I've grown quite fond of "Henry Gale" by now. I kinda like "Benry" as a compromise.
New Movies
I can't wait to see Scorsese's latest film The Departed. Another New York film from this great New York director.
I'm also looking forward to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning. Hopefully it will be better than that awful remake of 2003. From the previews, it looks to continue the surreal vibe of the original, which I really liked. If nothing else, we get to see R. Lee Ermey (probably best known for his portrayal of the drill instructor in Full Metal Jacket) do his thing!
I haven't seen Flyboys yet, but it looks really interesting. You don't see many films made about WWI fighter pilots. I hear the special effects are excellent.
I'm also looking forward to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning. Hopefully it will be better than that awful remake of 2003. From the previews, it looks to continue the surreal vibe of the original, which I really liked. If nothing else, we get to see R. Lee Ermey (probably best known for his portrayal of the drill instructor in Full Metal Jacket) do his thing!
I haven't seen Flyboys yet, but it looks really interesting. You don't see many films made about WWI fighter pilots. I hear the special effects are excellent.
10.01.2006
Yes, An Award-Winning Brew
I spent my entire Sunday late afternoon at the local brew shop where the homebrew competition was held among young turks drinking beer, eating pretzels and pizza, and discussing homebrewing while three judges were tasting 15+ porters and 21 IPAs...and looking more haggard by the bottle. (Granted, they didn't taste the entire beer, but they had quite a bit, with plenty of water to ease the inevitable effects.) Please, no Sabbath-breaking observations, thank you very much. ;)
I didn't win the IPA competition, but I did come in 2nd out of 21. The certificate will be going up on the wall. (As soon as I hang all of the other pictures, paintings, and what-not that are still in boxes.)
While the judges were weaving their magic (or having the magic woven upon them) at a table in the corner, everyone was milling around and chatting it up with one another. I didn't really want to be in on the conversations in the room -- I wanted to be in on the conversations at the judges table. So, DBW and I eased over to a group sitting near the judges' table. My back was to the table, so I pretended to eye the homebrew supplies on the wall to my right as I eavesdropped on the judges' conversation, particularly when I heard them discussing my entry. I was genuinely pleased with the comments I heard and thought I had a chance to win it, but alas it was not to be. Below are the notes of the official report.
Aroma
All in all, I was pretty happy with my beer's reception!
I didn't win the IPA competition, but I did come in 2nd out of 21. The certificate will be going up on the wall. (As soon as I hang all of the other pictures, paintings, and what-not that are still in boxes.)
While the judges were weaving their magic (or having the magic woven upon them) at a table in the corner, everyone was milling around and chatting it up with one another. I didn't really want to be in on the conversations in the room -- I wanted to be in on the conversations at the judges table. So, DBW and I eased over to a group sitting near the judges' table. My back was to the table, so I pretended to eye the homebrew supplies on the wall to my right as I eavesdropped on the judges' conversation, particularly when I heard them discussing my entry. I was genuinely pleased with the comments I heard and thought I had a chance to win it, but alas it was not to be. Below are the notes of the official report.
Aroma
- piney
- earthy
- malt is in background
- resiney
- very low carbonation [I was afraid this would be a factor. I forced carbonated the beer in a keg and then bottled it using a counterpressure bottle filler to keep as much carbonation as possible. But I didn't carbonate it at high enough of a psi.]
- thin head [due to the low carbonation]
- nice color
- firm
- nice hop bitterness and flavor
- good hop choice
- rich
- toasty
- alcohol notes [a good thing for an American IPA, though I was afraid it would be too pronounced]
- nice mouthfeel
- good body
- a nice, strong IPA that could use more carbonation
- good dry hops [thank you Amarillo!]
All in all, I was pretty happy with my beer's reception!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
