The Official Ana Lucia Debate/Discuss Thread

[Raven O'Reilly]

This is an official debate thread for Ana Lucia Lovers and Haters to come together and DISCUSS RESPECTFULLY their opposing viewpoints.

If anyone in here cannot behave respecfually towards other members of the LF community, punishment will be delivered. You guys have this thread all to yourselves, so please DO NOT HIJACK OTHER THREADS if you encounter Ana discussion in other threads that may be non-related to the thread topic.

You are certainly allowed to state your opinion elsewhere on the forums if it is part of a discussion in another thread. HOWEVER, please refrain from fighting in those other threads. Keep all your debate in this thread.

Thank you.

- Management

[Leigh]

Cool, so next time wI want to debate....I can say "Hold on....let's take this to the ALDD! I'll meet you there in thirty minutes...no weapons....no friends....bring it."

Sounds lovely to me, I look forward to it....:D

Thanks Raven.

*thumbs up*

[Raven O'Reilly]

LOL That's the idea. You can be all thug and be like "Let's take it outside, yo." ;)

[Scarlett]

Cool, so next time wI want to debate....I can say "Hold on....let's take this to the ALDD! I'll meet you there in thirty minutes...no weapons....no friends....bring it."

Sounds lovely to me, I look forward to it....:D

Thanks Raven.

*thumbs up*
Haha love that. This is a great thread idea! :)

[Leigh]

We agree on a thread to disagree....:D

Anywho....um....gimme a bit and I'll come up with a debate topic....or just wait for someone else to....;)

[*Pauly*]

Sounds like fun :D How about Ana's emotional detachment is it because she lost her baby or do you think she was always like that?

[Dennie_Hebels]

Sounds like fun :D How about Ana's emotional detachment is it because she lost her baby or do you think she was always like that?

I'm hoping to see she was very different before the whole shooting incident occurred. A more likeable person (although I like the character itself).

[Scarlett]

I'm hoping to see she was very different before the whole shooting incident occurred. A more likeable person (although I like the character itself).
I'm sure she was more likeable, I mean her colleagues seemed interested in her personal life (asking about Danny and such). What concerns me is not her previous life but her island behavior...of course the stressful situation made her a lot more aggressive, but IMO there is absolutely no excuse for some of the things she's done.

AFTER Sawyer and the rafties were ruled out as threats, she punched Sawyer because he was mouthing off to her. She then proceeded to step in his bullet wound with her boot. If he had just landed on the island and she viewed him as a threat, I'd be a lot more sympathetic. But they let him out of the pit and even told him they had made a mistake. Yet she treated him like a POW because he was being his usual smartass self?

To me, that shows a huge weakness in her "leadership"--her inability to accept dissention or challenges to her role. She is so focused on being a hardass that she can't tolerate Sawyer's wisecracks because they make her feel threatened.

Yes, Sawyer had a rock in his hand...because she had just pretended to be a prisoner, punched him, stole his gun, and locked him and his friends in a pit. He in no way attempted to hurt her. She saw the rock in his hand and said somethign to the effect of "so what, you're going to throw a rock?" in her toughgirl voice and then punched him. There was absolutely no practical reason for doing that. He was not attacking her or even threatening to. He was holding the rock as his only means of self-defense. He had no idea what she was going to do to him, considering her trickery before. Her sole possible motivation was annoyance that he was daring to stand up for himself.

Again, I understand her actions leading up to the point where she let them out of the pit. Given the situation with Goodwin, who wouldn't be paranoid? But after she let Sawyer and the rafties out of the pit, she and the other tailees were essentially giving them the benefit of the doubt. Jin/Sawyer/Michael did nothing to warrant being treated as prisoners or threats, and Eko had the sense to apologize for the tailees' treatment of that.

But AL was too concerned with furthering her own ego trip to treat them with respect or at least basic human dignity. She didn't have to be friendly and hug them all and bake them cookies. Just show them basic respect--as Libby did when she said "His name is Michael" and Eko did when he apologized to Sawyer and went to help Jin find Michael. Eko is just as much if not more of a leader than AL at that point in the tailees' story, and far more effective because he inspires confidence in the tailees, not just fear. And you don't see him making rash attacks on a wounded, unarmed man.

[celes]

Sounds like fun :D How about Ana's emotional detachment is it because she lost her baby or do you think she was always like that?

I think it's a bit of both. Being a cop does require some emotional detachment from reality when you have to deal with certain cases because emotions can cloud your judgement a bit. When you're stuck in a life-or-death situation, it's best not to run around flailing your arms.

But the loss of her baby did contribute to a large part of the way she is now. I mean, based off her actions, she really loved the idea of having a child. Then she loses it and it's bound to impact her life in a negative way. She did lose something that came from her and to lose that must be really heartbreaking.

Edit: Alas, here we go. :)

AFTER Sawyer and the rafties were ruled out as threats, she punched Sawyer because he was mouthing off to her. She then proceeded to step in his bullet wound with her boot. If he had just landed on the island and she viewed him as a threat, I'd be a lot more sympathetic. But they let him out of the pit and even told him they had made a mistake. Yet she treated him like a POW because he was being his usual smartass self?

To me, that shows a huge weakness in her "leadership"--her inability to accept dissention or challenges to her role. She is so focused on being a hardass that she can't tolerate Sawyer's wisecracks because they make her feel threatened.

She's not focusing on being a hardass per se - it's more of her showing that she is in charge. Sawyer and the others were on her territory if you think about. And I agree that she is paranoid; The tailies' experiences obviously impacted them to the point where they would be cautious of anyone. The fact that three strangers appeared will make them suspicious. Ana, I believe, didn't get rid of her suspicion and still viewed them as a threat because she didn't want to make a mistake (and as the saying goes: better safe than sorry). It isn't a weakness - it's being cautious.


But AL was too concerned with furthering her own ego trip to treat them with respect or at least basic human dignity. She didn't have to be friendly and hug them all and bake them cookies. Just show them basic respect--as Libby did when she said "His name is Michael" and Eko did when he apologized to Sawyer and went to help Jin find Michael. Eko is just as much if not more of a leader than AL at that point in the tailees' story, and far more effective because he inspires confidence in the tailees, not just fear. And you don't see him making rash attacks on a wounded, unarmed man.

I don't understand what people see as AL's "ego" problems. And Eko is a complete opposite of Ana. That's why they balance each other out. His life experiences aren't the same as Ana's (then again, I didn't see his episode so I don't know about his former life). His former life will affect his personality like Ana's did. He just sees things differently as Ana. Eko is the leader type but he doesn't seem like the type to step into that role immediately. I don't tink he really wants to be either - he seems all right with just assisting everyone. So no, you aren't going to see him doing things Ana does.

[*Pauly*]

She must be a pretty angry person if she sets out to kill someone though. I can certainly understand an initial reaction of I want to kill that SOB but she had presumably been planning this for a long time. It shows an act of premeditated murder on her part which is a very serious crime. I don't know why she didn't tell her mother about her baby. I think that was more of a result of her stubbornness than shame.

I think she's a bad egg generally and was before the crash and losing her baby. That's why I am not a fan. Be interesting to hear other points of view though.

[Scarlett]

^As much as I despise, AL, as a woman I don't blame her for killing Jason. At all.

Yes, it was morally wrong. I believe life is sacred and that it's not our place to take life. But as far as Lost goes...I totally understand her actions. I get the idea that she and Danny were having trouble as it was, and she had hope that a baby would bring them back together. Then that bastard shot her, nearly killing her, and she probably found out in the hospital that she had been pregnant. But that bastard had killed her baby, and her hope for the future with Danny.

I'm not condoning murdering anyone who crosses your hopes. But especially since her mother mentioned his extensive rap sheet, she did society a favor. That moment--where she said 'I was pregnant" and shot him, was the ONE time I ever felt sympathy or respect for her character. I completely understand her actions in that one instance.

celes, I get that she was just triyng to be safe rather than sorry, so why not leave Sawyer in the pit? I could understand that. But abusing an injured man for talking "back" to you...give me a break. As I said, I can't see any of the original castaways doing that.

[celes]

celes, I get that she was just triyng to be safe rather than sorry, so why not leave Sawyer in the pit? I could understand that. But abusing an injured man for talking "back" to you...give me a break. As I said, I can't see any of the original castaways doing that.

Well, they aren't the original castaways. The original castaways faced different things than the tailies did. They weren't as paranoid of the others and if they were, they didn't have new people suddenly show up to get them paranoid. So of course you can't see the original castaways doing that. Both parties are quite different and had various reactions based on what they faced on the island.

Yes, she could have left Saywer in the pit but he at least showed some knowledge of their plane crash. Again, she didn't completely get rid of her suspicion of those three and any opportunity to find out info about their situation is worth grabbing.

She did feel threatened from Sawyer, she did noticed his weakness and thus did it to let him know that she wasn't going to take BS from him. Ana felt that she had a duty to protect her party and be suspicious of anything and everything that happened around them. And keep in mind that Sawyer did provoke her to do it. Yes, he didn't know the outcome but the situation was one of those times that Sawyer's attitude bit him back. Nothing against Sawyer; I just think that even though he was wounded, portraying his attitude like he did to Ana didn't help project an injured man.

[juniper]

And keep in mind that Sawyer did provoke her to do it. Yes, he didn't know the outcome but the situation was one of those times that Sawyer's attitude bit him back. Nothing against Sawyer; I just think that even though he was wounded, portraying his attitude like he did to Ana didn't help project an injured man.

Oooooooooooh, have to disagree in a big way on that one. :) I spent a month hospitalized and that was the one time in my life I absolutely don't wish to be held accountable for the things that came out of my mouth. The guy was on the brink of death, in the wilderness, and undoubtedly feverish. She's trained as a cop, so she should know when people are behaving rationally vs. irrationally, and be able to ascertain why. I understand she was paranoid, but she's trained to assess the situation intelligently. That training should have kicked in at some point, IMO.

[Leigh]

AFTER Sawyer and the rafties were ruled out as threats, she punched Sawyer because he was mouthing off to her. She then proceeded to step in his bullet wound with her boot. Yet she treated him like a POW because he was being his usual smartass self?

To me, that shows a huge weakness in her "leadership"--her inability to accept dissention or challenges to her role. She is so focused on being a hardass that she can't tolerate Sawyer's wisecracks because they make her feel threatened.

Yes, Sawyer had a rock in his hand...because she had just pretended to be a prisoner, punched him, stole his gun, and locked him and his friends in a pit. He in no way attempted to hurt her. She saw the rock in his hand and said somethign to the effect of "so what, you're going to throw a rock?" in her toughgirl voice and then punched him. There was absolutely no practical reason for doing that.

Yeah, but he hadn't YET. He was trying to hide the rock....he was likely waiting for the opportune moment to wait till her back was turned then smash her or Eko's head in....look at him in the pit, plotting violence to escape....when he grabbed the rock, that made him no better how you think she was being. In that moment HE knew that SHE was ok and on the plane too, and yet there he stood with that rock ready to strike at the right moment.

She wasn't going to wait for him to try something, and that was very smart.

And juniper, I don't agree...you say that "The guy was on the brink of death, in the wilderness, and undoubtedly feverish." At that point he really wasn't that close to death....he was climbing up trying to get out of the hatch, he was griping and arguing and coniving....to her, he was just a slightly injured problematic jerk looking to kill/hurt her the first opportunity he got....so she made sure he knew his place and she made sure to let him know that she was NOT going to tolerate his crap, and that is a great thing to do in such a high stress extenuating circumstances type of situation.

P.S. This is going really well, yeah we're only like a page in, but still....there's no violent tendencies, profanity, etc. used and that rules....see, maybe we can debate without grr-ness. ;)

[thefilmchick]

And now for something completely different!

LOL That's the idea. You can be all thug and be like "Let's take it outside, yo." ;)

As a disinterested party, I figured I may as well display my thoughts upon reading this particular statement of yours, Raven. I will invest the help of Eric Conveys an Emotion (http://www.emotioneric.com") to do so.

http://www.emotioneric.com/shockandawe.jpg
http://www.emotioneric.com/2cool4u.jpg
http://www.emotioneric.com/youwannafight.jpg
http://www.emotioneric.com/hardcore.jpg

Sorry for hijacking your thread. Couldn't resist. :) I guess I hit the 'violent tendencies' Leigh just spoke of, however, so as penance I'll stick around for a bit and toss in some intelligent comments when my brain works again.

[Leigh]

I guess I hit the 'violent tendencies' Leigh just spoke of, however, so as penance I'll stick around for a bit and toss in some intelligent comments when my brain works again.

Ha. That was greatness, thanks I needed that. :D

[*Pauly*]

Sorry but she had previously punched him in the face and thrown rocks at him. He was only taking that as protection and he never used it so you can't say he was going to smack her over the head with it. It's not fair to prejudge Sawyer's actions and then defend Ana's.

I really think we should try to stay on some kindof topic though it seems to be a free for all is Ana good or bad sorta thing.

[juniper]

Yeah, we're going to agree to disagree, Leigh. I'd see a guy stumbling out of the ocean bleeding out of a bullet wound to the shoulder and think, well, he's obviosly going to be going down soon, so I wouldn't expect him to sit down to tea. I'd expect him to behave Sawyerishly even if he were someone else. I honestly think I might have. Under those circumstances, with no hospital to speak of, that's not a slight injury. I think part of what upsets people has to do with the fact that she stepped down on the wound. If it had become infected, minus Jack, that could mean the difference between life and death, not simply putting him in his place. I don't think her behavior was intelligent unless it was solely herself she was looking out for, but I suppose that's the point.

[celes]

Oooooooooooh, have to disagree in a big way on that one. :) I spent a month hospitalized and that was the one time in my life I absolutely don't wish to be held accountable for the things that came out of my mouth. The guy was on the brink of death, in the wilderness, and undoubtedly feverish. She's trained as a cop, so she should know when people are behaving rationally vs. irrationally, and be able to ascertain why. I understand she was paranoid, but she's trained to assess the situation intelligently. That training should have kicked in at some point, IMO.

Just a question for clarification: Are you saying that Sawyer, in no way, had a part in Ana Lucia's actions towards him?

I disagree with what I believe you're saying; you are in control of what you say and therefore, you should accept the consequences of those words. He might have been feverish but I saw no difference in his actions.

I see what you're saying about how Ana should be able to assess the situation and all but police officers aren't trained to be psychologists. That's not really their main job. They can't stop and think during a situation, "Oh, he's talking back. I think this is a sign of loss of affection..." or whatever. Nor is Ana trained to be a doctor. If I saw a guy who obviously has enough energy to make remarks, then I'm not going to treat him like a baby or anything.

[juniper]

I like the debate thread.

No, I believe if he'd behaved submissively, she wouldn't have behaved that way. I simply don't see that as an excuse.

I do agree with you about accepting consequences, celes. However, if you're feverish, it often causes deliriousness, so you don't know what you're saying and you aren't in control and behave irrationally. That's my point. It's often confused with amnesia, but it's only from serious illness or injury, and it impairs thinking. (For instance, I told someone if he didn't jump out the third story window, I'd push him. I'm horrified by that now that I'm well, so I hope you don't think that of me.) Ill people don't always behave as they do on Hallmark television movies. Sawyer is a television character who often behaves irratically. She doesn't know that though. I'm not sure that's what the writers intended, but what I would gather from my personal experience was that he wasn't necessarily fit. I'm saying she had him in a hole, part of the reason for that must have been to assess their circumstances. (I'm exhausted, so I hope all this still sounds coherent in the morning! :o )

I'm not talking about genius, I'm talking about simple common sense. A guy's been shot, you're on a deserted island. A common injury or illness can lead to death without medical aid. She'd know that, because everyone knows that. No, you don't baby him, you treat him like a human being. Go ahead and be wary and cautious, but don't make impulsive mistakes that lead to innocent deaths.

I do get that she's paranoid and afraid, but in my opinion, some sense of humanity should have sunk in long before it got to that point. That's all. (And goodnight, everyone.)

[Razor]

Yeah, we're going to agree to disagree, Leigh. I'd see a guy stumbling out of the ocean bleeding out of a bullet wound to the shoulder and think, well, he's obviosly going to be going down soon, so I wouldn't expect him to sit down to tea. I'd expect him to behave Sawyerishly even if he were someone else. I honestly think I might have. Under those circumstances, with no hospital to speak of, that's not a slight injury. I think part of what upsets people has to do with the fact that she stepped down on the wound. If it had become infected, minus Jack, that could mean the difference between life and death, not simply putting him in his place. I don't think her behavior was intelligent unless it was solely herself she was looking out for, but I suppose that's the point.
I don't think the pro-Ana people (I'm definitely more "pro", but there are aspects to her character which I do not like - which I'm sure you'll see in other debates;):o) should be quick in any concession regarding Ana's shoe being the possible cause of the infection, particularly since in a previously post it was contended that he was already "... on the brink of death, in the wilderness, and undoubtedly feverish".:) The gun shot alone is much more likely to have been the culprit (not to mention prior bacteria from Sawyer's fingers, his shirt, the beach, Eko or other Tailees hands, being dragged across a jungle floor, and thrown into a dirt pit ...).

I "googled" this:

Sepsis is more likely in people who:
Have been admitted to the hospital with a serious disease
Are very young or old
Have a compromised (weak) immune system
Have had a wound or injury, such as a surgical wound, a burn, or a gunshot injury
Have an IV (intravenous) line for infusion of medications ("IV drip")
Have a catheter to drain the bladder
Are addicted to alcohol or drugsNowhere does it mention Ana's boot!:D *Hey, there's no bad info on the internet, right?*:rolleyes:

ASIDE: I even found a *very rare case* of "late infection" 6 or 7 years after the initial gunshot wound.:eek:

Additionally, another medical article indicated that:


"With a penetrating wound from a gun shot injury, knife injuries etc. bacteria from the skin or from the penetrating object get into the wound and multiply within a short time.
There is a limited time of 4 to 6 hours that the physician has to clean up and close such a wound."

Therefor, if the writers are being true to science, it's highly unlikely that Ana stomping on Sawyer caused the infection.

*If someone else cares enough to look up the time frame for the effects of such an infection to manifest in behavior, it might prove interesting. However, I honestly couldn't discern any change to Sawyer's normal "pain-in-the-ass" behavior - aside from the occasional wincing/grimacing in pain ... and THAT is not a symptom (yes, I have had infections causing delerium *and no, I'm not still in it:D).

[mge1979]

^^I don't think i could argue with that one....

this goes out to the members of the Anti Ana Lucia Brigade: what do you think should Ana do or would've done that would convince you that she is not a nasty person that you think she is now? (and please don't answer that she should get killed and leave the show or something down that line...just feed my curiosity a bit please :))

[celes]

I do agree with you about accepting consequences, celes. However, if you're feverish, it often causes deliriousness, so you don't know what you're saying and you aren't in control and behave irrationally. That's my point. It's often confused with amnesia, but it's only from serious illness or injury, and it impairs thinking. (For instance, I told someone if he didn't jump out the third story window, I'd push him. I'm horrified by that now that I'm well, so I hope you don't think that of me.) Ill people don't always behave as they do on Hallmark television movies. Sawyer is a television character who often behaves irratically. She doesn't know that though. I'm not sure that's what the writers intended, but what I would gather from my personal experience was that he wasn't necessarily fit. I'm saying she had him in a hole, part of the reason for that must have been to assess their circumstances. (I'm exhausted, so I hope all this still sounds coherent in the morning! :o )

You are right, Sawyer always acts a bit irrationally. But from what I remember of the episode, he wasn't delirious or showed signs of it.

Definition: A temporary state of mental confusion and fluctuating consciousness resulting from high fever, intoxication, shock, or other causes. It is characterized by anxiety, disorientation, hallucinations, delusions, and incoherent speech.

I'm not saying Sawyer wasn't feverish but I'm saying that he was grounded enough to know what was going on.

Razor, I have to applaud you for that one. :clap:

[*Pauly*]

^^I don't think i could argue with that one....

this goes out to the members of the Anti Ana Lucia Brigade: what do you think should Ana do or would've done that would convince you that she is not a nasty person that you think she is now? (and please don't answer that she should get killed and leave the show or something down that line...just feed my curiosity a bit please :))

Unfortunately it is not what she will do or has done even it is how she has come across generally on the show in terms of her character, mannerisms and general abrasiveness that annoys me the most. For example she always seems to act aggressively with people if they question her, her eyes go really wide and she flips out like wtf someone question me? She treats her own people with little respect. I know you might say she was under stress but I think remaining calm under pressure and not taking it out on people around you is a something that everyone else on the tailies side has seemed to manage okay. So yeah I think a personality transplant is in order :p

I also find her something of a cartoon figure, very unbelivable. The Rambo types that take on whole armies with a machine gun or in Ana's case a full grown man who is physically her superior. Just look at the guys frame and don't forget he had military training in the peace corps aswell so you can't say she was his better cause of her cop training.

And as for her stepping on Sawyer's wound regardless of it causing infection which it might have. It most certainly caused him pain and it was a horrible thing to do to someone.

[juniper]

Razor, as long as a wound is open, it risks infection, that's the time period (sorry, I'm too lazy to look it up). Foreign bacteria would be on her boot as well, which is why I'm not loving the idea. (Loved the part about her boot not being listed on the internet, though, that made me laugh) I'm assuming, if the guy got two fingers in there, (Also funny - can anyone explain how they thought that wouldn't be ridiculous? Oh, yeah, television. :p ) it's not a closed wound.

yes, I have had infections causing delerium *and no, I'm not still in it

LOL, no, like I said, I know. No one who's delirious could write a coherent lengthy post to save their life. You're doing fine, hon. :cool:

this goes out to the members of the Anti Ana Lucia Brigade: what do you think should Ana do or would've done that would convince you that she is not a nasty person that you think she is now? (and please don't answer that she should get killed and leave the show or something down that line...just feed my curiosity a bit please )

That's where we always run into trouble, and I know her fans don't understand. I don't think the producers expected it either. Since this thread is friendly, though, I'll attempt to explain accordingly. You're not going to like it, though: I don't think she can do anything.

You're seeing some of us saying things like she's two-dimensional, cartoonish, an action-figure, etc. You're saying she has strong presence. We're both right. The thing is people are inherently different, and wouldn't all react similarly in the exact same circumstances.

Also, some people (and actors) are 98 percent on the surface, if that makes sense. You know where they stand, they get their point across loud and clear, without hesitation, whether it's a mission to save something or it's simply in-your-face attitude, nothing more or less. (As actors, they're usually typecast because of it.) If whatever is projected meets your expectations, great, you can't get enough; if it doesn't, it's going to anger you whenever it gets screen time, (especially if it's this show ;) ). Politicians are that way often, very divisive. During campaigns you'll see photos of them kissing babies, and you'll think how could anyone not love someone who obviously loves children so much and someone else will think the poor child may as well be a political tool to that person. In reality, this is merely a fictional character and that's merely a campaign. Either way, there isn't much of an enigma there, yet what's painfully obvious to either is really different interpretation based on what the character conveys to them personally.

Others are equally deep and perplexive, you don't know where they're coming from, how they'll react, but there's enough apparent complex thought and emotion, so you consider it accordingly and adjust. They're more like human puzzles. Neither type is inherently wrong and they both have positive aspects, but in this case, I think it's why Jin, Sawyer, Shannon, and company never received this type of strong animosity. Anger and irritation, always, yet they added that something below the surface that wasn't in the script. You sense there's a motive for their madness, and unwillingly empathize. They acted out of the latter category. There was more nuance and room for subtle interpretation, so everyone could be happy if they chose to do so. And they did. :)

Sorry for the length, but does that help? :confused:

[Razor]

I also find her something of a cartoon figure, very unbelivable. The Rambo types that take on whole armies with a machine gun or in Ana's case a full grown man who is physically her superior. Just look at the guys frame and don't forget he had military training in the peace corps aswell so you can't say she was his better cause of her cop training.
Three points of contention here:
Granted it's only my perception, but it seemed to me, that Goodwin was winning that encounter and only a fluke/lucky break for Ana resulted in Goodwin lunging and impaling himself. Therefor I will concede, given my stated view of how things transpired, that her police training was of little consequence to her survival.
Was he truly in the Peace Corp, or was that only his cover story?
I'm unable to uncover any information as to military/combat training received by Peace Corp. volunteers. The only information regarding the Peace Corp. and the military I can find is that "service in the Peace Corps as a volunteer shall not in any way exempt such volunteer from the performance of any obligations or duties under the provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act [50 App. U.S.C. 451 et seq.]."
Points #1 & 2 all but negate #3 for me, however, if you have any information regarding combat training for Peace Corp. volunteers I would certainly be appreciative in seeing it - given the futility of my research efforts.

And as for her stepping on Sawyer's wound regardless of it causing infection which it might have. It most certainly caused him pain and it was a horrible thing to do to someone. Yes, it caused him pain. But in all honesty, I would have done the same thing - or something reasonably close if I had been in Ana's predicament. I viewed The Tailees not only as being "at war" with The Others, but comparable to a platoon caught behind enemy lines. It's difficult to imagine them being in a more defensive position: attacked by an unknown enemy; on foreign soil; having depleted forces; without supplies; and with the (correct) suspicion of infiltration. If one views it in this light (i.e. in a military context - and one of desperation as well), the actions are more understandable (even if some may not agree with the methods as they are used in real life). While Ana's police training may not have helped her against Goodwin, it definitely appears (to me) to have guided her in her leadership technique. For even under the best of circumstances, a leader would never allow anyone in their camp (regardless of their being enlisted, drafted, or a conscript) to openly display any measure of disrespect, or insubordination (much less drawing a weapon against them) and let it go unpunished.

"The penalty for insubordination in military organizations can range from dishonarable discharge, incarceration for a term of years, to capital punishment. The penalty varies depending on the type of infraction, the circumstances, and the culture of the military force. In modern Western armed forces, the penalty tends to be dishonourable discharge and/or a prison term. In other circumstances such as the German or Russian armies on the Eastern Front during World War II, the penalty tended to be an immediate execution."

Given the inability to exact either of the first two of those penalties ... "pain" to the shoulder seems a somewhat tame punishment to me.;)



I realize everyone else has already said this (but I want my turn too), thank you Raven for establishing this space for the civil discourse and analysis of opposing viewpoints. More importantly, thank you posters for adhering to those ideals.

[mge1979]

Razor, as long as a wound is open, it risks infection, that's the time period (sorry, I'm too lazy to look it up). Foreign bacteria would be on her boot as well, which is why I'm not loving the idea. (Loved the part about her boot not being listed on the internet, though, that made me laugh) I'm assuming, if the guy got two fingers in there, (Also funny - can anyone explain how they thought that wouldn't be ridiculous? Oh, yeah, television. :p ) it's not a closed wound.



LOL, no, like I said, I know. No one who's delirious could write a coherent lengthy post to save their life. You're doing fine, hon. :cool:



That's where we always run into trouble, and I know her fans don't understand. I don't think the producers expected it either. Since this thread is friendly, though, I'll attempt to explain accordingly. You're not going to like it, though: I don't think she can do anything.

You're seeing some of us saying things like she's two-dimensional, cartoonish, an action-figure, etc. You're saying she has strong presence. We're both right. The thing is people are inherently different, and wouldn't all react similarly in the exact same circumstances.

Also, some people (and actors) are 98 percent on the surface, if that makes sense. You know where they stand, they get their point across loud and clear, without hesitation, whether it's a mission to save something or it's simply in-your-face attitude, nothing more or less. (As actors, they're usually typecast because of it.) If whatever is projected meets your expectations, great, you can't get enough; if it doesn't, it's going to anger you whenever it gets screen time, (especially if it's this show ;) ). Politicians are that way often, very divisive. During campaigns you'll see photos of them kissing babies, and you'll think how could anyone not love someone who obviously loves children so much and someone else will think the poor child may as well be a political tool to that person. In reality, this is merely a fictional character and that's merely a campaign. Either way, there isn't much of an enigma there, yet what's painfully obvious to either is really different interpretation based on what the character conveys to them personally.

Others are equally deep and perplexive, you don't know where they're coming from, how they'll react, but there's enough apparent complex thought and emotion, so you consider it accordingly and adjust. They're more like human puzzles. Neither type is inherently wrong and they both have positive aspects, but in this case, I think it's why Jin, Sawyer, Shannon, and company never received this type of strong animosity. Anger and irritation, always, yet they added that something below the surface that wasn't in the script. You sense there's a motive for their madness, and unwillingly empathize. They acted out of the latter category. There was more nuance and room for subtle interpretation, so everyone could be happy if they chose to do so. And they did. :)

Sorry for the length, but does that help? :confused:


I do agree with you on the politicians' part... but what you're trying to tell me is that Ana Lucia is beyond redemption?

p.s. i'll make my argument longer next time. i really need to get my ass to work :D

[*Pauly*]

Well it was more the reason she went out into the jungle with him on her own in the first place. She thinks she can deal with everything herself. The image of her digging the pit also reminded me of her as this butch action figure who can dig such a deep pit on her own.

As for the fight itself Goodwin did manage to overpower her at the start but she managed herself pretty well. For me Goodwin doesn't fight back enough. Also even if he wasn't in the peace corps he is an other and has probably been trained in some form of combat you would have thought. Look at Ethan he was a monster of a man. Goodwin looks a bit of a pussy compared to Ethan.

[thefilmchick]

Goodwin looks a bit of a pussy compared to Ethan.

Your Best Friends Forever banner did not give me that impression! :D

As far as Ana-Lucia stepping in Sawyer's wound, I am of two minds on that. I obviously don't like it, as it was a rather cruel thing to do, but it was justified. Here is this guy who has been needling her since he regained consciousness from being whacked in the head with Eko's stick.

Jin, Michael, and Sawyer clearly do not feel there's as much of a threat as A-L and her gang know for a fact exists; Sawyer is trying his damnedest to screw with her. So she had to do something to ensure that he wouldn't be a threat to her, and causing him intense physical pain was both the quickest way to do it and the way that ensured that he would listen to what she said.

It may have been cruel, and it may not shine the best light on Ana-Lucia's character, but in her position, what she did is understandable, if not quite justifiable. And that's to say nothing of the Tailies' suspicion that perhaps the trio are Others or anything else under the sun, either.

[juniper]

Thank you. :) Your explanation is much more clear and succinct, mge1979. I can never manage that even though I try. Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. Again, it's not true for all viewers, just as it isn't true for swing voters, but that's why the intensity, unless I'm mistaken.

[*Pauly*]

Well I am not saying I am not a fan of Goodwin I just think he could have fought back better ;)

[Leigh]

Yeah well she got the upper hand on him. It was good though b/c yes she is small and yes he likely is much stronger, but she managed to get a good distracting side hit in to get him off of her then used his own strength and fury against him (when she allowed the two of them to fly over the edge of the land)....she didn't beat him in some punching match....if that had happened, then I could understand how people would call it unrealistic....though personally I think that would be cool b/c this IS fiction, but yeah....

....I thought the fight scene was quite realistic....it's not about size and strength, it's about skill and quickness and resourcefulness....Ana is quite physically strong compared to most females, but even still when fighting someone bigger and stronger she won b/c of her quick thinking and unrelenting spirit of not being willing to go down easily. That's cool, and not unrealistic at all. I've seen tiny dudes take out big ole mo fos b/c they just go on the crazy offensive and the big guy can't do anything to stop it....I'm telling you, you take someone by suprise with one hell of a punch, no matter what your size nor theirs, and you've got it made.

[*Pauly*]

But why go out there in the first place? I really don't see it as a clever move by Ana. Maybe if she had been defending herself then it wouldn't look so bad to me but she went out there on her own to fight him. I guess she wanted to find out where the kids were but she should have questioned him with Eko's help.

[Leigh]

I don't know, I'm thinking though that she was confident enough that she could take him (whether true or not), so in my mind they had her go out there to seperate him from the group and get the truth away from everyone else....so to not expose them to that danger/reality. It was quite selfless, though I will admit almost a bit foolish b/c it could have seriously backfired....but it didn't so to me it was a very brave, however risky thing to do. :)

[Makeshift Python]

Finally we can kill off the "Hate Evil Ana-Lucia" thread and have a more mature title so we don't get arrogant people who never read posts and go "You guys are lame".

Anyways, so far no Ana. From what I read she'll be around again and things heat up with her and Jack? Okay, lame. I don't see how they work, but then again I don't think anyone could see how Shannon and Sayid work either until they actually started liking eachother.

And now it's obvious Kate is digging Sawyer lately, though who knows if they'll ever be.

[mge1979]

But why go out there in the first place? I really don't see it as a clever move by Ana. Maybe if she had been defending herself then it wouldn't look so bad to me but she went out there on her own to fight him. I guess she wanted to find out where the kids were but she should have questioned him with Eko's help.

If my memory serves me right, PolarBear, it was Goodwin who suggested that they should go someplace higher to get a better radio signal... None of us knows what's going on inside Ana's head the moment she decided to join Goodwin so i cannot conclude that she went with him to interrogate him or maybe she just wanted to simply help him out... who knows? *shrugs*

oh, and Makeshift Python, i agree with you...

[Scarlett]

^^I don't think i could argue with that one....

this goes out to the members of the Anti Ana Lucia Brigade: what do you think should Ana do or would've done that would convince you that she is not a nasty person that you think she is now? (and please don't answer that she should get killed and leave the show or something down that line...just feed my curiosity a bit please :))
Lol you know me (us) too well...I was forming that response as I read that part of the question. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, as much as I absolutely abhor her character because of her actions, I don't really think she's "evil" despite my abrasive language. "Nasty" is a good word for it. What bothers me most about her is her complete disrespect for human dignity. I respected her actions toward the kids on the island, and her efforts to keep the tailees safe. She was instrumental if not vital to their survival--but there's a difference between sacrificing for people's survival and their welfare.

I know we cant' completely compare the tailees with the originals, but just humor me. All fangirlishness and shippy-ness aside, Jack is the epitome of a leader in my opinion. He's risked his life on several occasions to help others, including in the Pilot when he ran back to help CHarlie, who he barely knew. AL behaved similarly at times, offering to run back and get Cindy and all. I'm not arguing that.

But there's a huge difference in their responses to injured/upset people that to me, is a huge factor in my dislike for AL. Jack, in addition to caring about the others' survival, cares about their welfare. It's always him who does little emotional checkups on everyone, sitting w/ Rose, trying to talk to Michael about Walt, being sympathetic to Charlie about his withdrawl and feelings of helplessness, comforting pregnant Claire, etc. You can dislike Jack and still admit that he genuinely cares about the wellbeing of the other survivors--not just brute survival.

Yes, AL's situation is a lot more heated and intense. They've had it rough. But how long does it take to, during one of their breaks from hiking or digging or whatever, say "So how are you feeling, Bernard?" or "You hanging in there, Eko?" You never see a glimpse of that in AL, that I can recall from "The Other 48 Days." Concern for the children's lives, and comforting the little girl, yes. But you don't see the concern for the emotional welfare of those around her--just their survival. That's one factor.

So if I saw AL develop an actual concern for others--not just selfishly fearing for her OWN life or projecting her OWN baby issues on the kids--and talk to them like they're actual human beings and not just her "charges" to get through the island, then my hate would certainly lessen a little.

Again, it all boils down to her attitude--you can be effective and even brutal when you have to be without having her attitude. Sayid's behaved horrendously to the point that I was disgusted with his actions (torturing Sawyer) but I was able to "forgive" his character because he was genearlly a good man and because his attitude kicked in and caused him to leave the camp in shame. He gets out of control sometimes (as do all the characters) but generally I like him. Same with Sawyer. He's a complete asshole at times, and has done disgusting things to be sure. But overall, his attitude and character are such that I can't find too much fault in him. In other words, the good outweighs the bad with all the characters--except Ana Lucia.

Locke is my second-least favorite character, simply because I disagree with him on a lot and don't trust him--especially after his obession with the hatch and his writing off Boone's death as a "sacrifice" to the island. He's knocked Sayid out and destroyed the transceiver and drugged Boone and died him to a tree, actions which no "great white hunter" schpeel can make me accept. But despite my almost outright dislike for him, his "personality" makes me at least accept him as a character, evne if I don't always agree with him and am sometimes disgusted by his actions.

This is getting long, but just one more thing and I'll write more later--as PolarBear said, it's also the writing of AL's character. To me, and I know I'm biased, but to me it's horrendously one-dimensional. Her backstory was pathetically boring. The only glimpse that I liked was when she shot Jason, surprising since her brutality is what I hate most about her. In that one second, I respected and understood her as a woman. But for the rest of the show, she's been one-note and horribly flat.

I must admit that, for several reasons, I can almost guarantee I'll never like AL. Call me closed-minded, but I kinow myself--I might warm up to her, but I'll never like her. I don't have many kind feelings toward the actress, don't appreciate the producers bringing her/her character onto the already near-perfect show in the first place, and of course have to roll my eyes at yet another distraction/roadblock to the "ships" I support. But more importantly, AL the character has shown few redeeming qualites. I guess it would take a miracle for me to truly like her. But I'd hate her a LOT less if she'd stop being so "I'm a tough chica, look at me" and be a real person for once, and treat others with respect. Not just help them, but truly show respect to others.


Btw--I forgot to add, as a concession to you AL lovers, that I must admit, the one moment I ever thought she did "kick ass" was when she walked up to Nathan adn kicked him in the chin. I seriously laughed out loud despite the intensity of the moment, it was pretty cool...even though it was the wrong guy :)

[thefilmchick]

I know we cant' completely compare the tailees with the originals, but just humor me. All fangirlishness and shippy-ness aside, Jack is the epitome of a leader in my opinion.

Hahaha. That's another topic, though, and you know well enough where I stand there... :)

The only glimpse that I liked was when she shot Jason, surprising since her brutality is what I hate most about her. In that one second, I respected and understood her as a woman. But for the rest of the show, she's been one-note and horribly flat.

That's when I felt the least for her, ironically enough. I did not 'respect and understand her as a woman' there, so that's not a universal constant by any means. To me, shooting someone who causes you to lose your child isn't justified at all, and I did not like that. My sympathies for her slipped some, there, even when you take away the feeling that I was being manipulated into some sort of 'OH NOES TRAGIC DEAD BABIES!' backstory. (Note it's late at night, so I may not make 100% sense. But I think that explanation does. Will edit it tomorrow if it doesn't.)

[*Pauly*]

Finally we can kill off the "Hate Evil Ana-Lucia" thread and have a more mature title so we don't get arrogant people who never read posts and go "You guys are lame".
.

Yeah I do think we need a better title I'm all for Anti-AnaL ;)

[Scarlett]

That's when I felt the least for her, ironically enough. I did not 'respect and understand her as a woman' there, so that's not a universal constant by any means. To me, shooting someone who causes you to lose your child isn't justified at all, and I did not like that. My sympathies for her slipped some, there, even when you take away the feeling that I was being manipulated into some sort of 'OH NOES TRAGIC DEAD BABIES!' backstory. (Note it's late at night, so I may not make 100% sense. But I think that explanation does. Will edit it tomorrow if it doesn't.)
No, I think I gotcha. It's not that I was suddenly overcome with sympathy for her or was cheering for her, but I had a glimpse where I actually saw where she was coming from. Up until that point, in my mind, she was this almost inhuman (and certainy inhumane) creature who walked around with a habitual scowl on her face and seemed to care about no one except maybe the children. I didn't see any flickers of depth or passionate feelings, just selfish self-preservation and the desire to save the other tailees.

But when she said "I was pregnant," first of all it called to mind maternal images that contrasted starkly with my image of her as a brute she-man (character-wise) with her little bandana and stick. It immediately connoted femininity and vulnerability--she had carried life, only to have the baby killed in her own body beacuse that asshole decided to take a cop down. I didn't even flinch when she shot him because although yes I find it morally wrong to kill someone for inadvertently killing your unborn child, a) it's a TV show and I overlook a lot as far as characters murdering people before the island and b) at least it showed her to have some depth and passionate feeling, not just being some robotic "Rambina."

I guess it doesn't really make sense logically, but I'm just saying that I felt teh most sympathy for her then--at least it showed she cared about something and must have been happy once at the thought of her baby. :shrugs:

PolarBear, I agree. Although I'm not ashamed by the Official Ana Lucia is a Pointless Evil Character thread title, either. So harsh, but so true IMO! ;)

[mge1979]

You make some good points there, Scarlett...if only all of the Anti-Ana people would be as civilized as you (and PolarBear, to name a few) then we might actually go places and rule the damn forum for all i care!!! lol

Your favorite AL scene was when she kicked Nathan on the chin?! That's one of the AL moments that i didn't like...

I gotta say, i don't think that there is such a term as "one-dimensional". Technically speaking i've never encountered that in math...i think that the minimum is two, say for example, in analytical geometry, if you plot a point in a plane there's always the x and y, therefore the minimum is two. :D

As far as i'm concerned, we've only seen Ana Lucia's "bad/hardcore" side, so to speak, we have an entire season to find out if AL is going be all nice and sensitive as Jack or the other fussies for that matter...

PolarBear, your brain transplant response was hilarious although i don't think that the producers/writers are planning to give AL a complete 180... perhaps they could make her less "abrassive" as you guys would like to call it...

[Razor]

The only glimpse that I liked was when she shot Jason, surprising since her brutality is what I hate most about her. In that one second, I respected and understood her as a woman. But for the rest of the show, she's been one-note and horribly flat.
That's when I felt the least for her, ironically enough. I did not 'respect and understand her as a woman' there, so that's not a universal constant by any means. To me, shooting someone who causes you to lose your child isn't justified at all, and I did not like that. My sympathies for her slipped some, there, even when you take away the feeling that I was being manipulated into some sort of 'OH NOES TRAGIC DEAD BABIES!' backstory. (Note it's late at night, so I may not make 100% sense. But I think that explanation does. Will edit it tomorrow if it doesn't.)
The only thing I liked (appreciated(?)/respected) about the scene with Ana shooting Jason was that it appeared she had been willing to pay the price (sacrifice her freedom) for a belief that she deserved to exact revenge (beyond what the law would have provided). No one who's trying to "get away with murder" (particularly when familiar with law enforement methods) would be sitting in the bar where the intended victim was last seen, follow him into a packed parking area (I'm not familiar with LA - aren't there surveillance/video cameras?) and shoot him three times, and then walk up, hover over him and pumps three more shots into him. No disguise, no alibi, no seeming concern for witnesses (I don't know why she didn't just shoot him in the bar - unless it was to ensure that she wouldn't be stopped or stopped before she had the chance to empty her clip and be 100% sure(?)). I'm really curious to see what fluke sequence of events transpired after she was last seen standing over Jason, to allow her to be free to travel to Australia. I initially thought she fled the US to AU, but since she seemed to be travelling back to LA of her own volition - it seems unlikely. She doesn't strike me as the "fleeing" type - perhaps best illustrated by her lying the knife and gun at Sayid's feet and saying "Go ahead, pick it up, I deserve it.". Not exactly a selfish fearing for her own life.

ASIDE (next topic?): Didn't Sayid get good marks for telling Sawyer "You want to take a shot? Take it. Know that I left this camp out of shame for what I did to you. It was never my intention to return."? I can't recall, but I don't sense any lasting animosity toward him. How is Ana's situation different? One person committed their "sin" because they were led to believe it was a necessity to save a life. While the other committed theirs because their situation (history/environment) led her to believe it was necessary to save the lives of many (including their own). Both expressed shame and a wilingness to accept the consequences. Is there a core group of Sayid Haters out there as well?

2nd ASIDE (where I switch sides on Ana): What is everyone's opinion of the scene where Ana draws her weapon against Travis (The TV toting shmuck). This scene is second only to Locke's speaking on the phone to "Helen", in making me throw on the mental brakes and think"whoaaa, this character has some reaaaaaal problems". Unrealistic expectations on my part for sure, but, when her character was developing I was actually looking forward to someone who was even "harder/sterner" or "mentally tough". I didn't welcome this glaring vulnerability - I was happy with her slight "lowering" of her defenses that she showed when alone with Eko.

Sorry for the length (rambling:D), it's too early.

[mge1979]

ASIDE (next topic?): [/SIZE][/FONT] Didn't Sayid get good marks for telling Sawyer "You want to take a shot? Take it. Know that I left this camp out of shame for what I did to you. It was never my intention to return."? I can't recall, but I don't sense any lasting animosity toward him. How is Ana's situation different? One person committed their "sin" because they were led to believe it was a necessity to save a life. While the other committed theirs because their situation (history/environment) led her to believe it was necessary to save the lives of many (including their own). Both expressed shame and a wilingness to accept the consequences. Is there a core group of Sayid Haters out there as well?


Exactly!
To quote Mr. Spock: "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few". I think that's what Ana's been during the whole weird journey with the tailees-- she is being logical...

[juniper]

What is everyone's opinion of the scene where Ana draws her weapon against Travis (The TV toting shmuck). This scene is second only to Locke's speaking on the phone to "Helen", in making me throw on the mental brakes and think"whoaaa, this character has some reaaaaaal problems". Unrealistic expectations on my part for sure, but, when her character was developing I was actually looking forward to someone who was even "harder/sterner" or "mentally tough". I didn't welcome this glaring vulnerability - I was happy with her slight "lowering" of her defenses that she showed when alone with Eko.

That's what I was hoping for very early on as well. They'll show development eventually, though. I think they'll either have to go in that direction within the next few seasons or else "soften" her character. I hope they do the former of the two. It would be so much more interesting to watch, especially since they've gone the softening route with Sawyer (more amusing, but less exciting IMO).

I hated the shooting scene. Yes, she's undoubtedly in a great deal of pain after having lost her baby, but this isn't how most women react upon consideration. As an officer, what happened to her could have held a great deal of weight in deciding Jason's fate, and there would have been one positive note to counter what had happened. She didn't fight, but succumbed to rage and selfishly threw that and her life away along with any amount of respect I would have afforded her as a cop, a woman, or a civilized human being in my opinion.

Re: Sayid, I think he did get good marks for saying that, but I'm not sure a vast amount of animosity ever existed toward his character. Part of the reason for that was that he immediately repented and left their little civilization once he realized he'd lost control of himself. Ana's response was to threaten the group at gunpoint and tie him to a tree. While I can't say it's illogical, I can't say it's logical either as it isn't something I would be willing to do once I'd realized I've lost it. (I'm assuming she realized it at that point.) Although perhaps it was something Sayid would have done in his early days of training? Who knows. Anyway, the rest of her group abandoned her at that point because she'd crossed the line. Sayid strikes me as the more moral and logical one, Ana the more loose canon. As for why he gets the sympathy vote and she doesn't, like I stated before, I think she needs to connect with viewers. Different strokes for different folks.

Sorry.... (We should call this the AL rambling on thread.) :)

[Raven O'Reilly]

Just throwing some change in here:

I think the Ana backstory may be the same for some of you in the sense I felt over Shannon's backstory. Any of you who know me, know that I hate Shannon. When I saw her backstory, I started to feel sympathy for her and that made me angry, cause I enjoy hating her character. lol However, I justify it by saying that despite what has happened to you in the past, doesn't justify what you do in the present or the future. It may explain it, but it doesn't justify it.

So, I sorta feel the same about Ana, though I haven't made up my mind on my opinion on her just yet.

Though, I do believe she has some redemption quality to her because I think that's a reason why they are on the island on the first place - to get rid of baggage and start anew. If Shannon can turn around, which it looks like she was starting to, then Ana can also.

And you guys are welcome for the thread. :) I'm glad you're doing a good job of discussing (which is always more fun than insulting each other).

[Mettanna]

This thread rocks. All for civility!

Anyway, I know you're talking about something else right now, but I gotta say on this one:

If my memory serves me right, PolarBear, it was Goodwin who suggested that they should go someplace higher to get a better radio signal... None of us knows what's going on inside Ana's head the moment she decided to join Goodwin so i cannot conclude that she went with him to interrogate him or maybe she just wanted to simply help him out... who knows? *shrugs*
My perception that she was siezing her chance before it passed her by. They had just found the hatch- she made sure Goodwin didn't have time to tell the Others where they were, thus ensuring their safety there. She saw the chance and she grabbed it.

And on this one:
But how long does it take to, during one of their breaks from hiking or digging or whatever, say "So how are you feeling, Bernard?" or "You hanging in there, Eko?" You never see a glimpse of that in AL, that I can recall from "The Other 48 Days."

Having personally seen "The Other 48 Days" upwards of five times, I can inform you that this is techinically false, since she did ask Eko if he was okay on the second day when they were burying the two Others he had killed. But, obviously, he didn't answer.

[Scarlett]

Having personally seen "The Other 48 Days" upwards of five times, I can inform you that this is techinically false, since she did ask Eko if he was okay on the second day when they were burying the two Others he had killed. But, obviously, he didn't answer.
Ah, ok, I stand corrected. But a few instances aside, you just don't see the same concern that one would expect as this great "leader" figure. At all.

As for this thread, I love it too. See what happens when you stay out of people's threads and we forge a new community together instead of invading others'? ;)

[Leigh]

Geezaloo scarlett and I thought I was the queen of long posts. :D

Seriously though, I'm too tired to debate all of the things you were talking about.....maybe later, but mge....I will say in regards to:

If my memory serves me right, PolarBear, it was Goodwin who suggested that they should go someplace higher to get a better radio signal... None of us knows what's going on inside Ana's head the moment she decided to join Goodwin so i cannot conclude that she went with him to interrogate him or maybe she just wanted to simply help him out... who knows? *shrugs*

I think that she really started to suspect him from near the start, b/c of the fact that she obviously had noticed how he wasn't wet....she wouldn't have JUST thought of that once they got up the hill, so what I'm thinking is that at the very least she knew he was fishy when he was staring at her upon waking, and I think she knew it was him 100% that one day where she looked at him strangely when he walked past. When he was talking about taking the radio, it was clear that she knew it was him and knew he'd go destroy the radio or something, so she gives him a little flirty smile so she can go, then begins her interrogation to find out if what she thinks is right, which I think she knew the whole time, but was just going through the motions....just to be sure this time after the whole Nathan bit. Ana knew it was him for a little while at least, I think....she was baiting him....waiting it out....clever. Though yes, risky. :cool:

[*Pauly*]

If I was going to be extremely harsh on her I would say she used Nathan as a test at least near the end. Trying to make Goodwin play his hand and reveal himself by getting rid of Nathan. I am pretty sure though that she knew Goodwin was an other long before the trek up the hill and she took the opportunity to go take him out herself. I think it parallels the killing of Jason in that she went out on her own to kill him and didn't tell her mother who he was when she had the chance. Both had children involved also. I think she was wrong to do both, they were very risky and just attempts at getting some macho revenge on people.

[Leigh]

just attempts at getting some macho revenge on people.

Yep. And that is why it was so darn cool. :D

[*Pauly*]

In killing Goodwin though she kinda lost the chance to find out where the kids are. I guess her and Charlie buggered up that for each side with their macho revenge desires lol

[mge1979]

i don't think Ana buggered up the way Charlie did. it just so happened that Goodwin attacked her right smack in the middle of her interrogation that she didn't have the chance to find out some of the vital info that she needed because she's busy defending herself. As for Charlie, what can i say? before Ethan had the chance to talk, he silenced him with a gun. i'd say, Charlie has more macho revenge issues then than Ana...

[*Pauly*]

lol You can't really call that much of an interrogation. She could have clonked him on the head on the way back to camp and then interrogated him. She wanted to catch him off guard so she can take some form of revenge on him herself. I mean she didn't have to fight him it was initiated by her, not him.

Edit: Okay I have conclusive proof (in my eyes) that Ana Lucia knew long before they took that trek into the jungle. Just after Nathan is found missing and they leave they come out overlooking the sea. Ana looks out at sea and then at Goodwin and back again. To me this is her figuring out that he never got wet in the sea from the crash like everyone else. I uploaded it here :

http://media.putfile.com/Just-After-They-Leave-Camp

:D

[mge1979]

Since i'm feeling nauseous today, I'll let you win this round, PolarBear. :nod:... Looks like i can't really argue with a guy with good attachments, therefore i'll concede for now :D

I'll be back the moment the pain killer kicks in... my head hurts like hell!!! aaargh!!!

[Razor]

PolarBear, I realize you placed a :D at the end of your post - which leads me to believe you may be joking (unsure), but you also went to the trouble to support your claim with the cool film clip.:confused: So I'll reply (just in case:o).

This scene, I'll agree, is proof of something. "Conclusive" proof of what she "knew", however, would require knowledge of what Ana was thinking both prior to the glance at Goodwin, and after. Even if we suspected that Ana was sorting the infiltrator issue out in her head as she stared at the ocean, it was Goodwin who, by sidling up right next to her, broke her train of thought (perhaps his intent?). She would have glanced at anyone who had pulled up along side of her. This may have backfired on Goodwin as his action may also have been the point where Ana began to consider "What about Goodwin?".

OT: Does anyone have insights as to why Goodwin remained with the remaining six (6), then five (5), (after Nathan's murder)? It's pretty easy to surmise that he was originally needed to create the two lists. One to identify/describe the athletic "threats" who were to be removed on the first attack, and the second being the list of the "good" ones. Why remain afterward? Surely Goodwin, given the ease in which he snapped Nathan's neck, could have killed each of them as they slept. Is there another "good" one in their midst that "They" missed or were undecided about wanting? Could it have been Cindy? Any thoughts as to another motive?

[*Pauly*]

No, I wasn't joking. To me it is what was meant there. I guess it's how you perceive things but I think that it was what the writers were saying there. Not conclusive but I believe if you asked the writers they would say the same thing.

What do you suppose she was thinking about then? Why the focus on the sea? I think it's clealy that considering a few scenes later they go for that trek.

[Razor]

No, I wasn't joking. To me it is what was meant there. I guess it's how you perceive things but I think that it was what the writers were saying there. Not conclusive but I believe if you asked the writers they would say the same thing.

What do you suppose she was thinking about then? Why the focus on the sea? I think it's clealy that considering a few scenes later they go for that trek.

I admit it's possible. It's just that it would be a lot more convincing if Goodwin hadn't been the one to initiate the "glance" by Ana. My personal interpretation, is that she wasn't thinking about him - until he broke her concentration. It acted as a reminder "What about him" bringing the shadow of suspicion over him.

What do I think she could have been thinking about while staring at the sea? ... Well, the look on her face could definitely be construed as being in "deep" thought, but not necessarily involving the ocean itself. Locke, Rose, Charlie, Kate, Sun (probably more) ... have all been shown staring out at the sea. It's just something many people do (myself included), whether thinking about the present, reflecting on the past, or contemplating the future.

[Mettanna]

No wonder everyone's posts are so long on this thread...there's so many different topics to discuss....

This scene, I'll agree, is proof of something. "Conclusive" proof of what she "knew", however, would require knowledge of what Ana was thinking both prior to the glance at Goodwin, and after. Even if we suspected that Ana was sorting the infiltrator issue out in her head as she stared at the ocean, it was Goodwin who, by sidling up right next to her, broke her train of thought (perhaps his intent?). She would have glanced at anyone who had pulled up along side of her. This may have backfired on Goodwin as his action may also have been the point where Ana began to consider "What about Goodwin?".

I agree- I think that must have been when Ana started puting the pieces together. I never believed she was using Nathan as Goodwin-bait, and I also always thought she knew about Goodwin before the trek up the hill.

So, if I'm right about her not using Goodwin as bait and knowing that Goodwin was the Other beforhand, when else, really, could she have worked it out? Nathan died on day 24, she killed Goodwin on day 27.

So...in my opinion it must have worked out like this: They're treking through the jungleon days 24, 25, and 26. As they're doing so, Ana's trying to figure out the whole infiltration thing... She was probably going through everyone in her mind. Everyone had an alibi- She saw Eko directly after the crash, she watched Libby set the guys leg, Bernard was in a tree, etc...So then, as Ana's pondering this, they come to the ocean, and she looks at Goodwin. And then it occurs to her "Heeey, wait a minute...."

And there you have it.

Good find there Polarbear...I hadn't really thought about that before. It's all very clear to me now...

[Fish1941]

If I was going to be extremely harsh on her I would say she used Nathan as a test at least near the end. Trying to make Goodwin play his hand and reveal himself by getting rid of Nathan. I am pretty sure though that she knew Goodwin was an other long before the trek up the hill and she took the opportunity to go take him out herself. I think it parallels the killing of Jason in that she went out on her own to kill him and didn't tell her mother who he was when she had the chance. Both had children involved also. I think she was wrong to do both, they were very risky and just attempts at getting some macho revenge on people.


Are you stating that Ana-Lucia deliberately used Nathan as a means to draw out Goodwin? You're comparing this to her killing of Jason? Because I find all of this hard to believe. She seemed suspicious of Nathan for quite a while. And so did Libby and Cindy, I might add. I believe that once she began to think about Goodwin, she realized that she had been mistaken of Nathan.

i'd say, Charlie has more macho revenge issues then than Ana...

I would further add that Charlie's murder of Ethan seemed more than just macho revenge. Perhaps - and this is merely an opinion, mind you - he wanted to show in his mind that he could take care of Claire as well as the others.

[mge1979]

I would further add that Charlie's murder of Ethan seemed more than just macho revenge. Perhaps - and this is merely an opinion, mind you - he wanted to show in his mind that he could take care of Claire as well as the others.

That is why it's so very macho, Fish! :D

Moving on, haters or not, who amongst you think that the wardrobe department are doing an awful job of not giving Ana a new set of clean clothes? The woman's been wearing that same old outfit for the past 48+ days...

[Mettanna]

^Seriously. It's driving me crazy! We should start a "Clothe Ana and Eko Campaign".

Also, I'm begining to wonder about Ana's life between the killing Jason and the crash...she reiterated again that she "was a cop." Do you think she just means she was a cop before the crash, or did she maybe go somewhere else (possibly the Army? She did know about the knife...) after killing Jason?

I know Leigh has posted theories like this...I beginning to think you may be right...

[Fish1941]

I guess that sometime between killing Jason and her arrival in Australia, Ana-Lucia had left the LAPD. Under what circumstances, I have no idea. If the cops had found out that she had killed Jason, surely she would be facing trial right now. So what happened?:confused:

[Mettanna]

I know...I'm really curious to find out. It seems that she got away with it...

[Leigh]

My basic theory:

I think that Ana was in the army BEFORE being a cop....like, right out of high school for between 1-4 years. Then Ana had, since killing Jason and disposing of the body (which producers say her flashback took place three years before the plane), become a higher ranking cop (hopefully)....then she is sent to Australia per the request of Australia PD to make sure Sawyer leaves for sure. So, she is there to escort him back (without his knowledge, you know just keep an eye on him, making sure he gets on the plane and lands). I believe this b/c the way she treated him SO harshly/like a prisoner....ANYWAY, then in the bar, her phone rings and it's her cop mom who's like "Ana....a body was found this morning. It's Jason soandso....Ana....Ana what did you do?" and Ana is like thinking OMG my life is over, when I step of that plane in LA I'm no longer a cop, or a free woman for that matter....she gets on the plane knowing what's coming and bam the plane crashes....how's that for fate (the theme of this lovely show). How ironic would that be....?

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it....b/c she wouldn't have said at first to Sayid, "I'm a cop." if she quit after killing Jason and hadn't been one for at least 2-3 years. Who would say that then? So, that means that at least up to the flight she was....so, is she talking as if "I WAS a cop..." only b/c she now thinks, well, I'm stuck here so I'm not exactly one anymore am I? You know?

Just a theory....*shrugs*

Though, it'd be a bit disappointing....b/c then she and Kate would be in the exact same predicament, that when they are rescued they are both facing jail for their crimes, that'd be too repeptative....

....SO, my only other theory is basically that Ana went of all rogue-like to do something that she knows will get her fired (not put in jail, but just lose her job).....who knows what that could be....maybe she had some score to settle with some perp or something freaky and her mom/boss was like "Don't go or you won't be a cop when you get back." and she went anyway and did God-knows-what....quite frankly I'm REALLY hoping that my first theory is wrong. I'm hoping that the Sawyer bit could be right, but I don't want her I'm a cop/was a cop and reason for being on the phone to have anything to do with Jason....that'd just be....kind of disappointing/predictable you know? Every other character has had multiple arcs (like Jack) to their backstories, I want Ana's to be that way too....

.....oh! Btw, I'm officially a Jana shipper now. I don't know why. I think Sawyer is much hotter and believe you me, I WANT SANA SEX! That will be hot and the superficial part of me can NOT wait to see it.....BUT, in the end....Jack/Ana baby! You know why? B/c after last night's ep....I officially dislike Kate more than ever and Sawyer is being an asshat again...so they can run off and have angry screwed up selfish immature little babies for all I care....HA!

[Joi]

Moving on, haters or not, who amongst you think that the wardrobe department are doing an awful job of not giving Ana a new set of clean clothes? The woman's been wearing that same old outfit for the past 48+ days...

I think the women nicked most of Ana's clothes...LOL. But I do remember a scene of Shannon, Sun or Claire possibly going through womens' clothing and passing them around.

Seriously good discussion -- will come back later when I have time to comment.

[Mettanna]

In response to Leigh's post...I'm still completely indecisive about Ana-ships. So very difficult to decide...I think I'm still holding out for Ana independence, unlikely as it may be. I could say more, but this is kind of off-topic...

[Scarlett]

In response to Leigh's post...I'm still completely indecisive about Ana-ships. So very difficult to decide...I think I'm still holding out for Ana independence, unlikely as it may be. I could say more, but this is kind of off-topic...
Yeah, it is. Ther'es enough to fight about regarding AL w/o bringing ships into the picture...

[Leigh]

I thought this would be appropriate for this thread, to add a bit of humor. :D

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/forumstuff/funny01.jpg

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/forumstuff/funny02.jpg

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/forumstuff/funny03.jpg

I think a couple of the mods can really relate to the third one. :D

[nycjoc]

^^^that's funny Leigh. From a good movie too.

[mge1979]

Leigh, you crazy girl, it's hilarious! :rotflol:

[La Mer]

^Haha, that's great Leigh Lol!:D

[Mettanna]

:rotflol: That's great Leigh...

[Gage]

Leigh, I loved the photos. I'm glad your a Jana shipper now, me to. I wouldn't mind some Sana stuff either but in the end Jack & Ana. Theorys arn't bad either, but the phone call Jason thing, yeah I hope thats wrong to cause I don't want her to get caught & go to prison or jail or something or be like Kate, she's way better than Kate.

Like I say I love the banana :banana: lol

[Scarlett]

Leigh, I loved the photos. I'm glad your a Jana shipper now, me to. I wouldn't mind some Sana stuff either but in the end Jack & Ana. Theorys arn't bad either, but the phone call Jason thing, yeah I hope thats wrong to cause I don't want her to get caught & go to prison or jail or something or be like Kate, she's way better than Kate.

Like I say I love the banana :banana: lol
When did this become the pro-AL/Jana thread?

Back to discussion of the actual character, what does everyone think about AL's future involvement in the "army" Jack wants to raise. Will her involvement be beneficial or detrimental?

Personally, I think she obviously has skills to contribute, and is one more person with weapons experience. However, I think her ego tripping could get in the way of anything they're actually trying to do--meaning, unless she's the leader I don't see her working well. Seems the type of personality that's the leader or nothing. Thoughts?

[mge1979]

When did this become the pro-AL/Jana thread??

I was wondering when you're going to show up... it's about time! :D

Back to discussion of the actual character, what does everyone think about AL's future involvement in the "army" Jack wants to raise. Will her involvement be beneficial or detrimental?

Personally, I think she obviously has skills to contribute, and is one more person with weapons experience. However, I think her ego tripping could get in the way of anything they're actually trying to do--meaning, unless she's the leader I don't see her working well. Seems the type of personality that's the leader or nothing. Thoughts?

I think Jack's whole army thingy was kind of funny... Maybe he should've just asked AL what would it take to build up their defenses, i think it's the more appropriate question he should've asked...

Anyway, I agree on most of the stuffs you said except the ego-tripping part... I think Jack's ego (it was his idea anyway) would also get in the way, so is Locke's, Sawyer's, etc...

bottom line is we are going to expect a whole lot of heat and tension amongst the characters along the way should this whole "army" thing push through, therefore i don't believe that AL should be singled out on the ego trip part...

[juniper]

I agree with you on Jack's build-an-army comment, mge. IMO that was undoubtedly the single most cringe-inducing moment of Lost thus far. Poor Foxy, he didn't deserve that. *shakes head*

Yep, there's going to be a lot of head-butting from all parties, I'm guessing. Don't forget Sayid as well. He's the only one with actual army training as far as we know.

I think if AL sticks to sharing 'skills' we won't have much of an issue. I'm just afraid she's not much of the cooperating-for-the-good-of-everyone type and will attempt to take control, despite her self-imposed seclusion for the last few episodes. I sense too much rash, not nearly enough rational in her character. That's a liability in my book.

That's my two cents... but we shall see.

[Scarlett]

I agree with mge and juniper that the entire army thing was ridiculous in the first place. Way too dramatic, even for Lost.

Anyway, yes, everyone on the island has an ego, or at least the prominent leader figures. Jack certainly has his moments where I'd like to shake him. But to the best of my memory, AL is the only person who's actually punched and stepped on an unarmed, injured man because he was mouthing off to her. Sawyer had been eliminated as a threat, and yet AL felt it necessary to punch him and step in his wound and say "When I say jump, you jump." That's quite possibly the most egotistical thing ever uttered on Lost. Her entire "When I say walk..." speech.

That kind of thinking would get her into trouble if she wasn't the "general" of the little army. If Jack, Kate, Sayid, Locke, whoever was higher than her in the chain of command (and let's face it, no one else is as trigger happy so the chances of that happening are high plus the fact that more people trust them)....I can definitely seeing AL flipping out and ego-tripping, more so than Jack or Sayid would.

[Razor]

Yep, there's going to be a lot of head-butting from all parties, I'm guessing. Don't forget Sayid as well. He's the only one with actual army training as far as we know.


Denying (overlooking?) Jin's compulsary military service/training makes as little sense as denying that Sayid had combat or military strategy training (because neither was shown having received that training). Both (IMO) should be assumed with no evidence to the contrary.

I agree with mge and juniper that the entire army thing was ridiculous in the first place. Way too dramatic, even for Lost.

This is Off Topic - but, when would you fight back or defend yourself? 17 people killed/captured/or abducted is not enough?

Anyway, yes, everyone on the island has an ego, or at least the prominent leader figures. Jack certainly has his moments where I'd like to shake him. But to the best of my memory, AL is the only person who's actually punched and stepped on an unarmed, injured man because he was mouthing off to her. Sawyer had been eliminated as a threat, and yet AL felt it necessary to punch him and step in his wound and say "When I say jump, you jump." That's quite possibly the most egotistical thing ever uttered on Lost. Her entire "When I say walk..." speech.

I don't believe, nor did Ana (IMO), that Sawyer had been removed as a "threat" just because the rock was no longer in his hand. It's more difficult to get someone to "drop" their attitude.

As for the "when I say jump..." speech..., surely you've heard this before in a show/movie? It's as cliched of a "military" attitude as I could imagine.

What part of Ana's behavior would have been "unusual" or considered out-of-character if the role had been a male army captain rather than a female ex-cop?

That kind of thinking would get her into trouble if she wasn't the "general" of the little army. If Jack, Kate, Sayid, Locke, whoever was higher than her in the chain of command (and let's face it, no one else is as trigger happy so the chances of that happening are high plus the fact that more people trust them)....I can definitely seeing AL flipping out and ego-tripping, more so than Jack or Sayid would. Big "If" in that first sentence. I don't understand the second part though? "If Jack, Kate, ..." what? I have no idea where you were headed? No one was higher in the chain of command when she commited her atrocities:rolleyes: to mankind.

Since we have no idea what Ana's reply to Jack was (nor can she be held responsible for what is asked of her) ..., would anyone else find it funny if (after all the debate on this forum) her reply was "shouldn't you be asking Sayid? He was in the military.":D I wouldn't be surprised if it just created a whole new wave of Ana hating because she would then be viewed as selfish and shirking responsibility.:rolleyes: I don't see that reply happening though, since I think Ana is plenty qualified to answer the question regarding the timeframe to train. If Jack wanted to know the answer to 2+2, he needn't find a math teacher among the survivers.:D

[Leigh]

WI think her ego tripping could get in the way of anything they're actually trying to do--meaning, unless she's the leader I don't see her working well. Seems the type of personality that's the leader or nothing. Thoughts?

I just don't understand the the "ego-rtip" bit....when has Ana ver acted like she was queen of the world in a way that was NOT neccessary? The ONLY time was her "When I tell you to do something...." speech to a contradictive, rock-carrying Sawyer.

I don't get why so many people say being boldly and sometimes harshly in charge in a hellish environment is ego-tripping. She was put in charge reluctantly....I mean, Day 2 or whatever Libby comes to her about the guy who would be the fourth to go. Then after than people kept looking to her. After the attack Nathan comes out and tells her how many people are missing....blah blah blah. They sort of put her in a leadership role from the start and then whenever she'd make a suggestion NICELY mind you, like saying they need to stay at the beach, telling Nathan that the go in pairs, etc.....all of this she did nicely. BUT they all friggin opposed her.....they all questioned and challenged her, and what did she do? She gave in. She saw that they as a group wanted to do something else. She didn't continue to challenge them, she didn't argue or get snotty, nothing....then when they did what the group wanted, bad things happened. Again and again they happened. So eventually I thin she realized, you know what most of these people don't know squat about surviving, and they are making stupid decisions and they look at me as a leader anyway so why not just go balls out and take full charge. You can see it play out like that just from her facial expressions over the course of The Other 48 Days, pretty clearly. She went from acting like she wanted to be left alone to giving that up and basically deciding to "boss" people around. And you know what....had she not, Rose would likely be a widower and Libby'd be dead....

.....so like I said....there really isn't any reason to call what Ana has done "eg-tripping".....firm? Yes. A little bossy? Yes. But all of this was almost always neccessary....especially considering the weak people she was dealing with.

[mge1979]

Our man, Razor, here did make a very good point and i have to agree with him on this... none of us know what Ana's response on the whole army thing would be, at least not yet...we'll all have to wait and see...

[juniper]

Denying (overlooking?) Jin's compulsary military service/training makes as little sense as denying that Sayid had combat or military strategy training (because neither was shown having received that training). Both (IMO) should be assumed with no evidence to the contrary.

You're right, as fiction dictates, we make assumptions and fill in the obligatory blanks, but I'm going out on a limb and assuming for all intents and purposes that Sayid's dealt more with the atrocities of war (as he stated that he was a soldier for the RG during the Gulf War, rather than a communications officer, and I believe that at that time he'd have been a bit, er, embattled :D ) than Jin. No disrespect intended, but conscription is in no way equivalent to fighting in a war (nor is LAPD training).

This is Off Topic - but, when would you fight back or defend yourself? 17 people killed/captured/or abducted is not enough?

I'm not arguing he hasn't a reason for concern or even that they should sit back; it was the B-movie line manner in which he uttered it. It resulted in levity when there should have been fear or in the very least gravity.

What part of Ana's behavior would have been "unusual" or considered out-of-character if the role had been a male army captain rather than a female ex-cop?

*forced :D* Forgive me, but I'm going to ignore a few choice words, in favor of avoiding a re-enactment of the War of Pages 30-40 of the AL:Evil Thread. There was too much civil unrest, and no one was rejoicing. I think it isn't so much that it's OOC for her, as her character doesn't strike a personal chord with some, her professional affiliation and other characteristics aside. The cliched movie part to which you just alluded has everything to do with it. That cliched Rambo part suits her, but is ludicrous on this show IMO.

Since we have no idea what Ana's reply to Jack was (nor can she be held responsible for what is asked of her) ..., would anyone else find it funny if (after all the debate on this forum) her reply was "shouldn't you be asking Sayid? He was in the military." I wouldn't be surprised if it just created a whole new wave of Ana hating because she would then be viewed as selfish and shirking responsibility. I don't see that reply happening though, since I think Ana is plenty qualified to answer the question regarding the timeframe to train. If Jack wanted to know the answer to 2+2, he needn't find a math teacher among the survivers.

No, but police training is in no way synonymous with military. She might know, yes, but so might Hurley by that reasoning. It seems odd to me that he would ask her, and why bother showing him asking her rather than either of them mentioning Sayid? I think he probably asked her in order to rally a supporter. Also it seems to me a great deal of criticism toward her is regarding her inability to be compromising or respectful in the company of others, so I don't believe it would be to her discredit to behave accordingly. Only she doesn't seem to have been written that way.

[Razor]

You're right, as fiction dictates, we make assumptions and fill in the obligatory blanks, but I'm going out on a limb and assuming for all intents and purposes that Sayid's dealt more with the atrocities of war (as he stated that he was a soldier for the RG during the Gulf War, rather than a communications officer, and I believe that at that time he'd have been a bit, er, embattled :D ) than Jin. No disrespect intended, but conscription is in no way equivalent to fighting in a war (nor is LAPD training). I don't see how being in a war makes you a better shot with a gun or better at hand-to-hand combat than a person who was just trained. It's not learned by osmosis. Sayid was shown in his wartime position: interogating prisoners. While I do not doubt he will be valuable if they ever capture (and keep alive) an Other, I doubt too many of the people he tortured were armed or put up a struggle. IMO, the "best qualified" is the person who received the best instruction - and I'm not qualified to comment on the comparative training received in Iraq versus Korea? Anyone?
I'm not arguing he hasn't a reason for concern or even that they should sit back; it was the B-movie line manner in which he uttered it. It resulted in levity when there should have been fear or in the very least gravity. Okay, I guess - but I didn't receive it that way.
*forced :D* Forgive me, but I'm going to ignore a few choice words, in favor of avoiding a re-enactment of the War of Pages 30-40 of the AL:Evil Thread. There was too much civil unrest, and no one was rejoicing. I think it isn't so much that it's OOC for her, as her character doesn't strike a personal chord with some, her professional affiliation and other characteristics aside. The cliched movie part to which you just alluded has everything to do with it. That cliched Rambo part suits her, but is ludicrous on this show IMO.:confused: Why would you need to dredge up another threads dischord in order to answer a simple question: would Ana's actions have seemed inappropriate if it was a military officer (not Rambo - real) in the role? I could understand your position if you felt that type of leader wasn't required (I wouldn't agree, but it would be fruitless belaboring an opinion re: life & death situations and what is needed or at least what militaries deem necessary.)

It almost sounds as though you're saying it's not the actions - but the presentation? Which would really be beyond debate since it's the writers decision and personal preference.

No, but police training is in no way synonymous with military. She might know, yes, but so might Hurley by that reasoning. It seems odd to me that he would ask her, and why bother showing him asking her rather than either of them mentioning Sayid? I think he probably asked her in order to rally a supporter. Also it seems to me a great deal of criticism toward her is regarding her inability to be compromising or respectful in the company of others, so I don't believe it would be to her discredit to behave accordingly. Only she doesn't seem to have been written that way.Might?:eek: Are you at all familiar with police training? The policemen I know are trained thoroughly in weapons as well as hand-to-hand combat. It's not a one time thing either. It's continual, with required programs/courses ... and that's in a small, peaceful, suburban town. If I were to guess, L.A. would probably require even more intense training. Either way, she's qualified to estimate the length of time it would take.

[Scarlett]

This is Off Topic - but, when would you fight back or defend yourself? 17 people killed/captured/or abducted is not enough?
Oh, I would certainly be up for forming a defensive group. They should have done that from the beginning. I meant Jack's actual phrasing, and how the episode was ended. I actually support the movement to fight back--it's about time.



As for the "when I say jump..." speech..., surely you've heard this before in a show/movie? It's as cliched of a "military" attitude as I could imagine
Exactly.

Since we have no idea what Ana's reply to Jack was (nor can she be held responsible for what is asked of her) ..., would anyone else find it funny if (after all the debate on this forum) her reply was "shouldn't you be asking Sayid? He was in the military.":D I would actually feel a glimmer of respect for her if she said something like that, which I think she will since they're trying to make her sympathetic. She'll prob say something self-deprecating. Which annoys me because it's so obvious they're trying to make her tolerable, but I would still respect the character for saying that. At least it wouldn't be her usual power-hungry BS.

Leigh, I think the biggest instance of ego-tripping I can think of besides the "When I say walk, you walk" was her behavior in "Collision." I understand she had to protect her life, fine. But the way she went about it disgusted me. Eliminate Sayid as a threat, OK. But take apart a dying man's stretcher, tie the griving man to a tree, and then snap at your "followers" and order them around like they're children? IN intense situations, of course I don't expect her to say "please." Of course sometimes you have to bark out orders. But after Sayid had already been died to the tree, AL still treated Libby and Eko like children/assistents. She had the nerve to try to guilt-trip Bernard into staying ("How long did I keep you alive?" or whatever). Yes, she did kep them alive. But that doesn't mean they're her servants to order around after the imediate threat has been eliminated.

Then, in perhaps the most transparent action of all, after she CLEARLY saw that Sayid was calmed down and had "forgiven" her more or less, she unties him and says "shoot me." My friend and I turned to each other and were like wtf? That was the most obvious thing she's ever done---anyone could see that Sayid was calm and had been talkign to her for a few hours. THere was no possible threat of him shooting her, however enraged he had been that morning. She only said that to get pity. If he had actually made a move for his gun, do you think she would have stood there and let him shoot her? there was no humility in that scene--just feigned shame.

[mge1979]

Then, in perhaps the most transparent action of all, after she CLEARLY saw that Sayid was calmed down and had "forgiven" her more or less, she unties him and says "shoot me." My friend and I turned to each other and were like wtf? That was the most obvious thing she's ever done---anyone could see that Sayid was calm and had been talkign to her for a few hours. THere was no possible threat of him shooting her, however enraged he had been that morning. She only said that to get pity. If he had actually made a move for his gun, do you think she would have stood there and let him shoot her? there was no humility in that scene--just feigned shame.

Your interpretation is different from mine. I think that AL being shameful on that scene is not "feign" as you and your friend think... i think it's genuine and I saw humility there... I think that she was already shameful the moment she told Mikey to go back to camp and get supplies because she's not going to join them that she's going to live alone... i think she regrets shooting Shannon and that she thinks that she doesn't deserve to be with the fusies, now that's shameful in my opinion, not ego trip...

I believe that the only ego trip AL did and you pointed that one out is when she told Bernard "How long have I kept you alive?" and she responded "cut me some slack" other than that---nada...

[juniper]

Razor, I don't live in a small suburban town (GR, MI), and yes, I'm familiar with my local law enforcement. They're important people and I have an abundance of respect for them. I know they do take police training courses, use guns extraordinarily well and learn procedures they need to do thier jobs. (I think AL's good with a gun and I already said she would be an asset in that aspect.) That doesn't change the fact that if I heard someone imply that because of this she's greatly suited to blindly lead or train an island army, it would concern me personally. It's nothing to do with weapons and defense tactics, it's AL and her lack of self-control and nature of needing to control others. It's the fact that I am sensible of the amount of danger they would be in that makes my say so actually.

I don't see how being in a war makes you a better shot with a gun or better at hand-to-hand combat than a person who was just trained. It's not learned by osmosis. Sayid was shown in his wartime position: interogating prisoners.

It doesn't make you a better shot, but being the best sure shot alive doesn't mean you're prepared for combat. (As for Sayid, it was said last season that he was a soldier as well as a communications officer.) She has a tendency to shoot blindly in a panic, and is apparently as likely to shoot an ally as an enemy - she did so days ago; she's not prepared for a battle. Her aim is fine; she most definitely isn't. It's not a technical issue. Soldiers who embark on a battlefield ill-prepared tend to come out of it the worse for wear; that's been my experience.

I'm kindly asking you to refrain from the "if the role had been a male army captain rather than a female ex-cop" remarks. (We all know some people believe our problems with her come down to a case of our own gender/race issues; because we're critical of AL, we're the "haters" (nice banner, btw), but frankly it's insulting and upsetting that there's no way to defend oneself online against what are horribly offensive accusations. I hope you respect that.) "Would Ana's actions have seemed inappropriate if it was a military officer?" is a different question entirely. And in response, once you remove the gender issues, I do believe an army captain would be more suited to do the aforementioned (i.e. lead and train an army) than an ex-cop.

[Scarlett]

OK, I'm all for off-color humor between friends, male or female. But AL's little comment to Jack about "hitting that" really shocked and sickened me. I found it tasteless and trashy--it's one thing if she had said something to Libby about that, or if Kate had said something like that to Sawyer or something. But to ask a guy you're kind of interested in if he's having a sexual relationship with a woman you don't know at all? Wtf? Not only is that non of her b usiness, but the fact that assumes that since Jack saved a woman with a gun to her head he must be "hitting that"....wow.

Ever heard of friendship, or love? Maybe Jack listened to Zeke because, I don't know, he didn't want an innocent woman to die? Anyone of the men or women would have done the same thing, no one would have let Kate die. Would she assume they were sleeping with her, too?

And her phrase--tacky to the extreme. It's none of her business, but it was made worse by the way she asked. Instad of asking "so, you and Kate have a little something-something" or "you guys friends or what?" (which would still be quite rude) she uses one of the crudest expressions for sex.

Also, it's hard to remember since Lost has been off the air for so long, but it's been THREE DAYS since she shot Shannon to death. I know it was an accident...but AL sure seems to have gotten over it quickly! She's back to joking around and bossing Jack (telling him to be more afraid of the Others) as if nothing happened. She isoalted herself for a few days because she feared the wrath of the other castaways, but now she seems damn happy to be flirting with Jack and getting the island gossip. Nevermind that Shannon lies buried a few feet away because of her actions. :rolleyes:

[Razor]

Razor, I don't live in a small suburban town (GR, MI), and yes, I'm familiar with my local law enforcement. They're important people and I have an abundance of respect for them. I know they do take police training courses, use guns extraordinarily well and learn procedures they need to do thier jobs. (I think AL's good with a gun and I already said she would be an asset in that aspect.) That doesn't change the fact that if I heard someone imply that because of this she's greatly suited to blindly lead or train an island army, it would concern me personally. It's nothing to do with weapons and defense tactics, it's AL and her lack of self-control and nature of needing to control others. It's the fact that I am sensible of the amount of danger they would be in that makes my say so actually.But, no one has asked her to lead or train an army (not that I believe she couldn't - particularly the latter). She was only asked how long it would take. She is qualified to answer that - unless you can point out specific aspects of Iraqi army training (that Sayid had) that Ana did not have which would make it impossible to gauge a timeframe.

It doesn't make you a better shot, but being the best sure shot alive doesn't mean you're prepared for combat. (As for Sayid, it was said last season that he was a soldier as well as a communications officer.) She has a tendency to shoot blindly in a panic, and is apparently as likely to shoot an ally as an enemy - she did so days ago; she's not prepared for a battle. Her aim is fine; she most definitely isn't. It's not a technical issue. Soldiers who embark on a battlefield ill-prepared tend to come out of it the worse for wear; that's been my experience.Anyone enlisted in the Army is a soldier, until Sayid elaborates (or through flashbacks) I maintain that he was an interogator as shown. And, now, a psychologically scarred one at that.

Shooting blindly? She hit her target dead-on (pun intended).:D As likely to shoot an ally?:rolleyes: Nope, never will agree with you on that one. Sayid, on the other hand, willfully shot his commanding officer (a treasonous offense) ... ally?

I'm kindly asking you to refrain from the "if the role had been a male army captain rather than a female ex-cop" remarks. (We all know some people believe our problems with her come down to a case of our own gender/race issues; because we're critical of AL, we're the "haters" (nice banner, btw), but frankly it's insulting and upsetting that there's no way to defend oneself online against what are horribly offensive accusations. I hope you respect that.) "Would Ana's actions have seemed inappropriate if it was a military officer?" is a different question entirely. And in response, once you remove the gender issues, I do believe an army captain would be more suited to do the aforementioned (i.e. lead and train an army) than an ex-cop. Well I guess that almost answers the question. The aforementioned, was in regard to disciplining, not leading or training an army. As for "horribly offensive accusations" ... it was a question. Not an accusation. And "No", I wasn't aware of what others believe your problems with Ana stem from. I was actually alluding to Sayid - not insinuating anything. I have no reason to believe your ill-regard for Ana is gender or racially based. Nor is my acceptance. So let's leave it behind us.

Sorry to disappoint, but my banner (sig?) is neither new (someone else has the same quote too - I'm not sure if it's coincidence or...:confused:) nor did it stem from this, or any other Ana "haters" thread. In truth, I would actually prefer that "the haters" were called something else. It sounds too negative and one dimensional (much like your perceived your target). How about the AAC (Anti-Ana Contingent)?:p

[Scarlett]

In truth, I would actually prefer that "the haters" were called something else. It sounds too negative and one dimensional (much like your perceived your target). How about the AAC (Anti-Ana Contingent)?:p
Haha... love the part about "too negative and one dimensional (much like you perceived your target)." True, and true! I agree that haters/lovers creates a false dichtomy, like negative/positives people. Maybe PALL (Pro AnaL-less Lost)? Who knows....

[Razor]

Haha... love the part about "too negative and one dimensional (much like you perceived your target)." True, and true! I agree that haters/lovers creates a false dichtomy, like negative/positives people. Maybe PALL (Pro AnaL-less Lost)? Who knows....

:) Hey, whatever you guys decide on would work for me. I cringe each time I type "haters". Particularly since I'm not comfortable being lumped in as an "Ana-Lover". :cool:

[juniper]

Yes, I'm clearly not a huge fan of the labels. I'm delighted not to be a lover...but a hater? Seriously. Down with cringe-inducing epithets and titles. I suppose that's why we're both gravitating toward the debate/discuss thread even when the vast majority of the debate/discussion boils down to perspective.

As for the AL moment, I think it was shown for a reason, that he's getting at asking her to be involved a bit more directly (and too directly) than speculating on a time frame and getting weapon training assistance for those who actually need it. Yes, she hit the woman dead-on, but why? Not because she was an enemy, she was just at the wrong place, wrong time (within shooting range of trigger-happy AL). Besides, what I'm saying is training a police force isn't synonymous with training an army.

[Razor]

Yes, I'm clearly not a huge fan of the labels. I'm delighted not to be a lover...but a hater? Seriously. Down with cringe-inducing epithets and titles. I suppose that's why we're both gravitating toward the debate/discuss thread even when the vast majority of the debate/discussion boils down to perspective.

As for the AL moment, I think it was shown for a reason, that he's getting at asking her to be involved a bit more directly (and too directly) than speculating on a time frame and getting weapon training assistance for those who actually need it. Yes, she hit the woman dead-on, but why? Not because she was an enemy, she was just at the wrong place, wrong time (within shooting range of trigger-happy AL). Besides, what I'm saying is training a police force isn't synonymous with training an army.

I know ... and what I'm asking is - in what respect? How is Army training better or different than Police training, and how would that difference aid the survivors? The Gulf War only lasted 7 months (did he serve the full time? what are the odds the war ended the same day of his self-inflicted gunshot wound?). How much and what kind of training Sayid received is definitely questionable. As it is for Ana as well. Knowledge of either would weigh greatly as to their respective knowledge and comfort in its use.

[Scarlett]

I know ... and what I'm asking is - in what respect? How is Army training better or different than Police training, and how would that difference aid the survivors? The Gulf War only lasted 7 months (did he serve the full time? what are the odds the war ended the same day of his self-inflicted gunshot wound?). How much and what kind of training Sayid received is definitely questionable. As it is for Ana as well. Knowledge of either would weigh greatly as to their respective knowledge and comfort in its use.
True, if Sayid and AL were equally skilled and equally trained members of their respective professions. But, although we've seen Sayid's "soldier skills" come in handy quite a few times (fixing the transceiver, interrogating Locke, the infamous torture scene, freeding Nadia successfully, negotiating with Danielle), AL's "skills" have hardly shown through.

So far she's trusted Goodwin and suspected the modernly-dressed, short-haired Nathan, falsely imprisoned the latter, earned the dislike, distrust, or even hatred of the other tailees by treating them like children, broken the law she swore to uphold by vigilantism (Jason), and of course, making a shot in the dark that Sayid would simply not have made in those conditions knowing that Cindy had disappeared minutes ago and that they were nearing the camp of the other castaways.

The way she treated the Goodwin situation once she figured it out was admirable, and I'm sure she's picked up some shooting skills (she certainly knocked Jason down effectively). But I see what Juniper is saying, if only because while Sayid seems to be an effective and skillful soldier, AL seems to be a disgruntled and misguided cop. She lets others get the best of her (Sawyer, Michael, etc.) where Sayid would have ignored them and continued on the mission.

[Razor]

True, if Sayid and AL were equally skilled and equally trained members of their respective professions. But, although we've seen Sayid's "soldier skills" come in handy quite a few times (fixing the transceiver, interrogating Locke, the infamous torture scene, freeding Nadia successfully, negotiating with Danielle), AL's "skills" have hardly shown through.
... and I somwhow duoibt those are skills which Jack wants his "army" taught. A force of electricians who shoot their superior officers?:D Which interogation of Locke ... the one where he disregarded Locke's own admission of having no alibi, took his knofe, and left believing Sawyer had bonked him off the head? Negotiating with Danielle ... after the skilled soldier was caught ina trap by a female research scientist turned crazed hermit?

So far she's trusted Goodwin and suspected the modernly-dressed, short-haired Nathan, falsely imprisoned the latter, earned the dislike, distrust, or even hatred of the other tailees by treating them like children, broken the law she swore to uphold by vigilantism (Jason), and of course, making a shot in the dark that Sayid would simply not have made in those conditions knowing that Cindy had disappeared minutes ago and that they were nearing the camp of the other castaways. Trusted Goodwin - or failed to mistrust him soon enough (in your opinion)? Frankly I'm not sure I would have been able to remember that his pants hadn't been wet, weeks later, and having endured what they had to.

Was there anyone in the Tailees section who believed Nathan was innocent? Shaky alibi for going missing (when he wasn't supposed to), and no one saw him on the plane (including a flight attendant) ... are you saying Sayid definitely wouldn't have suspected him?

And what about the sworn allegiance to his country (assuming it's the same as the US) and his committing a treasonous act. That's not equally as bad (if not worse) as Ana seeking revenge on the man who shot her and killed her unborn child? At least Ana shot a guilty man.

Of course Sayid wouldn't have shot Shannon, HE knew her. Ana didn't shoot Cindy - that may have been the only consideration that went through her mind as she (and the others) believed they were being attacked. I seem to recall the outcome for Ana wasn't too pleasant the last time she hesitated to shoot. Nearing the castaways camp? How would she know that? The Fuselage survivors didn't even know they were nearing their camp. If anything, based on what was happening, they believed they were nearing The Others camp.

The way she treated the Goodwin situation once she figured it out was admirable, and I'm sure she's picked up some shooting skills (she certainly knocked Jason down effectively). But I see what Juniper is saying, if only because while Sayid seems to be an effective and skillful soldier, AL seems to be a disgruntled and misguided cop. She lets others get the best of her (Sawyer, Michael, etc.) where Sayid would have ignored them and continued on the mission. Do you really maintain that Sayid would have ignored two people intentionally making noise while he and the people who depended on him were trying to sneak unheard through enemy territory when their lives were believed to be on the line? If so, he would suck as a leader.

[Scarlett]

Was there anyone in the Tailees section who believed Nathan was innocent? Shaky alibi for going missing (when he wasn't supposed to), and no one saw him on the plane (including a flight attendant) ... are you saying Sayid definitely wouldn't have suspected him?
Of course Sayid would have suspected him, as would Locke or Jack or Kate. Hell, I did! I'm not saying AL was wrong to suspect him...just wrong to trust anyone. I wouldn't have remembered Goodwin's pants either, but look at his clothing and his hair--if anyone had been living on the island, it was him--not Nathan, w/ a modern haircut and up-to-date clothing. True, we have seen the episode a few times whereas the tailees were IN the stressful situation, but whatever explanation, AL suspected the wrong guy and let the real criminal get close to her and the other tailees. Not saying I would ahve done better, but I also don't think I should be heavily involved in creating an army.

I don't think Sayid is a perfect leader either, or for that matter anyone on the island. They all have huge flaws. I was mainly referring to soldering skills--and not just the technical aspect. Sayid has cat-like reflexes, killer instincts, and knows how to TALK ot peope. That's perhaps the biggest difference between him and AL--Sayid can talk Danielle out of shooting him, calm Shannon down after her luggage-carrying breakdown, etc. I'd say most people who know him on the island probably know and trust Sayid, certainly more than AL. He's made some terribel mistakes (torturing Sawyer, not figuring out it was Locke who knocked him out) but overall, I'd follow him out of a foxhole any day over AL. If only because he cares about the welfare of the people under him. He also has handy war skills, like stopping the bleeding in Charlie's forehead in "Exodus".

If I were going to start the army, of course I would talk to AL once I knew she had been a cop. I'm just saying, Sayid or even Locke seem to have a lot more skills than AL.

And what about the sworn allegiance to his country (assuming it's the same as the US) and his committing a treasonous act. That's not equally as bad (if not worse) as Ana seeking revenge on the man who shot her and killed her unborn child? At least Ana shot a guilty man.
OK, you got me there. I hadn't really considered the treason aspect because I got caught up in the story of Nadia and wanted her to be free. You're right, though.


Of course Sayid wouldn't have shot Shannon, HE knew her. Ana didn't shoot Cindy - that may have been the only consideration that went through her mind as she (and the others) believed they were being attacked. I seem to recall the outcome for Ana wasn't too pleasant the last time she hesitated to shoot. Nearing the castaways camp? How would she know that? The Fuselage survivors didn't even know they were nearing their camp. If anything, based on what was happening, they believed they were nearing The Others camp.
I'll have to watch the eppy again to see for sure, but I'm pretty sure they had some idea that thery were nearing the original camp. Even if not, even if they were near the Others camp, AL--despite saying that a gun would do no good--had no problem shooting in the dark rain at a moving figure. If anything, she risked wasting the bullet on an unclear shot. She made it obviously, but why not wait until the figure moved closer? Why not make sure of the person's identity?

Even that action, which of course was an accident, wouldn't irritate me as much if she had simply shown some visible remorse. Maybe you call sitting on the beach w/ her little stick remorse, I call it self-preservation. She was just isolating herself from the originals because understandably, she figured they all hated her. Then a few DAYS later she's laughing and asking Jack about his sexual business. Doesn't seem to be very grief-stricken.

After he tortured Sawyer, which yes--was intentional, unlike Shannon's death--Sayid LEFT the camp to punish himself. Even though AL's shot was accidental, she showed absolutely no remorse after the "oh no" look right after the shot was fired, let alone banishing herself. She made her little scheme to get supplies and head into the jungle, but only because she was afraid that someone would exact revenge--not out of shame or guilt. Even if I know it was an accident, I would never forgive myself if I had shot an innocent person because of a snap judgment. Buit AL seems to have no problem with it.

Do you really maintain that Sayid would have ignored two people intentionally making noise while he and the people who depended on him were trying to sneak unheard through enemy territory when their lives were believed to be on the line? If so, he would suck as a leader.
Of course he wouldn't ignore them if he believed they were jeopardizing the group. AL has every right to make sure they remain silent. But again, it's not what she says, it's HOW she says it. Sayid would have kept it short and simple: "Unless you plan on getting abducted by them, I suggest you keep quiet." Locke, Jack, whoever would have done the same--briefly explained what's going on and remind Sawyer that it's in his best interest to shut up. Not launch a lovely, award-worthy speech about "If I say walk, you walk" and snap "shut up, you don't know what they did to us" instead of quickly taking a few seconds to explain that there are hostiles in the jungle and talking is going to attract them. No one expects AL to sit down with them and make a Power Point presentation about why they need to keep quiet. But instead of just telling htem to shut up, maybe she could have spared a few seconds before leaving the tailees' camp and telling them all about the Others and what they've done, instead of ordering them around for no apparent reason.

So basically, I'm not arguing that Sayid is the ideal perosn to start an army with, either. no one is--they all have their flaws. But on AL's personality ALONE I'd rather have just about anyone on my team but her. She's not a team player--she led the tailees through the jungle because she felt personally responsible for them. She fought Eko on nearly every decision, suggested they leave Sawyer behind...she kept them alive beacuse she had to. But instead of working with them--using Eko's notable skills and delegating responsibility to Libby and Bernard and Cindy--she tried to make herself a martyr. That's not the kind of person I'd want to have in a foxhole with me.

[Razor]

Of course Sayid would have suspected him, as would Locke or Jack or Kate. Hell, I did! I'm not saying AL was wrong to suspect him...just wrong to trust anyone. I wouldn't have remembered Goodwin's pants either, but look at his clothing and his hair--if anyone had been living on the island, it was him--not Nathan, w/ a modern haircut and up-to-date clothing. True, we have seen the episode a few times whereas the tailees were IN the stressful situation, but whatever explanation, AL suspected the wrong guy and let the real criminal get close to her and the other tailees. Not saying I would ahve done better, but I also don't think I should be heavily involved in creating an army.
Haircuts? Well, we better dig a pit for Sawyer, Charlie, Sayid, and Hurley then (and me too:D ). Do you believe there's still an infiltrator among the survivors based on their haircut?

Unfortunately, by the time they realized there was an infiltrator, Goodwin was already in close and indistinguishable (did any of the Tailees ever change clothing?). I'm kind of surprised (though it's typical of LOST) that we didn't get any insight into who Ana knew was NOT an infiltrator, because she had seen them on the plane. The logical step (IMO) would have then to have taken that person into my confidence and find out who they could vouch for - and so forth. It wouldn't have helped Nathan, but it might have brought Goodwin under the microscope a little earlier.

I don't think Sayid is a perfect leader either, or for that matter anyone on the island. They all have huge flaws. I was mainly referring to soldering skills--and not just the technical aspect. Sayid has cat-like reflexes, killer instincts, and knows how to TALK ot peope. That's perhaps the biggest difference between him and AL--Sayid can talk Danielle out of shooting him, calm Shannon down after her luggage-carrying breakdown, etc. I'd say most people who know him on the island probably know and trust Sayid, certainly more than AL. He's made some terribel mistakes (torturing Sawyer, not figuring out it was Locke who knocked him out) but overall, I'd follow him out of a foxhole any day over AL. If only because he cares about the welfare of the people under him. He also has handy war skills, like stopping the bleeding in Charlie's forehead in "Exodus". Perhaps he cares too much.:confused: Leaders must make difficult decisions in wartime. As cliched as it may have sounded coming from Ana - being a properly trained soldier is all about jumping when told to jump. I would follow Ana. I honestly believe she was doing what she felt needed to be done in order to survive, and that she had no agenda of her own (except at the end when it all unravelled and her job was over anyway). This is one of the main reasons why Jack wouldn't go to Locke - He doesn't trust him to follow orders/not have his own agenda.

Q: You didn't know how to cauterize a wound? Usually movies show the soldier using a heated piece of metal knife blade.

If I were going to start the army, of course I would talk to AL once I knew she had been a cop. I'm just saying, Sayid or even Locke seem to have a lot more skills than AL. I like them all - but the depth of their skills/knowledge is still to be seen. Once again, though, this keeps devolving into "leader" skills, when in fact it was only about assessing a timeframe to train an army - and we don't even know what skills Jack is looking for. If the question is "how long would it take to teach a soldier to follow an order unquestioningly" - the answer is "eternity" if the soldier is Sawyer:D, if it's to handle/maintain/shoot a weapon ... maybe a couple of days? I don't know ... but, I bet Ana would.

I'll have to watch the eppy again to see for sure, but I'm pretty sure they had some idea that thery were nearing the original camp. Even if not, even if they were near the Others camp, AL--despite saying that a gun would do no good--had no problem shooting in the dark rain at a moving figure. If anything, she risked wasting the bullet on an unclear shot. She made it obviously, but why not wait until the figure moved closer? Why not make sure of the person's identity? That would be grossly underestimating ones enemy. She knew they had a US Army knife - how certain could she be that they didn't also have guns? Not a chance I would have taken. As I mentioned before - her last encounter didn't turn out too well when she hesitated to pull the trigger. Besides, even if she was nose-to-nose with Shannon she wouldn't recognise her as NOT an Other. Close enough to kill, is as close as I would have wanted to be.

Even that action, which of course was an accident, wouldn't irritate me as much if she had simply shown some visible remorse. Maybe you call sitting on the beach w/ her little stick remorse, I call it self-preservation. She was just isolating herself from the originals because understandably, she figured they all hated her. Then a few DAYS later she's laughing and asking Jack about his sexual business. Doesn't seem to be very grief-stricken.

After he tortured Sawyer, which yes--was intentional, unlike Shannon's death--Sayid LEFT the camp to punish himself. Even though AL's shot was accidental, she showed absolutely no remorse after the "oh no" look right after the shot was fired, let alone banishing herself. She made her little scheme to get supplies and head into the jungle, but only because she was afraid that someone would exact revenge--not out of shame or guilt. Even if I know it was an accident, I would never forgive myself if I had shot an innocent person because of a snap judgment. Buit AL seems to have no problem with it.
Sorry, I'll have to chalk this up to perspective, because I do believe she shows remorse tempered by the circumstances - after the initial panic and thoughts of self preservation (is this not everyones instinct?). It's funny with Sayid, because he doesn't leave immediately after torturing Sawyer - it's only after he returns to finish the job and gets into the tussle with Sawyer and accidently:confused: (meaning Sawyer was supposed to still be tied up) stabs him in the arm. How would that scene have ended if Sawyer hadn't gotten loose?

Ana's sorry it happened - but I don't believe she feels "responsible" in the same way the judicial system would absolve her for acting in self defense. A lot of people would be running around whining/pleading their case - that it "wasn't their fault" looking for forgiveness and acceptance. Ana has acknowledged that she screwed up (regardless of it being accidental - holding herself to higher standards/expectations:confused:) and has accepted her isolation as an outcast as deserved in her own mind.

Of course he wouldn't ignore them if he believed they were jeopardizing the group. AL has every right to make sure they remain silent. But again, it's not what she says, it's HOW she says it. Sayid would have kept it short and simple: "Unless you plan on getting abducted by them, I suggest you keep quiet." Locke, Jack, whoever would have done the same--briefly explained what's going on and remind Sawyer that it's in his best interest to shut up. Not launch a lovely, award-worthy speech about "If I say walk, you walk" and snap "shut up, you don't know what they did to us" instead of quickly taking a few seconds to explain that there are hostiles in the jungle and talking is going to attract them. No one expects AL to sit down with them and make a Power Point presentation about why they need to keep quiet. But instead of just telling htem to shut up, maybe she could have spared a few seconds before leaving the tailees' camp and telling them all about the Others and what they've done, instead of ordering them around for no apparent reason.
I agree with most of this (re:delivery) - but that's quintessential LOST! Infuriating the viewer with what is not said. I've always viewed Ana's reaction to the fuselage's survivors arrival as the stress-straw that broke her back. I think her life would have been simpler if they had been Others! She already had a full plate before they arrived, and what did it garner her? Three guys who were largely added burden. She needed the cavalry ... and got Michael: a guy with his own agenda who was soley concerned with rescuing his son even if it meant putting lives in danger; Jin: who, though he caught fish, lacked the minimal English language proficiency to be of value in their predicament; and Sawyer: who may as well have been 200lbs of whining wet cement for all the help he could provide.:cool::o

Hey, It's late (for me anyway), and it's been fun. Have a great weekend (I hope it's warmer wherever you are!).

Razor

[Mettanna]

I'll have to watch the eppy again to see for sure, but I'm pretty sure they had some idea that thery were nearing the original camp.

The Rafties informed the Tailies that their camp was on the beach. So, they probably knew they were close, but they expected everyone to be on the beach.

EDIT: Was gonna say more, but Razor's beat me to it. :)

I've always viewed Ana's reaction to the fuselage's survivors arrival as the stress-straw that broke her back.

Totally agree there. That's exactly how I saw it too. :cool:

[Scarlett]

Haircuts? Well, we better dig a pit for Sawyer, Charlie, Sayid, and Hurley then (and me too:D ). Do you believe there's still an infiltrator among the survivors based on their haircut?

Unfortunately, by the time they realized there was an infiltrator, Goodwin was already in close and indistinguishable (did any of the Tailees ever change clothing?). I'm kind of surprised (though it's typical of LOST) that we didn't get any insight into who Ana knew was NOT an infiltrator, because she had seen them on the plane. The logical step (IMO) would have then to have taken that person into my confidence and find out who they could vouch for - and so forth. It wouldn't have helped Nathan, but it might have brought Goodwin under the microscope a little earlier.

I think I wasn't clear enough. I meant that, a few days after the crash, "haircuts" did matter in a sense because it'd be a lot harder to believe someone with a very modern haircut (Shannon in the beginning, Nathan, and Jack (although that's a diff. story how his hair stays perfectly buzzed) had been living on the island for an undefined time. If Nathan was "one of them" and wasn't on the plane, the assumption is that he would have been living on the island for months, maybe years. They got glipmses of the other Others and they looked pretty scruffy. But Nathan was wearing somethign out of a Gap ad and had a pretty modern haircut--certainly nothign to suggest he'd been roughing it with the Others for a few months. Goodwin LOOKS like an Other, but I guess the peace corps thing might have thrown us all off. That's what I meant, that looking back, it's obvious Nathan was too modern to be an Other.


I agree with most of this (re:delivery) - but that's quintessential LOST! Infuriating the viewer with what is not said. I've always viewed Ana's reaction to the fuselage's survivors arrival as the stress-straw that broke her back. I think her life would have been simpler if they had been Others! She already had a full plate before they arrived, and what did it garner her? Three guys who were largely added burden. She needed the cavalry ... and got Michael: a guy with his own agenda who was soley concerned with rescuing his son even if it meant putting lives in danger; Jin: who, though he caught fish, lacked the minimal English language proficiency to be of value in their predicament; and Sawyer: who may as well have been 200lbs of whining wet cement for all the help he could provide.:cool::o

I agree that the rafties weren't exactly beneficial to the tailees' situation AT FIRST. But first of all, who asked AL to drag them across the jungle? She forced them to lead her to their camp, so she could benefit from their food/water supply and relative safety. She could have let them go into the jungle--it's obvious she didn't care about their welfare from her unhesitating response of Jin and MIchael's departure into the jungle and willingness to leave Sawyer behind. So why did she bother? Because it suited her needs. She was tired of managing things, and wanted to benefit from their "civilization" so she chose to drag them through the jungle. No one forced her to deal with them after she released them from the pit. She took on the burden, again putting on martyr airs. :rolleyes:

Hey, It's late (for me anyway), and it's been fun. Have a great weekend (I hope it's warmer wherever you are!).

Razor
Thanks! Yeah it's pretty warm here in GA, in the 60's. Goodnight, and have a great weekend too! :)

[Joi]

OK, I'm all for off-color humor between friends, male or female. But AL's little comment to Jack about "hitting that" really shocked and sickened me. I found it tasteless and trashy--it's one thing if she had said something to Libby about that, or if Kate had said something like that to Sawyer or something.

Why is it okay for Kate to ask Sawyer that question? Because she's more likable? Why is it okay for Sawyer to use strong sexual innuedo with Shannon (whom he barely knew) when she was bargaining for bug repellent? Why is it okay for him to call Hurley fat? Or use crass sexual humor about dropping loads? Because he's a cliche pretty bad boy? Why is it okay for anyone besides Ana to make quips that would be construed as hilarious if uttered by another character? This double standard makes no sense to me.

But to ask a guy you're kind of interested in if he's having a sexual relationship with a woman you don't know at all? Wtf? Not only is that non of her business, but the fact that assumes that since Jack saved a woman with a gun to her head he must be "hitting that"....wow.

Just because the question followed Jack's explanation doesn't mean Ana related him saving Kate to whether he was 'hittin' that' or not.

[Scarlett]

Why is it okay for Kate to ask Sawyer that question? Because she's more likable? Why is it okay for Sawyer to use strong sexual innuedo with Shannon (whom he barely knew) when she was bargaining for bug repellent? Why is it okay for him to call Hurley fat? Or use crass sexual humor about dropping loads? Because he's a cliche pretty bad boy? Why is it okay for anyone besides Ana to make quips that would be construed as hilarious if uttered by another character? This double standard makes no sense to me.
Actually I don't think it's ok for Sawyer to make fat jokes to Hurley. And I'm not as disgusted by Sawyer's "load of laundry" remark because he said it to Kate and Hurley, two people he's known very well for almost two months and who know him. And although he was generally referring to Libby and Hurley, it wasn't a direct comment about Libby. More importantly, it wasn't a question--just an (immature) observation.

AL's little comment was rude IMO not just because of the phrasing, but because of what she was actually asking Jack...if he's having a sexual relationship with Kate. It's none of her business, and to ask in such crass terms...especially when she doesn't even know Kate, or what's been going on with her and Jack. Maybe she has trouble imagining that two people can care about each other and look out for each other without sex going on? Probably so.

Just because the question followed Jack's explanation doesn't mean Ana related him saving Kate to whether he was 'hittin' that' or not.
Maybe not, but it certainly appears that way. Immediately after he told her that he came back because they held a gun to Kate's head, she looked over and asked "are you hittin' that?" Seems like there's some sort of correlation there.

[Leigh]

Immediately after he told her that he came back because they held a gun to Kate's head, she looked over and asked "are you hittin' that?" Seems like there's some sort of correlation there.


Actually, rewatch it....the look on her face when he said that about Kate....she paused, and pretty darn obviously was taking mental note that he cares for Kate.....so that's when her face changed to humorous and she asked that. She wasn't smiling the whole time he said that then popped out those words. I'm whippin out the big guns: visuals. Pie charts will come later if need be. :D

Right after he said the bit about Kate and the gun:

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/galleries/lost/lost_2x12_1/2x12_018.jpg

....then....

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/galleries/lost/lost_2x12_1/2x12_019.jpg

That look CLEARLY says...."Hmm....he cares that this Kate girl's life was in danger....I wonder if it means something more than just general concern....lemme find out...." So she asks,

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/galleries/lost/lost_2x12_1/2x12_020.jpg

"You hittin' that?"

[Scarlett]

Actually, rewatch it....the look on her face when he said that about Kate....she paused, and pretty darn obviously was taking mental note that he cares for Kate.....so that's when her face changed to humorous and she asked that. She wasn't smiling the whole time he said that then popped out those words. I'm whippin out the big guns: visuals. Pie charts will come later if need be. :D

Right after he said the bit about Kate and the gun:

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/galleries/lost/lost_2x12_1/2x12_018.jpg

....then....

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/galleries/lost/lost_2x12_1/2x12_019.jpg

That look CLEARLY says...."Hmm....he cares that this Kate girl's life was in danger....I wonder if it means something more than just general concern....lemme find out...." So she asks,

http://www.mclaughlinlabs.com/leigh/galleries/lost/lost_2x12_1/2x12_020.jpg

"You hittin' that?"

Yeah, that's waht I was saying. In the span of a few seconds, she went from questioning Jack about his experience w/ Zeke to thinking about how KATE's having a gun to her head affected AL and Jack...if she had been concerned about Jack's emotions she wolud ahve asked him "are you ok?" but she asked "you hittin' that" beacuse she was concerned about HER and Jack. IMO, at least.

[Joi]

What difference does it make when Ana said it, in what context she said it, how she said it, why she said it? There's no rationalization for why one character can say things as opposed to another.

I loved Ana's bluntness and Jack's reaction. The scene was hilarious and for those who saw it for what it was without being biased, it probably came across as the same. I think it added a little more depth to Ana. No matter how much I despise a character, I at least try to view his or her actions and interactions without thinking, "That nickname thing is played out."

Ana's not the first castaway to voice nosey, rude, offensive, politically incorrect comments and questions and she most definitely won’t be the last.

[Scarlett]

I think it added a little more depth to Ana.
How does someone asking "you hittin' that?" add depth to their character? If that's the case, visit any high school locker room, yu'll be awed by the depth of character you'll find. ;)


Ana's not the first castaway to voice nosey, rude, offensive, politically incorrect comments and questions and she most definitely won’t be the last.
Of course not, and as I said I don't mind the occasional off-color joke. it's a hell of a lot less offensive than Sawyer's racist comments about Sayid or everyone calling Jin and Sun "Chinese." It wasn't that AL was crude, it was HOW she was crude...sticking her nose in Jack's business and asking him about his sex life with a woman she doesn't even know. She shot Shannon what, like 3 days ago? She just met up with Jack again, and yet she finds it perfectly natural to act lke a 14 yr old boy and pry into his business. If she had made some comment like "I don't blame you (for coming back), I'd hit that" I would have laughed. But it was the nature of her remark and not the remark itself that turned me off.

[Joi]

How does someone asking "you hittin' that?" add depth to their character? If that's the case, visit any high school locker room, yu'll be awed by the depth of character you'll find.

I wasn't referring to the question alone. You took that one sentence out of context. What I said was:

The scene was hilarious and for those who saw it for what it was without being biased, it probably came across as the same. I think it added a little more depth to Ana.

I was referring to the scene, which showed another side to Ana's character.

And Ana's not the only buttinski to ask nosy, intrusive questions either. Her behavior doesn't come across as that of a 14 year old boy, since most people from their teens to their 30s use that bit of slang. But it's Ana, so I guess only she isn't allowed to do so.

Apples to oranges. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Dezdemona]

What difference does it make when Ana said it, in what context she said it, how she said it, why she said it? There's no rationalization for why one character can say things as opposed to another.

I loved Ana's bluntness and Jack's reaction. The scene was hilarious and for those who saw it for what it was without being biased, it probably came across as the same. I think it added a little more depth to Ana. No matter how much I despise a character, I at least try to view his or her actions and interactions without thinking, "That nickname thing is played out."

Ana's not the first castaway to voice nosey, rude, offensive, politically incorrect comments and questions and she most definitely won’t be the last.

I don't see how it added any "depth" to Ana. She was hitting on Jack in the airport bar, despite the fact that she knew he was on the flight accompanying his father's dead body home to L.A. With her "Are you hittin' that?" comment, she was again just checking to see if he were still available. She WAS sexually aggressive, she still IS sexually aggressive. Both occasions showed horrendously inappropriate timing, so nothing new there either. Her every action has shown her to be incredibly self-absorbed, so nothing new there either. Where are we supposed to see anything "new", much less new "depth"?

[Leigh]

She WAS sexually aggressive, she still IS sexually aggressive. Both occasions showed horrendously inappropriate timing, so nothing new there either. Her every action has shown her to be incredibly self-absorbed, so nothing new there either.

What's wrong with a woman being sexually agressive? Many men actually love that.

Self absorbed? Yeah ok, saving tons of people the day of the crash, saving the little girl, trying to fight off the others and run after them when the kids were taken, trying to keep the group safe, being the first one out of the hatch everytime, trying to find the spy, killing Goodwin, yeah....what a selfish bitch......Jesus, sorry but some people just are not watching the same show. lol. Hate her if you want, but don't lie. Saying she's self-absobrd isn't giving your opinion, it's just flat out against her actions as shown on screen. Come on....everything she did was selfLESS....she'd have been better off leaving their wussy, fickle, scared, weak asses to fend for themselves and die rather than try to stick her kneck out and reluctantly become leader and get opposed at every damn decision she made. Nope, instead she saved, fought for, defended, and risk her life at every turn for them, when she didn't have to do a damn thing. Self-absorbed is like, the one thing you cannot honestly call Ana after having actually WATCHED The Other 48 Days.

[Dezdemona]

What's wrong with a woman being sexually agressive? Many men actually love that.
There's nothing wrong with it at all, and I agree men usually do like it. I said she WAS and IS s.a. in response to a post saying we'd learned something new. I was merely saying it wasn't new. However, I did consider her timing inappropriate on both occasions- Jack accompanying his dead father's body in one instance, a couple of days after killing Shannon in the other. Shallow, self-absorbed, and pretty much stone cold.

Self absorbed? Yeah ok, saving tons of people the day of the crash, saving the little girl, trying to fight off the others and run after them when the kids were taken, trying to keep the group safe, being the first one out of the hatch everytime, trying to find the spy, killing Goodwin, yeah....what a selfish bitch......Jesus, sorry but some people just are not watching the same show. lol. Hate her if you want, but don't lie. Saying she's self-absobrd isn't giving your opinion, it's just flat out against her actions as shown on screen. Come on....everything she did was selfLESS....she'd have been better off leaving their wussy, fickle, scared, weak asses to fend for themselves and die rather than try to stick her kneck out and reluctantly become leader and get opposed at every damn decision she made. Nope, instead she saved, fought for, defended, and risk her life at every turn for them, when she didn't have to do a damn thing. Self-absorbed is like, the one thing you cannot honestly call Ana after having actually WATCHED The Other 48 Days.
I don't appreciate being called a liar, and may I point out that the way YOU see this character is merely YOUR interpretation of what we saw on screen - and it's no more nor less valid than mine. Where you appear to interpret her every act as noble, self-sacrificing and heroic, I see a woman who completely fell apart under pressure and lost all shred of humanity - which left me wondering how much of it she ever had to start with. You're interpreting as much as I am, only with a positive bias. For example, I don't know by what stretch you think she deliberately left the hatch first every time out of some great sense of protectiveness toward the others because, in fact, we saw them actually leave the damned hatch exactly once. Nor do I see where she was "saving tons of people the day of the crash". She gave mouth-to-mouth to a little girl Eko pulled out of the water and she talked Bernard down out of the tree. No "tons of people".

As for what I saw about this character - EVERYBODY was scrambling around on the beach helping everybody else, including the red-shirts in the background. To quote AL in a different context, "It's what people do." So there was nothing singular about her behavior. However reluctantly she may subsequently have assumed the leadership role, I soon came to believe that it's what SHE needed to do to have a sense of control over what was happening to her, which in itself is a fairly common response to crisis conditions like these. However, control is even more than important to her as we soon saw from the way she ordered people around and made decisions unilaterally whenever possible, e.g. putting Nathan into the pit, starving him and being prepared to mutilate him as well. Yes, that has similarities to Jack and Sayid torturing Sawyer, so by all means, let's compare those incidents. With Jack and Sayid: 1) they discussed it beforehand and both had a sense of repugnance about the strategy and were conflicted about it, 2) Shannon was in imminent danger, 3) the "torture" lasted a few minutes so they only had to retain that mindset that allowed them to cross the line for a brief time, and 4) Sayid was so disgusted with himself afterwards that he exiled himself from camp for a time. OTOH, with Ana-Lucia: 1) she discussed her plan with nobody and appears not to have questioned either her strategy or choice of candidate for the length of time it took her to dig a pit single-handedly, (witness the fact that Bernard was shocked when she kicked Nathan in the face, i.e. no prior discussion), points 2 and 3) the plan wasn't fuelled by urgency, witness the time it took to dig the pit and the fact that Nathan was in it for days, i.e. she retained that conscienceless mindset for several days.. again, no sign of repugnance or inner conflict about the savagery of her actions - on the contrary, when questioned about it she coldly says that tomorrow she'll cut off his finger, escalating the level of brutality, and 4) she showed no sign of remorse about any of it afterwards, even when she realized Nathan was completely innocent and she had targeted the wrong man. Note that she never questioned that maybe Nathan was innocent while he was still alive, despite his protests and her lack of any evidence, but it took her no time at all to figure out the infiltrator was Goodwin after Nathan disappeared. However, as long as Nathan was around, she was unrelenting in her belief he was guilty, even though she had absolutely no evidence for that. What she did have, however, was a dislike for the fact that Nathan challenged her authority. Based on her behavior toward Sawyer later, I do believe that was a major factor in 1) her determination that Nathan was the bad guy, and 2) the other Tailies fear of challenging her too directly - they might end up like Nathan.

So in contrasting the Jack-Sayid-Sawyer situation with the Ana Lucia-Nathan situation, we see, on the one hand, how human beings try to cope with an urgent situation in an environment with no rules, with an uncooperative person who isn't claiming his innocence at all, and how it takes a toll on their humanity and leaves them feeling disgusted with themselves, and on the other, how a person can slip so far into her own darkness that she can become deaf to the victim's protests of innocence altogether, can become cold and brutal as a state of being rather than as a momentary choice, crossing the line toward savagery without even blinking an eye.

And as for good judgement, nothing will convince me that going off alone with Goodwin for a good old confrontation was an intelligent strategy. If Goodwin had been the one to come back from their little encounter, the others would have been completely unaware of her suspicions and totally vulnerable. I believe she confronted him in private because she didn't believe the others would back her up, and why should they after one of their own (Nathan was as much a part of the group as any of them) had disappeared from the hole she'd mistakenly stuck him in? Far from being a "reluctant leader" at that point, she was very much an "authority" to be feared. Moreover, she thinks that Goodwin is one of a group who've successfully removed 13 people from camp and she willingly hands him her knife? Idiot.

The rest of what we saw of Ana Lucia's "leadership" was more of the same. I have no problem with the way the Tailies captured Michael, Sawyer and Jin on the beach, or the strategy of having Ana Lucia thrown in with them to try to suss out the situation. Considering what they'd experienced up till then, that made perfect sense. However, from the minute Sawyer was brought up out of the pit and given absolutely no explanation of what was going on we see yet more of Ana Lucia's brutal nature. All she had to do was EXPLAIN, say "It's cool. We know your story now, but you need to know ours. There are other people on this island and they've taken 13 people from us. We're pretty sure you're from the plane, just like us, but we'll be keeping on eye on you just in case, so stay close and stay quiet. They could be anywhere in this jungle and we wouldn't know it." THAT would have been "leadership". Instead, she got pissed because an uninformed Sawer sassed her authority. People reacted so negatively to the way she treated Sawyer (as did I) not because it was Sawyer, but because she beat him down for no reason... just because she could, just to put him in his place - subservient to HER authority (and by what right does she have ANY authority over Sawyer, Michael, and Jin in the first place?) and more importantly, she GOT OFF on beating him down and grinding her heel into his wounded shoulder, with that little sneering smile on her face the whole time. Sick and twisted. That showed an inner ugliness to her character that surpassed what we'd already seen of her.

Later, we had her wanting to leave behind an unconscious Sawyer in the jungle, a choice so unacceptable by civilized standards that EVERY OTHER PERSON there expressed their disagreement with it. She wanted to condemn him to death again by dismantling the stretcher to tie up Sayid after the shooting. She was waving a gun around intimidating even her own people, the ones you think she was so "selflessly" trying to save. In my view, everything she did was about her, everything she allowed herself to become - savage, cold, without human emotion or empathy, conscienceless - was about saving HERSELF, the others were just her rationalisation for letting herself become so barbaric.

She is dead inside, but in my opinion, she chose to be dead inside because it's just easier than having to deal with feelings, deal with ethical issues, deal with dealing... period. Yes, she went through a traumatic event with the shooting and loss of her pregnancy. However, people with courage rise above their tragedies. She didn't. She became a cold-blooded murderer. Her defenders say she was traumatized again by the loss of the children to the Others, but then where was her sympathy for poor Michael who'd had his child ripped out of his arms just a couple of days before? Not one word of sympathy, or even acknowledgement from her about that. Not so much as one second of softening in her expression, and believe me, I looked for that.

Even after all of that, I could have had a different opinion of her if she had finally shown any sense of self-awareness of what she had become. If she had broken down over the things she'd done during her 48 days, about the way she'd let herself become inhuman and do inhuman things. If she'd expressed fear about realizing how far she was capable of falling, or self-hatred for her weakness, but nothing.... zip.... zero. She doesn't question a single thing she did, and two or three days after mistakenly shooting a completely innocent girl, she's flirting with Jack again as though they were at summer camp and she wanted to be sure she had a clear field to get this one in her bed. I find everything about this character loathesome, and since Jack tends to suffer from tunnel vision when he's fixed on a plan, I fear she's going to lead him down a very dark path.

That's MY interpretation of what we were shown on screen, and yes, I have viewed the episodes more than once. In fact, I rewatched the whole Tailies sequence a few weeks after they aired with the express purpose of questioning my first impressions. I didn't think I was biased because it was Sawyer (and not Jin or Michael - or some character I don't particularly like) that she beat down, but was I mistaken about that? Watching a second time to see where my initial impression had come from, I was able to identify exactly what I had found revolting about that scene. The beat down was every bit as unnecessary as I'd remembered, a couple of words of explanation were all that would have been needed because Sawyer was completely in the dark about what had been going on. Most of all, my reaction was visceral and I found her instinctively repugnant in that scene because she was getting off on being so needlessly brutal. I think that's what accounts to the strong reaction so many people had to that scene as well.

Selfless? Heroic? A reluctant leader? I see a self-absorbed, twisted bully who isn't very bright but doesn't need to be if she can intimidate or beat people into submission.

[Leigh]

I don't appreciate being called a liar, and may I point out that the way YOU see this character is merely YOUR interpretation of what we saw on screen - and it's no more nor less valid than mine.

I'm sorry but that's what you did. Someone gives CPR to a little girl and saves their life. Someone then turns around and says, "Wow....that woman has never done anything for anyone." That's not an interpretation, it's just plain false....you can interpret Ana's other actions however you'd like, but the only issue that I get grr about is when people actually call Ana selfish after she's saved so many people's lives. I'm not insulting you, I'm just pointing out the TRUTH which is that she saved peoples' lives....that does not fit the difinition of the word selfish....you can't change the meaning of the word, no matter how you "interpret" it, sorry.

....and of course you're going to use the argument that she did what "anybody would do". That's an easy thing to throw out there, everybody always says that, but that's just silly....she and Eko were the only two who were really doing much to save others....most everybody else was looking for their own, lying around, freaking out, saving themselves, etc.

Geez, why can't you even give Ana the credit for what she ACTUALLY did?? *shakes head*

She didn't have to do a damn thing for anybody....yet all she's done is save and protect peoples' lives since being on the island....sure she's made mistakes, sure she's been harsh sometimes, so what? Ana is heroic....just like Jack....

I'm so tired of the "she only did what anybody would do" argument, that's just....that's just false, and it's been completely disproven by factual evidence from the show....NO BODY ELSE ran out into the jungle to save Bernard, NO BODY ELSE pulled that many people out of the water (except Eko)....NO BODY ELSE came over to help Eko save the girl he'd just pulled out of the water....NO BODY ELSE ran to see what the horrible sounds were in the jungle when Eko was killing the others, NO BODY ELSE cared or listened that they needed to get off the beach....NO BODY ELSE tried to figure ANYTHING out when it came to why they were being attacked and who was doing it and how to stop it....NO BODY ELSE killed any Others except Eko....seems to me that given the opportunity no one else did a damn thing like you say they all "would have". Hmm....

.....the rest of the tailies did nothing....they sat back and let themselves get attacked, they didn't save eachother, they didn't help eachother, they didn't try to figure anything out....only Ana did. Sorry, but I'm not saying this stuff based on "interpretations" I'm saying this b/c it's what happened on the actual show....:)

[juniper]

I'm sorry but that's what you did. Someone gives CPR to a little girl and saves their life. Someone then turns around and says, "Wow....that woman has never done anything for anyone." That's not an interpretation, it's just plain false....you can interpret Ana's other actions however you'd like, but the only issue that I get grr about is when people actually call Ana selfish after she's saved so many people's lives. I'm not insulting you, I'm just pointing out the TRUTH which is that she saved peoples' lives....that does not fit the difinition of the word selfish....you can't change the meaning of the word, no matter how you "interpret" it, sorry.

You’re interpreting her actions as well, Leigh. What’s on your screen is fiction and its inner meaning is highly disputable. No one’s lying. I believe Dez’s words were that she is consistently “self-absorbed” rather than “Wow…that woman has never done anything for anyone.” That's a liberty on your part, and apparently in your interpretation there’s a conflict? Of course she has done something…. Everyone has. Shannon has, and for the show's intents and purposes, she was the "useless" one. I'd say AL's a vast deal worse, because she's dangerously incompetent. (I mean emotion-/psychologically, not unskilled at weapons.) Yes, she knew CPR, she was trained to use it, so why shouldn’t she? I’m glad she did, but I don’t glorify her for having done right there. Doing something for someone isn’t actually a contradiction to being self-absorbed…unless you’re not simultaneously doing it primarily for yourself. Therein lies the problem: I assume from her being “dead inside” as well as the combined whole of her actions and expression since being on the island, her actions are extremely self-interested. She’s the farthest thing from a martyr that you’re interpretation paints her to be. She needs to be in control of others, despite (and possibly because of) the fact that she doesn’t seem capable of controlling herself. That puts them at risk…remember she had them all at gunpoint when they refused to submit to her orders. At what point is it acceptable or even understandable to put those whose lives you hold dear at gunpoint? For me and many others: never. That’s a problem right there.

....and of course you're going to use the argument that she did what "anybody would do". That's an easy thing to throw out there, everybody always says that, but that's just silly....she and Eko were the only two who were really doing much to save others....most everybody else was looking for their own, lying around, freaking out, saving themselves, etc. Geez, why can't you even give Ana the credit for what she ACTUALLY did?? *shakes head* She didn't have to do a damn thing for anybody....yet all she's done is save and protect peoples' lives since being on the island....sure she's made mistakes, sure she's been harsh sometimes, so what? Ana is heroic....just like Jack....

I would call them both survivalists rather than heroes, myself, but anyway.... She did not do what literally “anybody would” but I’d venture to guess a large number of people, only she did so with strikingly less compassion and selflessness. No, it wasn’t necessary to be kind, but humans can generally achieve some amiability without much attempt. Her typical attitude is so unnecessarily and forcefully off base that it’s obvious something is seriously wrong with her and she’s never made an attempt to sufficiently come to terms with it (which would have been admirable), but instead forces everyone she encounters to suffer the consequences. Think of those types of people; they need help, and no one’s doing them any favors by calling them heroes simply because of what they’ve lived through, and telling them to “stay tough” rather than deal maturely. It’s sad and pitiable, even more so because there’s the potential of being heroic and strong, which was clearly wasted on her. I’d say she didn’t do as much for anybody as she did for herself. She has lost it and desperately seeks to control those around her. She appears to get a perverse rise out of it. Leadership isn’t selfless by virtue. Her tactics and her own admissions seem to prove it isn’t in this instance. As for “all she’s done is save and protect peoples’ lives since being on the island…” you see, that’s your interpretation and is as selective as any. I’ve heard the “so she’s made mistakes” argument many times from fans. No, no one expects “perfection” of her, believe me. No one has any reference to recognize perfection if it exists in humans…which I personally don’t believe it does. To attempt to convey some semblance of humanity would be a vast improvement over being “dead inside” and acting accordingly IMO.

.....the rest of the tailies did nothing....they sat back and let themselves get attacked, they didn't save eachother, they didn't help eachother, they didn't try to figure anything out....only Ana did. Sorry, but I'm not saying this stuff based on "interpretations" I'm saying this b/c it's what happened on the actual show....

I don’t think the other tailies did nothing but “sat back and let themselves get attacked” as the first moment I recall seeing Libby, she was tending to a man’s leg. But then they weren’t the focal point either; AL was. The interpretation bit, as has been pointed out before, comes not of what action happens on screen, but the inner workings behind it. We assume characters have motivations, interests, feelings, thoughts which are conveyed in part by the actors and writers, and in part by viewers’ assumptions. You’re assuming and selecting to see AL in a positive light. Clearly others are not (not because they're "liars"), and that’s fine. :)

[Leigh]

You’re interpreting her actions as well, Leigh. What’s on your screen is fiction and its inner meaning is highly disputable.

No I'm not lol. Ana's mouth went onto that little girls and breathed life into her. THAT HAPPENED. I didn't imagine or interpret it.

All I meant is that you cannot take factual things that actually happened and choose to ignore them nor can you twist them to support your opinion....Ana has done thing after thing that would SHOW herself to be selfess, this is not my opinion, this is what actually happened on the show. I'd be hard pressed to see a list of ACTUAL things she ACTUALLY said or did that demostrated selishness in any way. Anything you would come up with would be interpreted or opinion....the fact is that the positive things she's done cannot reasonably be rejected b/c well, they happened lol. The things perceived as negative are just that....negative. The things that are positive are positive not from interpretation but from fact. You save someone's life, that's a positive, no ifs ands or butts about it.

And yet again with statements like "Yes, she knew CPR, she was trained to use it, so why shouldn’t she?"....that makes me done with this argument with you....lol, b/c it's so pointless....you can't give her ONE OUNCE of credit for A SINGLE THING. She could take a bullet for Claire and you would excuse it away by saying that's what she does, so it's not to be appreciated. Or you would say there's negative intention/alterior motive behind it. You hate the character so you won't even see both her positive and negatives....she could blink wrong and you'd take issue with it, so I'm done arguing with you on this issue, b/c quite frankly it's so pointless. I can at least admit when Ana was too harsh, but you can't admit when she was nice or saving people....even though it's right in front of you in the episode.

I'm done, before I say what I REALLY think and get myself in troubl....I've had enough of THAT crap....:p

[Scarlett]

I don't appreciate being called a liar, and may I point out that the way YOU see this character is merely YOUR interpretation of what we saw on screen - and it's no more nor less valid than mine. Where you appear to interpret her every act as noble, self-sacrificing and heroic, I see a woman who completely fell apart under pressure and lost all shred of humanity - which left me wondering how much of it she ever had to start with. You're interpreting as much as I am, only with a positive bias.
Exactly. We're all biased, even those who like AL. I agree that she saved several lives and led people through the jungle. But I'm not lying when I say that I don't see her as heroic. At times she's behaved heroically, of course. But a few actions in a time of panic don't qualify someone as a hero. Eko was saving just as many people, as was Libby. How is AL different...because you like her? We're all watching the same show, no matter how many times you say we're not. ;) But of course we're all going to have different interpretations of what we see onscreen. Ours aren't less valid than yours just because they're not in favor of your favorite character.

However reluctantly she may subsequently have assumed the leadership role, I soon came to believe that it's what SHE needed to do to have a sense of control over what was happening to her, which in itself is a fairly common response to crisis conditions like these. However, control is even more than important to her as we soon saw from the way she ordered people around...
I agree. In some situations, ordering people around is unavoidable and necessary. But AL seems to take a sick pleasure in bossing others around. Take the infamous "When I say walk, you walk" speech. I know this is a logical fallacy but let's just compare with some other characters that we know better. IMO, had Jack been in her position, he might have been just as angry as she was. But he would certainly not act like a 10-year-old big brother bossing his siblings around. Sawyer, Jin, and MIchael were NOT prisoners anymore, at least not justly so. Eko had the decency to apologize, but AL refused to treat them as equals because maybe she resented the "threat" to her leadership. She didn't like newcomers to AnaLand.


And as for good judgement, nothing will convince me that going off alone with Goodwin for a good old confrontation was an intelligent strategy. If Goodwin had been the one to come back from their little encounter, the others would have been completely unaware of her suspicions and totally vulnerable. I believe she confronted him in private because she didn't believe the others would back her up, and why should they after one of their own (Nathan was as much a part of the group as any of them) had disappeared from the hole she'd mistakenly stuck him in? Far from being a "reluctant leader" at that point, she was very much an "authority" to be feared. Moreover, she thinks that Goodwin is one of a group who've successfully removed 13 people from camp and she willingly hands him her knife? Idiot.
It was a badass situation, but it could have turned out VERY badly. As you say, Goodwin just as eaisly could have killed her and returned to camp, saying AL was the mole. The other tailees would have had no reason not to believe him, and he might have killed them all. It ended up good for Ana, but it just as easily could have gone horribly, horribly wrong. There was no reason for her to take Goodwin away from the other tailees. I can't see Sayid or Locke making such a "foolish" (said in Sayid voice) mistake.

All she had to do was EXPLAIN, say "It's cool. We know your story now, but you need to know ours. There are other people on this island and they've taken 13 people from us. We're pretty sure you're from the plane, just like us, but we'll be keeping on eye on you just in case, so stay close and stay quiet. They could be anywhere in this jungle and we wouldn't know it." THAT would have been "leadership". Instead, she got pissed because an uninformed Sawer sassed her authority. People reacted so negatively to the way she treated Sawyer (as did I) not because it was Sawyer, but because she beat him down for no reason... just because she could, just to put him in his place - subservient to HER authority (and by what right does she have ANY authority over Sawyer, Michael, and Jin in the first place?) and more importantly, she GOT OFF on beating him down and grinding her heel into his wounded shoulder, with that little sneering smile on her face the whole time. Sick and twisted. That showed an inner ugliness to her character that surpassed what we'd already seen of her.
THANK YOU. :bowdown:

You said it perfectly. I'm not begrudging AL for being violent toward the rafties at first, in fact I respect the way she and Eko protected themselves and learned from their earlier mistake. But here's the difference--Eko actually apologized to Sawyer, and Libby kindly asked MIchael about his son and encouraged Sawyer. In the starkest of contrasts, AL told Sawyer to shut up when Eko was speaking to him, and talked to Michael so rudely that Libby said "his name is Michael." AL basically suggeseted they leave Sawyer for dead in the jungle.

Maybe some of you think that people are so outraged becaus they have fangirl crushes on Sawyer, but that's simply not the case. Of course I like Sawyer, but I would have been just as disgusted had she abused Michael, who I can't stand, or Jin. Once they had been ruled out as threats, there was absolutely NO need for violence. As Dezdemona said, she did it because she could, to "put him in his place." That's exactly right. There is no possible logical justification. And the way she did it--she KNEW he wasn't a threat. Sure Sawyer can be an asshole, and I could even see the punch. But stepping in his gunshot wound with that hideous smirk on her face? :no:

Later, we had her wanting to leave behind an unconscious Sawyer in the jungle, a choice so unacceptable by civilized standards that EVERY OTHER PERSON there expressed their disagreement with it. She wanted to condemn him to death again by dismantling the stretcher to tie up Sayid after the shooting. She was waving a gun around intimidating even her own people, the ones you think she was so "selflessly" trying to save. In my view, everything she did was about her, everything she allowed herself to become - savage, cold, without human emotion or empathy, conscienceless - was about saving HERSELF, the others were just her rationalisation for letting herself become so barbaric.
Exactly, once again, you hit the nail right on the head. Can you see any of the originals leaving someone in the jungle? Eko who, like Ana, had no vested interest in Sawyer, carried the man on his back to camp out of concern for him. Libby kindly encouraged him to make him feel better and give him hope. AL wanted to leave him because she viewed him as a threat to her safety. Never mind that he's a human being who's gravely injured and in need of medical help, or that he's a survivor of the same crash you were in. Nevermind compassion--it's all about AL's getting through the jungle to fresh water supply and food.

Even after all of that, I could have had a different opinion of her if she had finally shown any sense of self-awareness of what she had become. If she had broken down over the things she'd done during her 48 days, about the way she'd let herself become inhuman and do inhuman things. If she'd expressed fear about realizing how far she was capable of falling, or self-hatred for her weakness, but nothing.... zip.... zero. She doesn't question a single thing she did, and two or three days after mistakenly shooting a completely innocent girl, she's flirting with Jack again as though they were at summer camp
Lol, exactly. That was my thought--maybe it was the tent, but I definitely thought of summer camp. :rolleyes:

As much as I abhor AL you guys might not believe me, but if she had broken down over Shannon's dead body and shown some real remorse, I would have hated her a lot less. Even an acknowledgement of her heinous behavior would have done so much to raise her in people's esteem. But never once did she show remorse, except the "oh sh*t" look right after she shot Shannon. Even when she was talking to Sayid, whose arms Shannon had died in, she never broke down or even showed a shred of horror at what she had done. Her only concern after the shooting was HER..."they all hate ME," "I killed someone he loves, he'll kill ME."

The beat down was every bit as unnecessary as I'd remembered, a couple of words of explanation were all that would have been needed because Sawyer was completely in the dark about what had been going on. Most of all, my reaction was visceral and I found her instinctively repugnant in that scene because she was getting off on being so needlessly brutal. I think that's what accounts to the strong reaction so many people had to that scene as well.

Selfless? Heroic? A reluctant leader? I see a self-absorbed, twisted bully who isn't very bright but doesn't need to be if she can intimidate or beat people into submission.
:nod: Brilliant post, really. I agree with every word you said.

No I'm not lol. Ana's mouth went onto that little girls and breathed life into her. THAT HAPPENED. I didn't imagine or interpret it.
Of course it happened, and of course Ana deserves credit for saving someone's life. But does that make her a hero? I think even Shannon at her most horribly selfish or Sawyer at his most asshole-ish would have saved that little girl's life if they could. Kate saved the marshall's life on the plane when no one would have known if she hadn't. Sawyer gave CPR to Michael despite being stranded in the ocean w/ a bullet through his shoulder when no one ever would have known if he had just worried about his own self-preservation. Boone tried to give CPR to several people during the immediate post-crash frenzy, and of course Jack has saved basically everyone's lives. All those actions were/would be noble...but that doesn't mean that anyone who performs a heroic act is a hero. I give AL "props" for saving the little girl's lifeand talking Bernard out of the tree, but I don't think that qualifies her as a hero.

As I said, we're all biased, and we all see things through our own perspective.

[Neener]

Ana Lucia could be getting killed off:

According to UsWeekly

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=84963

Now insiders say Lost bosses are desperate to kill her off from the top show.

"The producers are fed up with the fact that she barely shows up on the set and is always in a bad mood," Us Weekly quoted an "insider" as saying.

"They said she was getting killed off as soon as they could write it in."

[Mettanna]

Hardly the most reliable source.

The sexy 27-year-old actress is a hit as Ana-Lucia Cortez onscreen but insiders say her diva-like behaviour is sending everyone around the bend

^This made me laugh... :rolleyes:

Well, just further proof they don't know what they're talking about...

[Fish1941]

What's wrong with a woman being sexually agressive? Many men actually love that.

Self absorbed? Yeah ok, saving tons of people the day of the crash, saving the little girl, trying to fight off the others and run after them when the kids were taken, trying to keep the group safe, being the first one out of the hatch everytime, trying to find the spy, killing Goodwin, yeah....what a selfish bitch......Jesus, sorry but some people just are not watching the same show. lol. Hate her if you want, but don't lie. Saying she's self-absobrd isn't giving your opinion, it's just flat out against her actions as shown on screen. Come on....everything she did was selfLESS....she'd have been better off leaving their wussy, fickle, scared, weak asses to fend for themselves and die rather than try to stick her kneck out and reluctantly become leader and get opposed at every damn decision she made. Nope, instead she saved, fought for, defended, and risk her life at every turn for them, when she didn't have to do a damn thing. Self-absorbed is like, the one thing you cannot honestly call Ana after having actually WATCHED The Other 48 Days.


I think that the closest that Ana-Lucia came to being self-absorbed was right after she had accidentally shot Shannon. She seemed more concerned with preventing Sayid from attacking her than getting the Tailies to the main Lostaways camp. I mean . . . I guess I can understand her trying to prevent Sayid from killing her . . . but I think she went too far. Especially after Sayid was tied up.


Ana Lucia could be getting killed off:

According to UsWeekly

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=84963

Now insiders say Lost bosses are desperate to kill her off from the top show.

"The producers are fed up with the fact that she barely shows up on the set and is always in a bad mood," Us Weekly quoted an "insider" as saying.

"They said she was getting killed off as soon as they could write it in."

I think this is proving to be a rumor. Ted Casablanca of E! News and US WEEKLY aren't exactly reliable sources. And she seemed to have friendly relations with the cast at the SAG Awards. I think this rumor might be a backlash by the press over the whole DUI incident.

Of course it happened, and of course Ana deserves credit for saving someone's life. But does that make her a hero? I think even Shannon at her most horribly selfish or Sawyer at his most asshole-ish would have saved that little girl's life if they could. Kate saved the marshall's life on the plane when no one would have known if she hadn't. Sawyer gave CPR to Michael despite being stranded in the ocean w/ a bullet through his shoulder when no one ever would have known if he had just worried about his own self-preservation. Boone tried to give CPR to several people during the immediate post-crash frenzy, and of course Jack has saved basically everyone's lives. All those actions were/would be noble...but that doesn't mean that anyone who performs a heroic act is a hero. I give AL "props" for saving the little girl's lifeand talking Bernard out of the tree, but I don't think that qualifies her as a hero.

I think it does. Just as I think that the heroic actions of other Lostaways qualify them as heroes. What's wrong with that?

[Leigh]

I think that the closest that Ana-Lucia came to being self-absorbed was right after she had accidentally shot Shannon. She seemed more concerned with preventing Sayid from attacking her than getting the Tailies to the main Lostaways camp. I mean . . . I guess I can understand her trying to prevent Sayid from killing her . . . but I think she went too far. Especially after Sayid was tied up.


Yes, it SEEMS wrong to tie Sayid up....but I honestly believe that had he not put a GUN IN HER FACE, she never would have done that. Had Eko not tackled him, he WOULD have killed Ana without a second thought. She knew that, and so she knew she needed to figure out what to do and until then he was a threat. Her killing Shannon was accidental, yet Sayid killing her would have been fully purposeful. I used to think she was over the line, but quite honestly the more I rewatch it, the more I think she did what she needed to do to make sure she didn't wind up dead....what the heck's wrong with that? The rest of the time on the island she spent saving/defending/protecting others....yet the ONE time she does something to save or protect herself she's labeled as crazy or out of control. That just makes no sense to me. *shakes head* I suppose she should have just let Sayid shoot her (which we all KNOW he would have)....sure, let her take a bullet to the brain so Bernard can go hug his wife. *rolls eyes*

[Scarlett]

Yes, it SEEMS wrong to tie Sayid up....but I honestly believe that had he not put a GUN IN HER FACE, she never would have done that. Had Eko not tackled him, he WOULD have killed Ana without a second thought. She knew that, and so she knew she needed to figure out what to do and until then he was a threat. Her killing Shannon was accidental, yet Sayid killing her would have been fully purposeful. I used to think she was over the line, but quite honestly the more I rewatch it, the more I think she did what she needed to do to make sure she didn't wind up dead....what the heck's wrong with that?
Nothing. It's not even tying Sayid to a tree that I have a problem with, because I get that he was a desperate man and she was acting in self-defense. So I understood that. My "beef" with her in that scene was her general attitude, behavior toward the tailees, and lack of apologetic words to Sayid.

Now, I get that you can't just say "hey I'm sorry I shot your girlfriend,but get over it." I'm not suggesting that. I realize--as she did--that nothing she could say would make Sayid suddenly OK with the fact that Shannon was dead because of AL. What I wanted to see was a glimmer of humanity--a look that conveys utter horror and self-disgust and the deepest remorse, or even the words "I'm so sorry."

Locke, who merely particpated in the activity that led to Boone's death, sat down next to Shannon and said I hope that you'll forgive me someday, I'm sorry. He's not an idiot, he knew that those words wouldn't make her suddenly warm up to him. But there are certain things that need to be said. They might not cure everything, but I know that I'd be a hell of a lot mor furious at someone if they had shot my significant other if they just sat there while I was tied to a tree and ordered their "friends" around, panicking and figuring out how to save their own ass than showing any remorse or horror at what they'd done. Even a look would have sufficed...it was all in AL's mannerisms, and her general focus in that scene. It wasn't Sayid or Shannon, or even her accidental shooting.

I get that RIGHT after it happened, she had to act fast and didn't have time to sympathize with Sayid. I'm talking about in the clearing, while Sayid was calmly tied up and everyone had left, when she sat there. Now of course I've only seen this eppy once, but to the best of my knowledge, I don't remember her saying anything heartfelt (and certainly not her lame speech about killing her when she could clearly see he wouldn't). Maybe I'm wrong, but based on my memory, she behaved in a completely heartless way.

The rest of the time on the island she spent saving/defending/protecting others....yet the ONE time she does something to save or protect herself she's labeled as crazy or out of control. That just makes no sense to me. *shakes head* I suppose she should have just let Sayid shoot her (which we all KNOW he would have)....sure, let her take a bullet to the brain so Bernard can go hug his wife. *rolls eyes*
Yes, she did save the other tailees, several times. But aren't you forgetting that she also benefitted from her actions? I don't recall her actually risking HER life ot help them, except the one time she offered to go back and find Cindy. I'm talking about the tailees once the post-crash chaos had settled down...I really need to watch this eppy again, but I can't recall a single incident in which AL endangered her life when it wasn't absolutely necessary for her own survival as well (basically when she had no choice).

And of course, I would have loved it if Sayid had shot her, but that's a different story. ;)

[Leigh]

lack of apologetic words to Sayid.

Now, I get that you can't just say "hey I'm sorry I shot your girlfriend,but get over it." I'm not suggesting that. I realize--as she did--that nothing she could say would make Sayid suddenly OK with the fact that Shannon was dead because of AL. What I wanted to see was a glimmer of humanity--a look that conveys utter horror and self-disgust and the deepest remorse, or even the words "I'm so sorry."


Remember though, when Sayid first woke up she went up to him, and her face softened and she started to try to talk/reason with him, but he exploded at her with rage and anger and frustration, and it freaked her out and obviously confirmed her belief that he was going to come after her. She was TRYING to talk to him....he exploded which made her pause, and then she might have continued to try to talk, had it not been for Eko behind her getting up to move with Sawyer. This and Sayid's explosion deterred her from trying to appeal to him any further. Sure, she could have tried harder, but at least she DID try....

[Mettanna]

^ I agree. I think she did try...



Yes, she did save the other tailees, several times. But aren't you forgetting that she also benefitted from her actions? I don't recall her actually risking HER life ot help them, except the one time she offered to go back and find Cindy. I'm talking about the tailees once the post-crash chaos had settled down...I really need to watch this eppy again, but I can't recall a single incident in which AL endangered her life when it wasn't absolutely necessary for her own survival as well (basically when she had no choice).
Here's one for you:After the second Other attack. she asked which way they went and was quite ready to dash off into the jungle after them and get her people back...but no one saw which way they went.

and certainly not her lame speech about killing her when she could clearly see he wouldn't

:rolleyes: You'll never let go, will you? :)

[Scarlett]

Here's one for you:After the second Other attack. she asked which way they went and was quite ready to dash off into the jungle after them and get her people back...but no one saw which way they went. Ok, cool.


:rolleyes: You'll never let go, will you? :)
Just call me Rose from Titanic, because no, I'll never let go! :)

I don't think I'll ever get over that moment, because to me it was such an obvious ploy for sympathy. I think if Sayid had taken the gun and made a move to shoot her, she would havfe jumped up and knocked it out of his hands, despite her talk about deserving to die.

[Leigh]

and certainly not her lame speech about killing her when she could clearly see he wouldn't).

How could she be at peace that he would NOT kill her, when only minutes before he put a gun to her face and would have shot her....come on. :rolleyes:

[Scarlett]

How could she be at peace that he would NOT kill her, when only minutes before he put a gun to her face and would have shot her....come on. :rolleyes:
No, I meant that if she really meant "go ahead and shoot me," she would have let him shoot her if he had tried. I don't blame her for wanting to live at all...I'm just saying she shouldn't have pretended that she would have let him shoot her, because she wouldn't have.

What they should have done, which would have been really interesting, is have Sayid take the gun, cock it, and hold it to her head...and have AL just stand there, looking him straight in the eye. Not pleading with him or trying to escape, just standing there, then have Sayid cast the gun down and say his little "we're both dead" speech. THAT woudl have been cool.

[Mettanna]

What they should have done, which would have been really interesting, is have Sayid take the gun, cock it, and hold it to her head...and have AL just stand there, looking him straight in the eye. Not pleading with him or trying to escape, just standing there, then have Sayid cast the gun down and say his little "we're both dead" speech. THAT woudl have been cool.

Well, I already liked the original scene, but granted that would have been pretty cool too.


No, I meant that if she really meant "go ahead and shoot me," she would have let him shoot her if he had tried. I don't blame her for wanting to live at all...I'm just saying she shouldn't have pretended that she would have let him shoot her, because she wouldn't have.

...I still really don't understand you. I mean...do you really think the writers said "hey let's have Ana pretend she wants Sayid to shoot her, but she doesn't really want him to..."

Dude. That would just be stupid. She meant it. (Although, of course, it's all in 'how you interpret the scene'.:rolleyes: But really....)

[Leigh]

Mettanna, I totally agree.

You can't read her mind, so you have to take what is shown right in front of you. Ana was ready to pay the price for what she did. There was nothing cowardly about it and she certainly didn't know that he wasn't going to kill her, to say that, to me, is just plain silly.

There's plenty about Lost that's open to interpretation, but some things are just like they seem, and like a character or not sometimes you just have to deal with that. If someone says hello, sometimes they *shock* actually mean hello.

There's some things you can try to "interpret" all you want, but it's blatantly obvious that it just is what it is.

[Scarlett]

...I still really don't understand you. I mean...do you really think the writers said "hey let's have Ana pretend she wants Sayid to shoot her, but she doesn't really want him to..."

Dude. That would just be stupid. She meant it. (Although, of course, it's all in 'how you interpret the scene'.:rolleyes: But really....)
I think it's certainly possible and even plausible that the writers wittingly created a hole in AL's character. A contradiction, to show her weakness. Sure it's possible that I'm just so blinded that I wouldn't believe her if was supposed to mena it, but I just think it's a lot different to say "Shoot me" when the person is in a fit of rage than when they're calm and obviously beaten.

Of course AL was right to protect herself when Sayid came flying at her--instincts took over. I just think it's an inconsistency that the same woman who only hours before would literally have left a man for dead and then did use his strecher to tie a man to a tree would suddenly be OK with the idea of getting shot.

I don't know whether AL was cleverly using it as a disarming device to help Sayid "forgive" her and move on or if the writers just messed up. I'm leaning toward the latter, but who knows.

[Razor]

I think it's certainly possible and even plausible that the writers wittingly created a hole in AL's character. A contradiction, to show her weakness. Sure it's possible that I'm just so blinded that I wouldn't believe her if was supposed to mena it, but I just think it's a lot different to say "Shoot me" when the person is in a fit of rage than when they're calm and obviously beaten.

Of course AL was right to protect herself when Sayid came flying at her--instincts took over. I just think it's an inconsistency that the same woman who only hours before would literally have left a man for dead and then did use his strecher to tie a man to a tree would suddenly be OK with the idea of getting shot.

I don't know whether AL was cleverly using it as a disarming device to help Sayid "forgive" her and move on or if the writers just messed up. I'm leaning toward the latter, but who knows.
Count me in the group who believe she wouldn't have tried to stop Sayid - at that point. I don't see anyone being clever enough, or calculating enough to throw a loaded gun down in front of someone who may want to kill you. That would be incredibly (unbelieveably) foolish - regardless of the odds. Particularly when it was completely unnecesary.

While I agree there was a purpose in Ana's starting up a little chat with Sayid, I didn't view it as an attempt to "disarm" or have him "forgive" her - but, rather, an attempt to gauge whether he had calmed down sufficiently for Ana to release him. Her journey (and obligation to the group) was at an end. She had no options at that point. She wasn't going to kill an innocent man in cold blood. IMO, she wanted to be sure that when she released him he wouldn't do anything foolish and force a situation where she might have to shoot him.

The direction the conversation took, however, was dictated by Sayid, and resulted in Ana's memories/flashback of killing Jason - which ended with Ana's "I was pregnant". Even though Jason did the shooting, Ana had to have feelings of guilt toward the whole incident because she let her guard down for an instant, and it resulted in her being shot four times and losing her baby. That's a "what if" or "why didn't I" second-guessing scenario which would have to have haunted Ana every day.

I don't think it was accidently killing Shannon which caused Ana to tell Sayid "I deserve it" (though it probably added the final straw to her burden of guilt), IMO, it was her being tired of living with her own conscience and the guilt about being responsible for what happened to her baby, and saying "Screw it. I don't care. It's just not worth living with the pain".

[Fish1941]

I think that Razor pretty much said it.

When Sayid first tried to attack Ana-Lucia, she instinctively tried to defend herself . . . or make sure that he wouldn't harm her. But after Eko had left with the injured Sawyer, I think that she was beginning to realize that she had went too far - which led her to make the decision to remain alone in the jungle. And after Libby and Bernard had deserted her, her guilt and remorse became even worse. And this, I believe, led to a conversation with Sayid and her recollection of what Jason did to her . . . and what she had done to him (although she had left this out of her conversation with Sayid). By then, she was so overwhelmed with guilt that she gave Sayid the opportunity to exact revenge. Which he rejected out of his own grief and possibly his own guilty memories.

[Scarlett]

I think that Razor pretty much said it.

When Sayid first tried to attack Ana-Lucia, she instinctively tried to defend herself . . . or make sure that he wouldn't harm her. But after Eko had left with the injured Sawyer, I think that she was beginning to realize that she had went too far - which led her to make the decision to remain alone in the jungle. And after Libby and Bernard had deserted her, her guilt and remorse became even worse. And this, I believe, led to a conversation with Sayid and her recollection of what Jason did to her . . . and what she had done to him (although she had left this out of her conversation with Sayid). By then, she was so overwhelmed with guilt that she gave Sayid the opportunity to exact revenge. Which he rejected out of his own grief and possibly his own guilty memories.
You guys might be right--it's not that I have trouble believing that anyone would tell someone to shoot them, it's just Ana Lucia. Yes, I'm heavily biased. But everything we've seen from her thus far has been very survival-oriented. I just didn't think she was genuine when she told Sayid that.

I really wish they would have done the scene as I described above, basically given her a chance to prove that she was willing to die, not just making a big show of it.

[Fish1941]

But everything we've seen from her thus far has been very survival-oriented. I just didn't think she was genuine when she told Sayid that.

I really wish they would have done the scene as I described above, basically given her a chance to prove that she was willing to die, not just making a big show of it.


I don't think she was making a big show of it. Not by that point. After shooting Shannon and dealing with the desertions of the other Tailies, along with her revived memories of Jason . . . Ana was ready to die. But Sayid was no longer in the mood to kill her, due to his own emotional problems.

[Sacred Knight]

I liked Ana-Lucia tonight. I liked how, even though we all know that she really DID want to know the combination to the vault, when she saw the look on Jack's face, she knew he'd made a commitment not to tell, and instead made a joke out of it and said she was kidding. A lie yes, like I said I'm sure she really did want to know, but she made the situation lighter and didn't try to force the issue on him, and respected that she knew that was that, he wasn't going to tell her.

[interested]

I liked Ana-Lucia tonight. I liked how, even though we all know that she really DID want to know the combination to the vault, when she saw the look on Jack's face, she knew he'd made a commitment not to tell, and instead made a joke out of it and said she was kidding. A lie yes, like I said I'm sure she really did want to know, but she made the situation lighter and didn't try to force the issue on him, and respected that she knew that was that, he wasn't going to tell her.

I liked that too. She's growing on me. I've always liked that she's not a sheep and willing to defend herself and others, but I've always disliked the rash and undisciplined way she's gone about it. I could see her as a character who really develops into a good leader over time with the help of someone like Sayid. When it looked like they were going in the direction of having her be the one behind the attempted kidnapping, I was dissapointed, because I thought they were making her now into a one-sided kind of villain and throwing away a great development opportunity. So I was thrilled by the twist. It was great--also because they had just begun to try to make Sawyer really likeable before they pulled it, complicating him as well.

[Fish1941]

I liked that too. She's growing on me. I've always liked that she's not a sheep and willing to defend herself and others, but I've always disliked the rash and undisciplined way she's gone about it.

I'm a little confused. How is Ana rash and undisciplined? Because she had accidentally shot Shannon? Personally, I think that if any of the other survivors in that group had the gun instead of Ana, Shannon might have ended up dead, anyway. They had just lost Cindy and the whispers were scaring all of them.

[Scarlett]

I liked Ana-Lucia tonight. I liked how, even though we all know that she really DID want to know the combination to the vault, when she saw the look on Jack's face, she knew he'd made a commitment not to tell, and instead made a joke out of it and said she was kidding. A lie yes, like I said I'm sure she really did want to know, but she made the situation lighter and didn't try to force the issue on him, and respected that she knew that was that, he wasn't going to tell her.
Heh just goes to show how powerful biases can be. You saw someone who was stepping down out of respect, I saw someone who knew Jack wasn't going to spill the beans and didn't want to waste her time/make him suspicious. I don't believe she had evil motives for wanting the combo, just the power of knowing. The way Jack looked at her (and I saw nothing about commitment, just disbelief and even amusement that she actually asked him). I believe she said "ha just kidding" to keep from looking foolish.

[Leigh]

Heh just goes to show how powerful biases can be. You saw someone who was stepping down out of respect, I saw someone who knew Jack wasn't going to spill the beans and didn't want to waste her time/make him suspicious. I don't believe she had evil motives for wanting the combo, just the power of knowing. The way Jack looked at her (and I saw nothing about commitment, just disbelief and even amusement that she actually asked him). I believe she said "ha just kidding" to keep from looking foolish.

I don't think she was worried about looking foolish at all. She doesn't seem to care what people think. To me, she was testing the man....seeing if he would tell he (b/c she obviously really does want to get the guns), she found out that he wasn't ready to or didn't plan on trusting her with it....so she knew she had to play it off. It was just a test, he failed her test by not telling her, so she made a joke out of it to throw him off of thinking that she has any real desire to have the guns.

Btw, I think all of the Jack/Ana scenes at the start was likely ONLY to make you she REALLY wanted them bad enough so that when Kate made her stupid accusations you thought she might be right....that kind of ruined it for me....I want Ana to want the guns, and quite frankly I hope she somehow gets them. Screw the Shannon bit and all that load....she's a COP. Jack's a doc and Locke's an office manager...and Sawyers a loser conman, so to me why she doesn't have the power I'll never know....well yes I do, she's still new and people don't trust her and that I understand, but later on if this kind of not having any control/leadership continues, I'm gonna be quite miffed....b/c show-wise it just wouldn't make ANY sense LATER ON.

[ActionAimz]

I think Ana was testing Jack point blank. She wants the guns for protection, not domination and control, which is why Sawyer wants them. She is a cop afterall, and the big clue was when she went into investigation mode before going to check out the scene of Sun's kidnapping -- she wasn't going into that situation unarmed, just as any smart cop wouldn't do. She carries that staff around with her everywhere -- she is prepared to defend herself.

Back to Jack, he didn't seem ammused, more like nervous as hell, because he realizes that his own trust in her was being put to the test and he wasn't ready for that at all. But if someone came to me for help to form an army, I would expect that person to trust me and view me as an equal -- that means no secrets or holding back. The pact that Jack made with Locke -- to consult the other person before releasing the guns, he should have been making with Ana since HE went to HER for help in the first place. How can you built an army without weapons. The two of them need to have a heart to heart.


Bottom line, the whole scene was set-up as a red herring so we would suspect Ana as the one manipulating everything, when it was actually all Sawyer's doing. But what it revealed is that nobody really trusts anybody on the island, and all of them are falling into an 'every man for himself' mentality, which is a shame seeing as Jack and Ana are seemingly working together on a common goal, but if they don't trust one another it aint going to work, because Ana is not about to blindly take orders from anyone. She was testing him just to see where she stood with him, and so far it's not as his equal.

[Scarlett]

I definitely agree about the red herring bit, and that she was testing Jack--but I also think she very much wanted the guns for herself. I don't blame her, I certainly would want all the protection I could get on that island, but she definitely didn't step back out of respect for Jack's agreement w/ Locke, as someone suggested.

Also, yes it was an accident, but we've already seen that Ana isn't the most able markswoman. Or rather, she's a great shot, but a little trigger happy. Of course she's more trained than Jack, but Locke is extremely well-trained and I'd trust him or Kate a hell of a lot more than Ana with the guns.

But again, interpretations.... :)

[Razor]

Also, yes it was an accident, but we've already seen that Ana isn't the most able markswoman. Or rather, she's a great shot, but a little trigger happy. Of course she's more trained than Jack, but Locke is extremely well-trained and I'd trust him or Kate a hell of a lot more than Ana with the guns.

But again, interpretations.... :)
I haven't already seen that. I feel so "left out" that you weren't including me in your statement of what "we've seen".:(;):cool:

"Trigger happy", IMO, would have been if she had shot someone like Cindy. She didn't. Ana had a valid reason to believe (as the others in her group did as well) that they were under attack (Cindy's disappearance). She knew The Others had weapons (guns as well as knives). She knew the Others took the "good" ones and had no qualms with killing those they didn't abduct (Nathan). It would also be reasonable to conclude that they would be outnumbered or at least over-matched. Plus, the whispers (as I would suspect) have freaked out everyone who's encountered them. Yes, she shot a stranger crashing through the jungle while believing they were under attack, ... did you expect her to say "halt who goes there?" or ask to see I.D.? Should she have called to Michael to drop Sawyer, come forward and see if you might know this person? It was a life and death situation. What about the flashback (the recounting how Jason shot her), do you not think that was presented to mirror Shannon's shooting? She didn't act immediately with Jason and got shot and lost her baby. With that kind of experience behind her, and considering the scenario she was in, I, in no way, lay blame on Ana for shooting Shannon or consider her trigger happy.

[juniper]

Personally, I think she established herself as irrational and trigger-happy long before Shannon's sad demise. She murdered Jason without flinching. Some of you mentioned guilt for having allowed herself to be shot, but why shouldn't she have experienced guilt at his murder. As much as some of you seem to think that was just fine and dandy because "revenge was needed there" or whatever, it simply isn't something many viewers would do, or can respect or even stomach, for that matter. (Sayid tortured people for a living, but last season he admitted he was haunted by memories of having killed the low-lifes. He's loved for his ability to project humanity, not brutality.) The next incident on the job, yes, she was overcompensating for the time she screwed up and ended up getting herself shot, but even with her partner standing there attempting to make her think rationally and lose the gun, she still wasn't willing to budge. Someone said she doesn't strike them as caring too much about what others think, whereas I've never seen anyone so intimidated by what others think. She used the same tactic on her own comrades when they didn't obediently tie up Sayid that she used on those whom she believed posed actual threats. It's fairly basic knowledge that when certain types of people are faced with their own impotence, they compensate by become extremely aggressive and loud, criminals and children alike. IMO she's incredibly vulnerable and so reaches for the gun when she's scared, as someone said, it represents a security blanket of sorts to them. I think just holding it makes someone like her feel strong when she obviously isn't. She has no plans, just guilt and a gun, as Sayid said. That is extremely disturbing.

Yes, the whispers caused them all to panic and they were plausibly in danger, and you've said you would do the same, but you have to remember: it takes all kinds. Some people would be less likely to fire a gun in that situation. This is because you're pretty dang likely to shoot someone unintentionally (especially if you're hiking around looking for a camp of innocent people) if you're not thinking rationally, and lucky for her, she did. I don't think anyone is going to take one look at Shannon and perceive a threat that merits killing. People are particularly stupid when they're scared (and when they're not, but that's another issue;) ). For some people, believe it or not, avoiding the risk of killing innocents is worth risking death themselves, and they won't attack (read: defend) until they've identified their enemies, and astonishingly some people consider them admirable for it. I know it's a personal choice, but it's one that sanctifies humanity rather than giving in to animalistic instinct. Ana seems overly eager to give in to the latter, and it may prolong her life, but really I always wonder why it's worth it to those people? She said herself she's already dead, whereas Shannon was a young woman who seemed to be very much among the living. That scarcely seems an even trade, but that's often how it plays out.

Some of you seem confused because others are "misreading" what's shown on the screen, but it is up to interpretation or else we wouldn't have a discuss/debate thread, would we? Some are trying to humanize and rationalize her actions. To me, for reasons I just mentioned, she's indulged in entirely too much weakness and is too far removed from humanity to bother with it and I have no sympathy to spare for someone who appears to wallow in self-pity and make her own excuses for something that is inexcusable.

[Razor]

Yes, the whispers caused them all to panic and they were plausibly in danger, and you've said you would do the same, but you have to remember: it takes all kinds. Some people would be less likely to fire a gun in that situation. This is because you're pretty dang likely to shoot someone unintentionally (especially if you're hiking around looking for a camp of innocent people) if you're not thinking rationally, and lucky for her, she did. I don't think anyone is going to take one look at Shannon and perceive a threat that merits killing. People are particularly stupid when they're scared (and when they're not, but that's another issue;) ). For some people, believe it or not, avoiding the risk of killing innocents is worth risking death themselves, and they won't attack (read: defend) until they've identified their enemies...
If she (and the others around her) believed they were being attacked, by whom if not enemies?

What are your opinions regarding Eko for attacking the fuselage survivors on the beach without verifying if they were enemies or not?

As for Shannon not being able to be perceived as a threat ... did you miss, or forget, the scene where she tried to shoot Locke? A gun is an amazing equalizer.

[Fish1941]

In regard to the incident over Shannon's shooting, I suspect that if someone other than Ana-Lucia had the gun, Shannon may have ended up dead, anyway. Cindy's disappearance, the whispers and hearing Shannon running through the jungle shouting out loud had all created a very intense situation. Shannon's death wasn't a sign that Ana was trigger happy.

And Razor was right to point out Eko's attack upon Jin, Michael and Sawyer at the end of "Adrift". He had attacked them without really knowing who they were. He had allowed his fear of the Others to go into attack mode.

I would also like to point out a scene from "The Hunting Party", in which Jack, Locke and Sawyer heard gunshots before Jack went crashing through the jungle, shouting Michael's name.

Fear can get hold of people very easily and sometimes, it leads to bad mistakes.

Also, Ana's murder of Jason isn't also a sign of her being trigger happy. Just vengeful. If you want to use that incident as a sign of her being trigger happy, you might as well accuse Shannon of being the same when she tried to kill Locke, Sawyer, when he killed the man he thought was the real Sawye, or Charlie, when he killed Ethan. Or you might as accuse Kate of a tendency to blow up things, because that's how she had murdered Wayne.


But if someone came to me for help to form an army, I would expect that person to trust me and view me as an equal -- that means no secrets or holding back. The pact that Jack made with Locke -- to consult the other person before releasing the guns, he should have been making with Ana since HE went to HER for help in the first place. How can you built an army without weapons. The two of them need to have a heart to heart.

ActionAimz has a point. If Jack didn't really trust her with the guns, why did he even bother asking her to help him form an army?

[juniper]

If she (and the others around her) believed they were being attacked, by whom if not enemies?

What are your opinions regarding Eko for attacking the fuselage survivors on the beach without verifying if they were enemies or not?

As for Shannon not being able to be perceived as a threat ... did you miss, or forget, the scene where she tried to shoot Locke? A gun is an amazing equalizer.

That was exactly my point. They weren't under attack (least of all by Shannon), and Shannon didn't have a gun and was not a threat to Ana's merry little band. If she had, that would have been different. Did you forget? Ana was instead the threat; it works both ways, so best remember both of them. It would have taken a nanosecond to ascertain that and spare a human life. To me, it would have been well worth it. To you, some others, and obviously to Ana as well, it wasn't. It's a difference of opinion, that's all. I'm not saying Ana should have welcomed her as you seem to jokingly suggest, just not killed her.

Nope, pretty much loathed the scene in which Eko clubbed them as well (I'm not a fan of any type of clubbing:cool: ) and I can't recall indicating otherwise. I did enjoy that he apologized, however, and it seemed sincere to me. Like I've said, I enjoy it when they display humanity and seek redemption; I'm in the minority, I'm sure, but I'm not remotely impressed by unwarranted violence.

In regard to the incident over Shannon's shooting, I suspect that if someone other than Ana-Lucia had the gun, Shannon may have ended up dead, anyway. Cindy's disappearance, the whispers and hearing Shannon running through the jungle shouting out loud had all created a very intense situation. Shannon's death wasn't a sign that Ana was trigger happy.

Also, Ana's murder of Jason isn't also a sign of her being trigger happy. Just vengeful. If you want to use that incident as a sign of her being trigger happy, you might as well accuse Shannon of being the same when she tried to kill Locke, Sawyer, when he killed the man he thought was the real Sawye, or Charlie, when he killed Ethan. Or you might as accuse Kate of a tendency to blow up things, because that's how she had murdered Wayne.

Shannon was being vengeful, and not thinking rationally. It was good and considerate of Sayid to stop her from actually doing it, because she would have had to live with it and it would not have eased her suffering. To the contrary, he knew it would have been worse. Remember his little convo with Charlie? Pretty much the same thing. Sawyer has been known to make some pretty sorry mistakes as well. The point is, it's fairly obvious he regrets them deeply, as he should. The same is true for Kate.

I sited all those instances together that make it apparent, to me, anyway, that Ana is pretty quick to shoot (trigger-happy). I suspect you're right, Fish, others would have shot her as well in her place. Sawyer might have, for instance. I also think some wouldn't have shot her. I'm acknowledging different reactions, but I don't think anyone using the defense that "everyone makes mistakes" has ever made a remarkably great impression on me as far as I can remember. An explanation is not a justification. That does no favors to anyone. I'd rather people own up.

Fear can get hold of people very easily and sometimes, it leads to bad mistakes.

Yes. I wish Ana would figure that out. Just remember it, and do not let fear control the situation (you can do it; other people have:) ), because it's a sad fact that people are fairly stupid and entirely fallible even at their most rational moments.

[Mettanna]

It would have taken a nanosecond to ascertain that and spare a human life.To me, it would have been well worth it. To you, some others, and obviously to Ana as well, it wasn't.

Ana-Lovers aren't heartless... as best I recall, no one on this thread ever said "Well, it doesn't matter that Ana killed Shannon, because it was just Shannon." And as for Ana...you think Ana doesn't care that she shot Shannon? I believe that it's been stated that the whole mess was a complete and total accident. Ana never, ever meant to kill anyone.

I really also don't agree that Ana is trigger-happy.

[ActionAimz]

it's interesting to see the fusies getting more and more intense, rash, quick to judge, turn on each other and reach for guns now that they are under attack hard core, and it still hasn't reached the level of intensity that the tailies experienced their first week on the island. Keep in mind that Ana and her mates were under seige immediately following the plane crash, people were disappearing daily. Imagine how that would bring out the desperation, because we are surely seeing it now with Jack all wound up looking like he is going to lose it any day now, Locke cowering and shaking, confused and near tears, Sayid breaking his promise never to use his torture interrogation tactics, Charlie babynapping and kidnapping, etc. etc. All decorum, forethought, team spirit has been completely thrown to the wasteside, nobody trusts anyone, and it's all because finally they are on the brink of being under attack, people are seeing what the Tailies knew from day one -- they are not safe on the island. So everything that Ana did to survive was done out of desperation because the situation called for drastic measures, not because of her inherent values. Again during these past few weeks we have seen the absolute darkest sides of many of these characters come right to the surface and it's only the beginning. Because of that Ana now and always gets a free pass with me.

[Razor]

That was exactly my point. They weren't under attack (least of all by Shannon), and Shannon didn't have a gun and was not a threat to Ana's merry little band. If she had, that would have been different. Did you forget? No need to conveniently forget. It wouldn't have been different. It didn't matter whether they were actually under attack as long as they had reason to believe they were. US Law (unless you have a better benchmark for what is just and reasonable) makes provisions for such an act as self-defense. If you feel people who act under those circumstances should be held responsible or under greater scrutiny ... feel free. But, bear in mind, there is a reason a US court would not.

Ana was instead the threat; it works both ways, so best remember both of them. Why? Is this supposed to be some kind of lesson? I hope not, because you skipped right over the chapter about "self-defense". Ana was reacting to the perceived threat. See, I can do patronizing too. ;)

It would have taken a nanosecond to ascertain that and spare a human life. To me, it would have been well worth it. Really? A nanosecond? I somehow don't think so. Even two seconds (given the rain and Shannon's running after Walt) probably wouldn't have been sufficient, and allowing that amount of time to pass, IMO, would have been foolhardy given the believed threat. I would love to have seen the outcry of "Ana's stupid" if it had been an Other and Ana had hesitated to fire resulting in Jin or Libby dying.:rolleyes: I wonder how many (who are currently blaming her) would be rushing to her defense.

To you, some others, and obviously to Ana as well, it wasn't. It's a difference of opinion, that's all. I must say that I feel greatly comforted that our legal system is on my side as well. To attempt to protect one's life, home, and family under your "rules" would be, IMO, unreasonable.

I'm not saying Ana should have welcomed her as you seem to jokingly suggest, just not killed her. I didn't suggest that at all.:confused: I don't welcome people by demanding ID. I wanted to know how Ana was supposed to identify (in a nonosecond no less) someone she had never met before without risking her life, and the lives of those under her protection.

Nope, pretty much loathed the scene in which Eko clubbed them as well (I'm not a fan of any type of clubbing:cool: ) and I can't recall indicating otherwise. Neither could I, that's why I asked.;)

I did enjoy that he apologized, however, and it seemed sincere to me. Like I've said, I enjoy it when they display humanity and seek redemption; I'm in the minority, I'm sure, but I'm not remotely impressed by unwarranted violence. I believe it was warranted - as did Eko, obviously. Why did he need to knock them out? Because, three (3) adult men (he didn't know Sawyer was injured) versus the remnants of the Tailees section would certainly bring the outcome of a skirmish into doubt. Plus, they wanted them as prisoners (assuming, as they should have, that they were Others) in order to interrogate them and (potentially) find out where the kids and other abductees were taken. Made sense to me.:cool:

[Scarlett]

And Razor was right to point out Eko's attack upon Jin, Michael and Sawyer at the end of "Adrift". He had attacked them without really knowing who they were. He had allowed his fear of the Others to go into attack mode.

Right, and I've said in the past that I can understand their actions after what happened with Goodwin and the Others. But temporarily dehabilitating someone and putting them in a temporary holding cell is a far cry from shooting someone in the stomach.

Eko, Ana Lucia, etc. took what could be viewed as preventative measures to protect their camp. Personally, I think it was foolish to see these three guys standing around and assume they must be trying to attack you so you beat the crap out of them. But I can understand why they did it and can't really fault them for it. Eko even had the decency to apologize to Sawyer, which I really respected.

But as I said, that's a far cry from taking the irretractable step of shooting someone in poor visual conditions and with one bullet left. Instincts are powerful, but so is temperance and reason. If Ana had waited a few more seconds to ascertain whether it was really a threat or not, saving the last remaining bullet in the process, what would have been lost? They had little reason to suspect the Others had guns, and is shooting one of them going to protect you from the others that might be lurking in the shadows? A few more seconds to fully gage the situation would have hurt nothing, and would have saved a life.

[juniper]

Ana-Lovers aren't heartless... as best I recall, no one on this thread ever said "Well, it doesn't matter that Ana killed Shannon, because it was just Shannon." And as for Ana...you think Ana doesn't care that she shot Shannon? I believe that it's been stated that the whole mess was a complete and total accident.
Well, I'd beg to differ, but... I didn't say you were heartless nor do I believe it, hon:); I'm saying we're all of a different opinion. Some are saying she made a little mistake and is sorry, so don't hold it against her. Some are saying she didn't make any mistake and rightfully shot Shannon because of a perceived threat. No, since you've asked, I don't particularly believe she cares she shot Shannon, but that she lost control and "made a mistake" - all about herself and her little pity-party.

Ana never, ever meant to kill anyone.
I disagree.

No need to conveniently forget. It wouldn't have been different. It didn't matter whether they were actually under attack as long as they had reason to believe they were. US Law (unless you have a better benchmark for what is just and reasonable) makes provisions for such an act as self-defense. If you feel people who act under those circumstances should be held responsible or under greater scrutiny ... feel free. But, bear in mind, there is a reason a US court would not.
As I said, it wasn’t self-defense (nor are they in the US – well, they are, but… nevermind that :D ). Not even close. She was afraid, yes, even with good reason, but that’s a far cry from actually being threatened, so non-applicable. If Shannon had herself done something which threatened her, then that would fly as a defense. I suppose she could still plead insanity ;) . She could have also shot one of the missing children (also non-threatening) perceiving a threat, maybe a tall missing child. She would only recognize two of them, after all. Would that have been perfectly fine as well?

Really? A nanosecond? I somehow don't think so. Even two seconds (given the rain and Shannon's running after Walt) probably wouldn't have been sufficient, and allowing that amount of time to pass, IMO, would have been foolhardy given the believed threat. I would love to have seen the outcry of "Ana's stupid" if it had been an Other and Ana had hesitated to fire resulting in Jin or Libby dying. I wonder how many (who are currently blaming her) would be rushing to her defense.
If weather prevents her from accurately identifying someone, this is one more reason not to kill said person. Sounds like an excellent reason why it’s foolhardy to fire (the rain and low visibility, I mean; not to mention having only one bullet), IMO. I for one, obviously wouldn’t demand that one be more trigger-happy; yet if that “Other” were armed and was threatening them, I wouldn’t blame her for shooting in defense either. Anyhow, the point is, she didn’t see or know who was threatening her or who she was shooting, so I don’t give a flying ahem. I agree with scarlett. She shouldn’t have fired.

Why? Is this supposed to be some kind of lesson? I hope not, because you skipped right over the chapter about "self-defense". Ana was reacting to the perceived threat. See, I can do patronizing too.
I’m not attempting to patronize you. Sorry. I’m very simply saying think first, shoot later (and hey, don’t shoot at all when it isn’t necessary or justified). (Fine, it sounds a bit patronizing, but don’t take offense.:o ) I’ve read the chapter and – let me review my notes – no, it says nothing about trigger-happiness. If it were absolutely fine to shoot anyone simply because we perceived a threat, without any substantial reason other than fear-based – well, it would be convenient for certain people, to say the least. ;) I think you may have misinterpreted a few points.

I didn't suggest that at all. I don't welcome people by demanding ID. I wanted to know how Ana was supposed to identify (in a nonosecond no less) someone she had never met before without risking her life, and the lives of those under her protection
She didn’t need to shoot Shannon in order to protect – how many of them were there? – from her. Heck, it’s Shannon; she was known to Jin and Michael, she could have asked. (She didn’t know that at the time, granted, but that’s an option forgone when you shoot first.) Not killing wouldn’t have been risking their lives (and how much I think she cares for the lives of those under her protection, I won’t bother to discuss again :rolleyes: ). If I remember correctly, she managed to take Goodwin on her own with a little pocketknife, and she was far from alone here – and she was armed with an amazing little equalizer, obviously. They aren’t “the good” valiantly fighting evil forces here (at least I devoutly hope not – that’s not the type of show I like to tune into :mad: ). They’re all dangerous and fallible people.

I believe it was warranted - as did Eko, obviously. Why did he need to knock them out? Because, three (3) adult men (he didn't know Sawyer was injured) versus the remnants of the Tailees section would certainly bring the outcome of a skirmish into doubt. Plus, they wanted them as prisoners (assuming, as they should have, that they were Others) in order to interrogate them and (potentially) find out where the kids and other abductees were taken. Made sense to me.
That's fine. :cool: I never said it didn’t make sense; I said I don’t condone it, which is vastly different. But it was mainly Ana’s behavior afterward that absolutely repulsed me.

So everything that Ana did to survive was done out of desperation because the situation called for drastic measures, not because of her inherent values. Again during these past few weeks we have seen the absolute darkest sides of many of these characters come right to the surface and it's only the beginning. Because of that Ana now and always gets a free pass with me.
You are seeing the darkest sides of them because they’re scared and desperate, and that makes submitting to animal instinct more appealing to them than humanity because it’s simpler and more primal. To each his or her own. Times are tough, but no one gets a free pass with me.;)

[Razor]

If Ana had waited a few more seconds to ascertain whether it was really a threat or not, saving the last remaining bullet in the process, what would have been lost?
Well, let's see ... *scratches head* what did Ana lose by letting her guard down for a just few seconds with Jason? :p

In a situation where you have reason to believe it's a life or death scenario (which I have, unfortunately, been in - thanks to a home invasion by druggies) I find it completely unrealistic to expect Ana (or anyone else) in that adrenaline pumped state to have done any more than determine that her target was not Cindy (and there is no evidence to support an argument that she didn't make that determination - while there is, at least, some circumstantial evidence to show that Ana saw her target clearly enough to hit it dead on, therefor, well enough to determine it wasn't Cindy - whether by size, clothes, hair, or facial features).

They had little reason to suspect the Others had guns,...No reason? What about Sawyers gunshot wound? Is that not evidence enough?:confused:

...and is shooting one of them going to protect you from the others that might be lurking in the shadows? A few more seconds to fully gage the situation would have hurt nothing, and would have saved a life. Yes, it would protect you from the one you killed. I would be hard pressed to think of a situation where I would not rather face one less enemy.

Juniper:

You may wish to consult legal texts/aide before arguing that Ana's actions aren't covered by "self-defense".

Manifest intent (imminent jeopardy): Was the danger believed to be both mortal and imminent? It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to cause/create the legitimate fears of a reasonable person, and that they acted under the influence of those fears, not in a spirit of negligence or criminal assault. When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that the danger of his being killed or seriously injured is imminent, he is permitted by law to act in self-defense based on those appearances even, if necessary, to the extent of using lethal force. This is true even if it turns out that the appearances were misleading and the person was thus honestly mistaken as to the real extent of the danger. It is for the jury to decide whether appearances of danger were sufficient.

[Rhema]

Well on another thread, I posted my growing suspicion of Ana. It actually just started today as I was thinking about it.

I just recently heard Walt's two backward talk scenes. It occured to me ..... Shannon and sayid see him and he warns them. "They're close"

Shannon runs to Walt and gets shot ....... shot by the others????

Nope. Shot by Ana Lucia. Where were the others? Wasn't he warning them of the others being close? But the only people there were the tailies, Sawyer I can never remember the other guys name. Anyway .... in Ana Lucia's story about her battle with the "other" on the hill that resulted in her killing him, there are no witnesses. We've seen and heard only her version of it. We don't know what really happened for certain.

Sure Jack met her before the plane took off, but still, that doesn't necessarily mean anything - the others aren't uncivilized savages. They are very cunning and highly intelligent.

[Gage]

Well on another thread, I posted my growing suspicion of Ana. It actually just started today as I was thinking about it.

I just recently heard Walt's two backward talk scenes. It occured to me ..... Shannon and sayid see him and he warns them. "They're close"

Shannon runs to Walt and gets shot ....... shot by the others????

Nope. Shot by Ana Lucia. Where were the others? Wasn't he warning them of the others being close? But the only people there were the tailies, Sawyer I can never remember the other guys name. Anyway .... in Ana Lucia's story about her battle with the "other" on the hill that resulted in her killing him, there are no witnesses. We've seen and heard only her version of it. We don't know what really happened for certain.

Sure Jack met her before the plane took off, but still, that doesn't necessarily mean anything - the others aren't uncivilized savages. They are very cunning and highly intelligent.


The others were there because who toke Cindy then? And you are right the others are very cunning & intelligent thats why they are good at not being seen by anyone, there quick at what they do.

Goodwin is dead. Jin & Eko saw his body in one ep. Well if Ana could be an other & she was on the plane then so can everyone else.

[Scarlett]

I certainly don't trust Ana Lucia, but I don't think she's an Other. She had her chance to "eliminate" the tailees for 48 days, and easily could have killed them and joined up w/ the Others. And then why kill Goodwin? And I don't think they would show us her flashbacks and such if she was really an Other.

Doesn't mean she can't turn to the dark side, but as of now, I think she's just as "lost" as everyone else.

[Fish1941]

I certainly don't trust Ana Lucia, but I don't think she's an Other. She had her chance to "eliminate" the tailees for 48 days, and easily could have killed them and joined up w/ the Others. And then why kill Goodwin? And I don't think they would show us her flashbacks and such if she was really an Other.

Doesn't mean she can't turn to the dark side, but as of now, I think she's just as "lost" as everyone else.


Yes, she is just as "lost" as everyone else. If any of the fans don't trust Ana-Lucia, they might as well not trust anyone. All of them - from Jack to Hurley - are emotionally damaged and capable of doing anything. There is really no point in isolating Ana as the one character on the island who is unstable. It's obvious from recent episodes that many of the characters are slowly unraveling.

[Scarlett]

Yes, she is just as "lost" as everyone else. If any of the fans don't trust Ana-Lucia, they might as well not trust anyone. All of them - from Jack to Hurley - are emotionally damaged and capable of doing anything. There is really no point in isolating Ana as the one character on the island who is unstable. It's obvious from recent episodes that many of the characters are slowly unraveling.
I definitely agree that all the characters are unstable in their own way, some more than others. None of them is completely trustworthy--they're all very, very flawed characters, which makes them so dynamic.

But Ana Lucia's flaws aren't noble. They're not understandable to me. In her flashbacks and in the airport, I didn't see any redeeming qualities. Very few, if any, moments of kindness or pure concern for others. Even the way she relates to people in everyday life is harsh and abrasive. Her partners and her own mother treated her as unstable, unfit to serve in the force. Instead of proving them wrong, she illustrated their point by panicking and allowing her personal experiences to interfere with her duty as a police officer.

She mistakenly shot an innocent woman, which fine--may be understandable. But her response to it--panicking (again) and endangering the lives of MORE people than the one she just shot so that could feel safe. Alienating those around her with her selfish refusal to listen to Libby and Eko's reasoning. Eventually letting Sayid go, watching him carry his dead girlfriend away, and still not showing any remorse (that my eyes could see).

I have to go, I'll edit more later.

[Fish1941]

But Ana Lucia's flaws aren't noble. They're not understandable to me. In her flashbacks and in the airport, I didn't see any redeeming qualities.


I don't get this at all. Not at all. Her flaws aren't noble? Since when does anyone have noble flaws? Are they expected to? I can understand if you're incapable of relating to the character. But to criticize her, because you don't find her flaws noble? I don't understand. As for her airport scenes, she was trying to flirt with Jack. Why is that a problem?:confused:

She mistakenly shot an innocent woman, which fine--may be understandable. But her response to it--panicking (again) and endangering the lives of MORE people than the one she just shot so that could feel safe. Alienating those around her with her selfish refusal to listen to Libby and Eko's reasoning. Eventually letting Sayid go, watching him carry his dead girlfriend away, and still not showing any remorse (that my eyes could see).

And you consider the mistakes committed by the other Lostaways more noble than Ana-Lucia's? Like Sawyer's con job? Jack's refusal to allow Kate to join him on the hunt for Michael or encouraging Sayid to torture Sawyer? Sayid's torture of Sawyer? Or his attempt to kill Ana-Lucia without bothering to find out how Shannon was shot? Jin beating up Michael over his father-in-law's watch? Or Michael beating up Jin over the first raft? Hurley contemplating blowing up the food inside the hatch, in order to avoid being unpopular? Or Charlie's lies and his attack upon Sun, while supporting Sawyer's con? Or Kate trying to manipulate Jack into opening the Marshal's case? Or manipulating Sun into poisoning Jin (Michael ended up poisoned). Are you saying that the other Lostaways' mistakes were more "noble" than Ana-Lucia's?

By the way, she was remorseful over Shannon's death. Her expression made that clear after she had pulled the trigger in "Collision" and when Locke mentioned the shooting in "The Long Con".

[Scarlett]

don't get this at all. Not at all. Her flaws aren't noble? Since when does anyone have noble flaws?
Absolutely. Jack is the perfect example of someone whose flaws are noble. Jack's major weakness is the inability to let others suffer, which sometimes he takes to the extreme, which manifests itself as bossy behavior. We've seen since "White Rabbit" that Jack's been motivated his entire life by a desire to help others, even when he has little to work with and even when the odds are stacked against him. As I said, this has shown itself as a fault several times--when he makes decisions for other people (carrying the dynamite for Kate) or butts heads with those he disagrees with (Locke, Sayid). But this major fault is still noble in the sense that at its ROOT it's not selfish but selfless.

Ana exhibits no such traits. Her efforts to save the tailees WERE indeed "noble" in themselves, but in her day to day life shows no natural kindness toward others or even warmth. She's harsh, blunt, and cold to everyone, even a man she's trying to flirt with.

I As for her airport scenes, she was trying to flirt with Jack. Why is that a problem?:confused:
Flirting with him isn't the problem, it's the way she went about it that I found highly tasteless. Walking up to a man at a bar, whose father you KNOW just died, and bluntly greeting him with "So what were you yelling about?" While that might be acceptable behavior to some, it's rude in my book and immediately made me look at AL in a not-so-favorable light.

Then, she proceeded to admit she was listening to his conversation with the check-in agent, overheard about his father's death, and then ASKED HIM HOW HIS FATHER DIED.

Again, completely unacceptable in my opinion. There was nothing endearing about her behavior in the airport, except her remark that "the worst part is over" which at least showed some sort of compassion, albeit in a flippant way. Maybe she was trying to disarm Jack with her bluntness, but to me it was simply rude and uncalled for.

Are you saying that the other Lostaways' mistakes were more "noble" than Ana-Lucia's?

Generally, no, with the exception of "Jack not letting Kate join the hunting party." Jack, as the appointed leader, made an executive decision because a) the tension between him, Kate, and Sawyer was a distraction to his mission and b) he could not focus on getting Michael back while worrying about Kate's safety. I don't think that was wrong. He's the leader and he made a decision he had to make.

All the castaways have done horrible, cruel things. I can't and won't condone Charlie's attack on Sun or Sayid's jump to torture. My claim was never that all the castaways' flaws and mistakes were "noble." Just that many of them are good to a fault--Kate wanting to help so badly that she puts herself and the hunting party in danger, Charlie killing Ethan to protect Claire, Jin leaving his wife to make a rescue attempt. Those were all "crimes/sins" but with noble motives. Ana Lucia has shown no nobility, except her desire to protect the children, which I respect.

In everything she did "for" the tailees, she showed no consideration or compassion after the first day. No making sure they were holding up OK, taking interest in their personal lives, etc. No humanity--just the constant scowl and the tough-talking.

None of the castaways is perfect, and my favorites (Jack, Kate, Charlie) have all made atrocious errors. But most of the characters have more good qualities than bad--even Charlie, whose attack on Sun disgusted me and lowered him infinitely in my eyes--still has more good in him than bad. He's shown kindness and compassion more times than he's shown "evil." hell, Libby has! Eko has. Bernard has. DESMOND has.

AL has shown a few seconds of compassion in a string of harsh, abrasive behavior. Not nearly enough to make up for or even balance her many, many faults.

[Nokoolaidforme]

Lol, now i like Ana Lucia. But this quote had to be posted here.

Ana-Lucia comes running up, and demands to know where Jack is. She's pretty pushy with the guy whose soul mate she Cheneyed not all that long ago. - TWOP

Made me laugh.

[ActionAimz]

Funny to each his own -- the airport bar pick-up scene is one of my absolute favorites. The last thing Jack needed was a 'there there' from a strange woman. She threw him off guard, made him pause, got him intrigued, got him to think of something other than his own misery if only for a split second. And I think she did that with intent. She came and left and Jack went from brooding to laughing and smiling. He was at first put off, but in the end he was intrigued. Is that something to do in everyday world of social ettiquette, maybe not, but makes for good fiction, because I certainly didn't want to see her coddle him in the name of good taste -- ultra boring.

My first glimpse of Ana in that bar scene pulled me in, and I was like damn that girl rocks. Ana is not a character that everyone is going to relate to because she is so brazen and yes rude, but she doesn't know that, because in her world it's the norm. She is a product of her environment. She evokes strong male influences, probably because she is in a male dominated profession, and had learned to 'talk the talk' But I think there alot of women out there who wish they could have her kind of nerve, and just approach a guy like that, be able to pull it together enough after a plane crash to pull bodies out of the water and deliver CPR to several scared and frantic people, and to weed out a mole. She cared deeply about what was happening to her flightmates.

I was initially turned off by Lost because of all the pretty girls, who just didn't seem real to me. I can not relate to any of Kate's flaws. To me not to far under the surface, lies a very manipulative and selfish woman who lies like it's second nature , and would turn on anyone to get what she wants, including manipulate Sun to poison her own husband. I don't care if she or anyone else walks around with noble sunshine and smiles and politeness. Doesn' make them any more or less noble than anyone else. Lost characters are way more complex than that.

With Ana what you see is what you get. No eyelash batting or toying with emotioins needed. And I really don't care if she is or isn't the epitome of virtue and everything righeous. Not a single character is. Lost creators have done an excellent job showing us that nothing is ever black andwhite. I do think she cares about people over power or self fulfillment. That is what sets her apart from Sawyer or Locke. Her tactics were at times of the 'tough love' variety but when people are getting taken left and right on a strange island there isn't much time for pretty please.

[Razor]

I have always liked the bar scene with Ana and Jack as well. I appreciate people who are open and straight forward - it seems Jack does as well.;)

I've often wondered if those fans (mostly Jack fanatics) who took umbrage at Ana's "behavior" at the airport aren't, in fact, transferring onto Ana their disappointment in Jack's not having been offended? The same with the "are you hitting that?" scene. Jack isn't put off - and isn't that the key to communication? ... knowing your target audience? Ana seems to have read him pretty well.

[ActionAimz]

I have always liked the bar scene with Ana and Jack as well. I appreciate people who are open and straight forward - it seems Jack does as well.;)

I've often wondered if those fans (mostly Jack fanatics) who took umbrage at Ana's "behavior" at the airport aren't, in fact, transferring onto Ana their disappointment in Jack's not having been offended? The same with the "are you hitting that?" scene. Jack isn't put off - and isn't that the key to communication? ... knowing your target audience? Ana seems to have read him pretty well.

So true the bottom line is that Jack WAS NOT offended. Iff Ana's approach had, say, hurt his feelings, or sent him spiriling down into more dispair, then I can see bashing her. But in fact it draws him and intrigues him, because she is such a straight shooter and he appreciates that about her. what I see Jack not toleratinng is being lied to or manipulated, even if it's done politely

[juniper]

I'm not a Jack fan, so please don't base my opinions what he thinks. I couldn't care less if he wasn't offended; I don't think the ends justify the means. I appreciate people being straightforward and open rather than lying and manipulative as well. That said, I'm guessing my face registered my disgust the minute she said it; she struck me as incredibly rude, period. Personally, I don't see Jack's character as being too consistent as far as Ana is concerned; but I've heard the same of Sayid and Shannon's characters when together, which I didn't find incongruous (go figure), so it may well be just my imagination.

[ActionAimz]

Rude is highly subjective and is cultural thing. It's not a matter of inappropriate means to an end, because not a single person was hurt by Ana's approach. It was a flirtation and Jack played along willingly. If you use the bar scene as an example of Ana's rude tendencies, then you have to consider Jack's reaction. He wasn't offended so he either didn't think she was rude, or he didn't care.

Jack has been pretty consistent to me within the context of his character. Is he always warm and friendly with her, no? But for one, that is Jack's personality with everyone on the island. He can display irritation and mistrust on a dime, especially recently. Two, we have only seen brief glimpses of them together. The thing that has been consistent is that Jack seeks her out for company and support, so he obviously likes and respects her on some level.

Shannon and Sayid were also an unlikely couple. I wondered what Sayid could possibly see in Shannon for many reasons. But it was interesting that he did see something in her that attracted him and intrigued him. Her brattiness challenged him on some level and she was equally challenged by Sayid, who treated her differently than other men in her life. It's those kinds of connections, something that just sparks the unfamiliar, that bring people together in a very interesting unpredictable ways.

[Razor]

I appreciate people being straightforward and open rather than lying and manipulative as well. That said, I'm guessing my face registered my disgust the minute she said it; she struck me as incredibly rude, period.

Now I'm curious ... if you truly appreciate people being straightforward and open, why did you find it disgusting or rude? I honestly didn't think her comment "So your dad died, huh?" was all that intrusive - given that Jack had already been shouting loud enough for everyone in the terminal to know about it. If he didn't want her to continue along that vein - I'm sure Jack would have told her so.

I actually found her "ring/married" comment to be more forward - but, once again, that's not necesarily a negative either. Apparently Jack didn't think so, because he proceeded to buy her a drink and ask her her name. Would Jack fans and/or anti-Lucia fans have been lambasting Ana if she had been so forward as to have bought him a drink? My guess is "yes".

Personally, I've only known two people (one male & one female) who were that open/direct, and I have to say I prefer dealing with them by a large margin. I'd rather know exactly where I stand than try to translate meanings from those who tip-toe around subjects by either leaving hints, inferences, or confusing their message with politeness.

[ActionAimz]

LOL, Jack did let the entire check-in line know that he wanted to carry his father's corpse home. Most people wouldn't have come within ten feet of him after that outburst. What was really funny is that when Jack answered her question about his father with "I thought you didn't hear what I was yelling about," she said she was being polite. LOL. In her mind she was. So to me it's not as if she doesn't care, that's just the way she communicates. And I think we have seen that Jack has gotten hurt by confusing messages under the guise of 'politeness' with his ex wife and with Kate. I think he appreciates someone for once being straight with him. He also doesn't like anyone to beat around the bush when they want something. Hurley does that and he always cuts him off and asks him what he wants with a tone of impatient irritation. I think that is a male tendency to want straight talk over flowerly innuendos, so Ana "knew her audience".

The ring comment was forward, but not rude, just brave IMO. We all look to the ring finger to see what's there when attracted to someone. She just verbalized it, and you can see her hesitate and fidget with her hands, because she knows she is taking a risk in being that forward with him. At least she asked. LOL. She took the risk and he bought her a drink. Good for her!

[Razor]

I think that is a male tendency to want straight talk over flowerly innuendos, so Ana "knew her audience". !Guilty here!:o :D

The ring comment was forward, but not rude, just brave IMO. We all look to the ring finger to see what's there when attracted to someone. She just verbalized it, and you can see her hesitate and fidget with her hands, because she knows she is taking a risk in being that forward with him. At least she asked. LOL. She took the risk and he bought her a drink. Good for her! :banana:
If not for the crash ... I feel pretty confident Jack would have needed to use the rear LAV as an excuse to visit/chat-up Ana in 42F. I think most guys would have been curious enough from that brief initial conversation to "pursue" another encounter. I know I would have.;)

[juniper]

Razor,

Simple, hon. IMO I consider myself to be quite straightforward and open...but not inconsiderate. Before I married, I'd approach a guy if I was interested and if he welcomed it (BTW, I recommend it, because you'll meet vastly more interesting guys that way and can weed out scum faster); but if I'd seen a guy with a casket, I wouldn't waltz up to ask how his dad died, whether I'm curious or not. I'd put sensitivity before curiosity. I think some people genuinely don't like talking about family deaths with strangers. That's my personal opinion, and I'm telling you now, so why on earth would I do that to someone myself?

Sorry, but like I said, it's just a personal preference. Her behavior brings thuggish and juvenile behavior to my mind. I remember being in a McDonalds with my (then) four-year-old and she pointed to the man in front of us and asked loudly what was wrong with his face. :rolleyes: You can guess I wasn't dazzled, but I forgive my honey for being young (and mine), yet I don't condone rudeness in adults. Sure, it's a judgement call, but you just have to make it some days. I don't believe it confuses my messages when I'm polite. I hope not.

Deja vu. I've been away, but where did the rest of our thread go, hon? Did we lose it due to the recent hacking?

[Razor]

Yes, it appears the back end of our banter was culled (hackergate).;) Oh well, no real loss - it's highly likely that we were the only ones being entertained by our parrying.:D

You're right in that it is a matter of opinion as to what is considered rude or inconsiderate. Death is a taboo subject for some (many?). I would probably be agreeing with you if the topic hadn't been bridged by Jack's behavior at the airport - which was how she struck up the conversation in the first place, asking about his problem/yelling. Because of that, I didn't find her question any more invasive or inconsiderate than if Jack had offered up the information (as to why he was in Australia) and she had countered with "What happened?" "Inconsiderate" for many, would be not asking once the topic had been broached.

[ActionAimz]

Guilty here!:o :D

:banana:
If not for the crash ... I feel pretty confident Jack would have needed to use the rear LAV as an excuse to visit/chat-up Ana in 42F. I think most guys would have been curious enough from that brief initial conversation to "pursue" another encounter. I know I would have.;)

LOL so are you a guy and you are saying that's true about the straight talk. Good to know then. Ana is my idol!!!As a cop she hangs around guys all day, and so didn't her mother. She would know what works!!!



Yup yup that flash of recognition after Eko said "Ana Lucia made a mistake" was priceless. He said Ana-Lucia? to himself with a bit of a smile then gave up his need to bring weapons to the scene. Not to mention the fact that he did seek her out at the beach with a tiny bottle of tequila, and they have been quite comfortable with each other ever since. Matt Fox has some interesting comments about that in his GQ interview, of loving that whole set up. Something along the lines where there was a bar flirtation, a plane crashed, and he hears her name and says to himself. "is that the same girl, I wonder if it is?" in anticipation of seeing her again. Then they meet up after she has just killed Shannon and the looks between them are so tragic. He loved that.

"Inconsiderate" for many, would be not asking once the topic had been broached.

I agree, she couldn't ignore the elephant in the room that Jack's father just died and he had a public outburst directly related to it moments before. She tried to approach it delicately by asking him what he was yelling about. Then she just came straight out and asked him what she already knew. I have to admit, I was surprised that she didn't say "sorry to hear that", because I would have being a girl and all : lol :, but would it have really mattered one way or the other. Jack was clearly hurting and she got him to feel a bit better by just doing something unexpected -- not empowering him to wallow in his grief.

[Fish1941]

The interesting thing about both Ana-Lucia and Kate is while one is usually upfront and blunt and the other tends to be a bit manipulative at times, both women have shown that they are capable of being the opposite.

Goodwin's death in "Collision" told us that Ana-Lucia is quite capable of being manipulative, when circumstances call for it. Which is how she was able to catch him offguard.

And Kate, especially in her interactions with Sawyer, has proven to be quite blunt on several occasions. She has even been blunt with Jack, especially in regard to the incident regarding Sayid's torture of Sawyer.

I have stated this on another thread, but I think that Ana-Lucia and Kate's contradicting natures could combine to create quite a team. It would be interesting to see if they will eventually become friends.


Absolutely. Jack is the perfect example of someone whose flaws are noble. Jack's major weakness is the inability to let others suffer, which sometimes he takes to the extreme, which manifests itself as bossy behavior.

Jack's inability to allow others suffer doesn't really come from any nobility on his part. I think he simply has this need to "fix" situations and other people.

[Scarlett]

Jack's inability to allow others suffer doesn't really come from any nobility on his part. I think he simply has this need to "fix" situations and other people.
Again, we can argue chicken or the egg. I've suggested that Ana Lucia was so devoted to helping the children largely because of her own miscarriage, and I was accused of refusing to see what was "actually" going on. So I certainly disagree that Jack's motives aren't primarily altruistic, but fine, yours is a valid statement.

Point is, we can read motives into any action, on Lost or in real life. We'll never really know, we just have to fill in the gaps on screen with our own reason and experience, which is always linked to bias.

That's why, although I think this thread is a great idea and I'm glad it helps keep AL fans out of the discontent threads, not much will be accomplished because we're all so stubborn in our opinions and are coming from such different positions.

Leigh, by far the most vocal Ana Lucia fan, has admitted faults in her character, and I've admitted strengths. But regardless of these minor concessions, our general points of view are unlikely to change.

Still nice to have some dialogue between the two "sides," tho...most of the time. :)

[Fish1941]

I do have to make one last comment.

When expressing any negative aspects of Ana-Lucia, most people tend to use the shooting of Shannon as a reason why they either dislike Ana, or as an example of her flaws. As far as I'm concerned, Shannon's death was an accident. And considering the circumstances that led to her death, I feel that any one of the Tailies or the Rafters could have made the same mistake if any of them had the gun.

But if there is a reason to criticize Ana-Lucia, I think it should be for the murder of Jason McCormack. What she had done to him was inexcusable. Yet, people complain more about Shannon's accidental death, than his murder. And I find that odd.

[Gage]

I do have to make one last comment.

When expressing any negative aspects of Ana-Lucia, most people tend to use the shooting of Shannon as a reason why they either dislike Ana, or as an example of her flaws. As far as I'm concerned, Shannon's death was an accident. And considering the circumstances that led to her death, I feel that any one of the Tailies or the Rafters could have made the same mistake if any of them had the gun.

But if there is a reason to criticize Ana-Lucia, I think it should be for the murder of Jason McCormack. What she had done to him was inexcusable. Yet, people complain more about Shannon's accidental death, than his murder. And I find that odd.

I agree, no one has ever really brought up his name, I do find that odd. I would think all the Ana haters would have brought up every thing bad she has did but as long as it isn't some main charecter she's did anything to they don't care & just ignore it. I think its because they don't have to get over his death to & they didn't know him. Ana did murder him on purpose but Shannon was an accident. People need to get over Shannon's death, it was an accident. What would people be saying if it was Sawyer who shot Shannon. "It was a accident, he thought it was an other." People would excuse him & anyone else from the island. The tallies were new but I think if it was Libby, Eko or anyone else they would have forgiven them by now but Ana is tough, mean, there for she is to suspicious, they can't except that she is just that way. Ana is not an other & killing Shannon was an acciedent. Its about time people relized it was a acciedent.

[Little_Mai]

I reckon Ana is awesome. Shes just trying to make a living on the island. Plus she shows somuch girl power! Lol. Shes like, a stronger version of kate really. Both bad girls.

[juniper]

Gage, I seem to remember there was some discussion on Jason's murder a while back, but I think it was on one of the now locked threads. I think the reason it wasn't brought up again was that most posters agreed (with varying degrees of sympathy for Ana) that it was a bad move on her part. If you wish to add anything, however, you are certainly most welcome. :)

[ActionAimz]

Hell, Sawyer killed a man in cold blood out of revenge and he wasn't even the right man. And we all know what Kate did, and her excuse for doing it was quite lame IMO -- she just couldn't face the fact that she was a part of this man she suspected was her real father, it has less to do with protecting her mother. I could see why Sawyer would have carried a grudge around with him since childhood, and although I think Ana was wrong, especially because she was a cop, I understood her drastic measures as well.

Anyway one certainly cannot single out Ana for murder.

[Leigh]

I don't know....I have a bit of an old-time mentality. If we could all take personal justice for TRULY BAD crimes (like rape, attempted murder, etc) I think we'd all be better off....so when Ana killed Jason I was like "Hell yeah!" But that's just me....I felt that was totally called for. The guy tried to kill her first, nearly succeeded, and killed her unborn child in the process, who are we as a society to then try to put her in jail....come on. But unfortunately, laws do not equal/enforce what is morally right in most cases, at least that's MY opinion.

But on a superficial note...her killing Jason, debates aside....was totally badass since it was fiction. It was such a Tarentino-esque thing to do for her to empty her clip into him after he's ALREADY DEAD....and for a chick to do it on primetime television....man, that is SO kick ass. :D

[Gage]

I was routing for Ana when she killed Jason to, he deserved it. I was just wondering why everyone was talking about her killing shannon, an accident & not about her killing Jason, which she did on purpose. Sawyer & Ana killed out of revenge. Kate killed out of selfish anger, she didn't do it for her mom, she could have done other things if she wanted her mom & her away from him, instead of chosing to kill him as her first plan, he didn't kill anyone to make her kill him. Ana had good reason to kill Jason in my opinion.

[Razor]

There's not much uproar about Ana murdering Jason - because he was guilty. While everyone (I would hope) agrees murder is wrong ... there's also a sense of injustice in a legal system allowing a man to live who intentionally tried to take another persons life and succeeded in killing their child. People can relate to an "eye-for-an-eye" system as being "fair" - even more so when it allows the victim to exact that fair revenge on their assailant.

That's where Kate, Sawyer, and even Sayid fall short.

Kate killed a man whose crime (that viewers know of) was being a loser and sharing the same gene pool. A death sentence doesn't seem "fair".

Sawyer killed an innocent man as well - BUT, even if it had been the right guy ... he was just a thief. James Ford's father was the murderer and his mother an adulterer/thief. Perhaps it's just me, but I have difficulty imagining Mr. Ford committing the murder/suicide over the money. The cheating/betrayal "crime" seems the much more likely candidate and that.

Sayid killed an innocent man (his superior officer) to protect Nadia (an enemy of the ruling Govt.) and her principles. Sayid is a traitor to his country. While Kate and Sawyer's offenses (Ana's as well) would land them in jail, Sayid would be executed.

In order to even out the playing field with "unjust" killings - the writer's would need to tell me that Jason had an identical twin and that Ana had killed the wrong one....
;):cool:

[Fish1941]

What would people be saying if it was Sawyer who shot Shannon. "It was a accident, he thought it was an other." People would excuse him & anyone else from the island.

People are already making excuses for Sawyer's latest con job.

And I see that some are making excuses for Ana's murder of Jason, Sawyer's murder of that Frank guy in Australia, Charlie's murder of Ethan and some are making excuses of Kate's murder of Wayne.

All of these crimes are unexcusable. Not one character really have excuse. And I don't think that revenge is a good one. I think we need to accept that these characters had committed major crimes. And we can only hope that they will learn to face their crimes, just as Eko has learned to face his.

[Razor]

People are already making excuses for Sawyer's latest con job.

And I see that some are making excuses for Ana's murder of Jason, Sawyer's murder of that Frank guy in Australia, Charlie's murder of Ethan and some are making excuses of Kate's murder of Wayne.

All of these crimes are unexcusable. Not one character really have excuse. And I don't think that revenge is a good one. I think we need to accept that these characters had committed major crimes. And we can only hope that they will learn to face their crimes, just as Eko has learned to face his.

I don't think anyone (at least that I've read) is saying that their crimes were "excusable" - just understandable. How many parents do you suppose would not pull the trigger on a person who they watched intentionally shoot their child? I know I wouldn't hesitate to empty the clip. That doesn't make it right in the eyes of the society or excuse what I would do - but I think it's easily understandable.

What makes you so sure none of them have faced their crimes? Because they haven't become religious like Eko?:rolleyes: That doesn't make sense. I think Sayid and Ana, based on their conversations, are fully cognizant of the depth/seriousness of their "crimes".

[ActionAimz]

What makes you so sure none of them have faced their crimes? Because they haven't become religious like Eko?:rolleyes: That doesn't make sense. I think Sayid and Ana, based on their conversations, are fully cognizant of the depth/seriousness of their "crimes".

I am wondering the same. How is Eko impressonating a priest facing his crimes?He basically is embodying his brother. But he is Catholic so if he confesses in effect he is forgiven :D . Maybe Ana is Catholic too, but aside from that we don't know why Ana is no longer a cop, or why she was in Australia -- lot of unanswered questions with her.

[Leigh]

People can relate to an "eye-for-an-eye" system as being "fair" - even more so when it allows the victim to exact that fair revenge on their assailant.

That's where Kate, Sawyer, and even Sayid fall short.

I totally agree....their murders were for different, less "excusable" reasons. None of these peoples' victims intentionally tried to kill or physically destroy them but rather ruin their life through selfish actions. Jason intentionally shot Ana FOUR times....he wanted her ass dead and he killed her baby as a result....had they not gone through her vest and she had shot him back then and there it would have been totally ok to everyone....just b/c she waited to do it till she could physcially do it doesn't change it for me....to me, it's the same thing....in a way....it's just sort of "delayed" self-defense/defense of others (her baby). Just b/c the timing was a few month later doesn't change that to me.

Besides, my issue with Kate too was the fact that she was cowardly about it. Two things would have made me root for Kate in killing Wayne....1. Knowing that he abused her as well either physically or sexually. 2. Her killing him face to face. No, instead she took the easy route....she started a fire and walked away. That's it....Ana at least looked her predator in the eyes when she ended his life. That's ballsy, and totally cool. Kate I understand though...to be honest, I have total understanding about Kate and the need to defend/protect her mother....I went through a strikingly similar situation myself growing up with a sadistic mother f-er of a father who was a gambling addict, a mentally and physically abusive loser to myself and my brother, and physically abusive to my mother....I've been pushed to the point of feeling capable of doing bad things to protect her, so realistically I totally understand and agree with what she did, just like I do with Ana. It's just that since it IS fictional and I know more about the Kate character than just that one scene, I find her cowardly for her actions over ALL of it, not just that moment....besides, she couldn't even watch him die or look him in the eyes as she killed him. So really, he still won....she didn't really kill him, she just set a fire....and for that he still haunts her. Ana looked Jason in the eyes when she took the life from him. He's gone and she did it and she knows it and even though a part of her died with him....at least it's done and she faced it. Just my two cents.

[Fish1941]

I am wondering the same. How is Eko impressonating a priest facing his crimes?He basically is embodying his brother. But he is Catholic so if he confesses in effect he is forgiven :D . Maybe Ana is Catholic too, but aside from that we don't know why Ana is no longer a cop, or why she was in Australia -- lot of unanswered questions with her.


I view Eko's encounter with the black smoke as a hint that he has learned to face his crimes, not him "becoming" a priest.

What makes you so sure none of them have faced their crimes? Because they haven't become religious like Eko?

No, I don't think they will have to become religious.

People can relate to an "eye-for-an-eye" system as being "fair" - even more so when it allows the victim to exact that fair revenge on their assailant.

There are some interesting quotes about revenge -

"Revenge is always the weak pleasure of a little and narrow mind." - Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenal)

"Revenge is sweeter than life itself. So think fools." - Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenal)

"That old law about "an eye for an eye" leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"Revenge, at first though sweet, Bitter ere long back on itself recoils." - John Milton

"Revenge is the naked idol of the worship of a semi-barbarous age." - Percy Bysshe Shelley

"Something of vengeance I had tasted for the first time; as aromatic wine it seemed, on swallowing, warm and racy: its after-flavor, metallic and corroding, gave me a sensation as if I had been poisoned." - Charlotte Bronte


I don't think that shooting Jason out of revenge for her unborn child had left a sweet taste in Ana-Lucia's mouth. Her shooting of Shannon had merely brought back some unplesant memories of Jason's murder. And if she still believed that she had been justified in killing him, don't you think that she would have told Sayid that she had killed him in "Collision"?

As for Sawyer, his desire for revenge merely led him to murdering the wrong man.

[Razor]

There are some interesting quotes about revenge -

"Revenge is always the weak pleasure of a little and narrow mind." - Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenal)

"Revenge is sweeter than life itself. So think fools." - Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenal)

"That old law about "an eye for an eye" leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"Revenge, at first though sweet, Bitter ere long back on itself recoils." - John Milton

"Revenge is the naked idol of the worship of a semi-barbarous age." - Percy Bysshe Shelley

"Something of vengeance I had tasted for the first time; as aromatic wine it seemed, on swallowing, warm and racy: its after-flavor, metallic and corroding, gave me a sensation as if I had been poisoned." - Charlotte Bronte
Thanks for all the nifty quotes but what do they prove?:confused: Am I now obligated to go on a quote hunt to support the belief that many people view an eye-for-an-eye justice system as equitable? I'm fairly certain I could find them.:cool:


I don't think that shooting Jason out of revenge for her unborn child had left a sweet taste in Ana-Lucia's mouth. Her shooting of Shannon had merely brought back some unplesant memories of Jason's murder. And if she still believed that she had been justified in killing him, don't you think that she would have told Sayid that she had killed him in "Collision"?I wouldn't expect it to leave a sweet taste in her (or any other "normal" persons) mouth - but, I see no evidence of guilt or unpleasantness that you refer to ... at least up until the point of walking over to his lifeless body and emptying the rest of her clip into him. The remorse/unpleasantness that I see within her character (in the later scene with Sayid) was of memories of her lost child.

Tell Sayid? No. Why would she? Who offers up that kind of information? It's not only personal but incriminating. It might have made for nice TV - but I wouldn't have found it very realistic.


As for Sawyer, his desire for revenge merely led him to murdering the wrong man. Sorry, but I don't see a relevant parrallel there. His desire was misguided/blind and the revenge unfair for the crime committed.

[Fish1941]

but, I see no evidence of guilt or unpleasantness that you refer to ... at least up until the point of walking over to his lifeless body and emptying the rest of her clip into him.

If Ana-Lucia still does not feel any guilt or remorse over her murder of Jason, then at the moment, she is lost.


Sorry, but I don't see a relevant parrallel there. His desire was misguided/blind and the revenge unfair for the crime committed.

What do you mean?

[Razor]

If Ana-Lucia still does not feel any guilt or remorse over her murder of Jason, then at the moment, she is lost.Lost? How? *sniff* *sniff* I think I smell something..? :rolleyes::D That sounds an awful lot like you're painting mankind with your personal beliefs. If one believes in their heart/mind that justice was served, they would not necessarily feel guilt or remorse over the taking of another person's life - although I suppose that would not preclude some remorse over having to be the one to do it. Executioners probably need to be wired that way - which is not something I'm going to judge either. That discussion would probably be better suited to the death penalty thread. I think it's pretty obvious that not everyone agrees on the topic, and that some are better suited to deal with it. I don't believe it makes them sub-human or super-human - just different in their ability to come to terms with it.


What do you mean?Sawyer doesn't even know what the real Mr. Sawyer looked like. Who do you suppose told James Ford all the particulars of what happened and why it happened to his parents? Could they have been trying to lessen the pain by transferring some of the guilt away from his father & mother? I'm not saying that happened for sure, but it seems awfully fishy that Sawyer would be this hell-bent twenty plus years later. Besides, he's not taking a direct "eye-for-an-eye" revenge. The real Mr Sawyer never killed anyone (that we know of).

[Grhmlz]

And I see that some are making excuses for Ana's murder of Jason.....

All of these crimes are unexcusable. Not one character really have excuse. And I don't think that revenge is a good one. I think we need to accept that these characters had committed major crimes. And we can only hope that they will learn to face their crimes, just as Eko has learned to face his.

Well, first i would just like to point out if i may, that each scenerio has to be evaluted according to the facts that pertain to each individual situation. Therefore, I don't think it would be fair to clump all the characters misdeeds into one big compartment declaring "unexcusable." Whether it wants to be acknowledged or not, it's not black and white because motivations and intent need to be analyzed.

Now, personally, did i condone Ana killing Jason? No! However, i most certainly refuse to hold her "crime/act" in the same regards as Jason. Why? Because motivation and the type of "criminal" intent make a difference in his resulting death. If Jason had succeeded in "killing" Ana, his criminal intent is not in any shape or form based off of revenge. He shot to kill with no rythme or reason so he could flee. It's malicious! And while "revenge killing" comes off as premediated and malicious, it is accompanied by rythme and reason.

So, we come to the big question. Is Ana's crime "excusable"? Well, that depends on what moral standards the argument is being based upon. I argue that Ana's crime can stand as "excusable" merely because "excusable" can be defined as either "pardoning or forgiving" or "justifying." Now, if we base Ana's actions on your reasoning which is that any type of revenge killing is "morally wrong", the assumption is that one is normally subscribing to the belief that a higher power is only deemed worthy of taking away one's life. A fellow human being, like Ana, would not fit into that category. This "higher power" philosophy is usually derived from a "higher moral foundation" that also subscribes to the idea of "forgiveness" and "non-judgement." Therefore, if Ana had sincerely expressed a need to be forgiven, by all rights she would be entitled to that based on this particular moral code. This, in turn, makes her "act" excusable even if the "crime" is deemed morally wrong it does not automatically condemn her to damnation.

That is one side of the argument. Let's take the second side of the argument which could define Ana's crime as "justifiable." The "Eye for an eye, Tooth for a tooth" philosophy dates back to Old Testament biblical scripture. By all means, this was encripted as moral code and it was deemed morally lawful even by a "God." Ana's act fits into this because Jason's intent was to shoot her and take her life. She may not have died but the intent was there and her baby died. Therefore, by this standard, she would have been acting "morally just" by inflicting the same deed onto the man that initiated an unlawful act against her. This would make it "justifiable" and thereby "excusable."

In conclusion, whether we choose to condone Ana's actions or not based on two opposing moral codes of conduct, the fact remains that in either direction Ana's actions can be both excused and understood. It's important to remember that "legally wrongful" does not always equate to "morally wrongful." Ana may or may not have committed a crime in the eyes of the "law" but not necessarily in the eyes of a "higher power" depending on which moral standards you apply!!!

LOL Sorry, didn't mean to make the argument get that deep!!!! :D

[InspiredByFaith]

I don't know what to think of Ana Lucia. In her first scene with Jack in the airport, she was a bit rude and that annoyed me, but at the sime time she looked very interesting and I was glad that she would be a regular in season 2. But then she kept hitting Sawyer around (Seriously, DON'T HIT HIM if you want me to like you :p ) and I kind of wanted to strangle her. :rolleyes:

In the Tailies episode I slowly started to become interested in her again, seeing under what pressure she's been. But I didn't like 'Collision'. Though I completely understand why she killed Jason! Maybe there's no excuse for it, but he killed her baby! He shot her 4 times! Maybe revenge isn't the most beautiful thing, but that guy deserved to die. IMO atleast.

And now in the season... She has some funny quotes, sometimes she's still very rude and she definitely needs some new clothes. I like her scenes with Jack since she isn't the type to let him surpress her and Jack can be a bit bossy. I don't like their army idea - BAD idea IMO. So everything depends on her... I'm still undecided about her. Maybe another flashback episode would help, but on the other hand I don't like it that the Tailies are taking flashbacks while I want to know so much more about Kate, Sawyer, Locke, and most of the others from season 1.

[juniper]

A "moral" law does not mean you believe that some external higher power should determine right or wrong. Actually, it assumes that there is something inherently within us as humans which would make us capable of determining right and wrong without written laws or religion. You needn't even believe in the existence of a higher power to subscribe to moral law. Also, impersonating a priest or simply walking into a confession box does not make all right according to Catholic doctrine either, by the way, a fact of which I'd assume Eko is aware being that he's impersonating a Catholic priest.

I agree with Fish on this one. Understanding the desire to kill someone does not make it inherently right, and far from excuses it, Grhmlz. The fact that the world is not black and white or good versus evil (in my opinion) is why we need laws and civilized society in the first place. We aren't to follow them when it's convenient to us personally, or because one thing was "truly bad" in our own opinion. If laws are imperfect, which they are, we take issue with them and improve them, even if that takes too long to yield any result to us personally. As a cop, I would have hoped that they meant something to her. She simply wanted to take revenge and see him dead, and so she killed him without hesitation. That would have been infinitely easier than having to face him in court and put justice in the hands of the law and people to whom he had done no wrong personally. She didn't consider him as another human any more than he did her, which I personally think makes her as pathetic and "truly bad" as the rest of them. She lowered herself to that level in my opinion. I don't even think it's "badass" to kill a person "for revenge" and not bat an eye in the realm of fiction, Leigh. I know there are people like that, and I'm not a fan of theirs either. The fact that this show goes further than any other I've seen to break stereotypical thinking and establish that we aren't good or bad, but complex, makes it much worse. I think that's another reason why this character is so loathed and considered unredeemable by so many.

[Fish1941]

A "moral" law does not mean you believe that some external higher power should determine right or wrong. Actually, it assumes that there is something inherently within us as humans which would make us capable of determining right and wrong without written laws or religion. You needn't even believe in the existence of a higher power to subscribe to moral law. Also, impersonating a priest or simply walking into a confession box does not make all right according to Catholic doctrine either, by the way, a fact of which I'd assume Eko is aware being that he's impersonating a Catholic priest.

I agree with Fish on this one. Understanding the desire to kill someone does not make it inherently right, and far from excuses it, Grhmlz. The fact that the world is not black and white or good versus evil (in my opinion) is why we need laws and civilized society in the first place. We aren't to follow them when it's convenient to us personally, or because one thing was "truly bad" in our own opinion. If laws are imperfect, which they are, we take issue with them and improve them, even if that takes too long to yield any result to us personally. As a cop, I would have hoped that they meant something to her. She simply wanted to take revenge and see him dead, and so she killed him without hesitation. That would have been infinitely easier than having to face him in court and put justice in the hands of the law and people to whom he had done no wrong personally. She didn't consider him as another human any more than he did her, which I personally think makes her as pathetic and "truly bad" as the rest of them. She lowered herself to that level in my opinion. I don't even think it's "badass" to kill a person "for revenge" and not bat an eye in the realm of fiction, Leigh. I know there are people like that, and I'm not a fan of theirs either. The fact that this show goes further than any other I've seen to break stereotypical thinking and establish that we aren't good or bad, but complex, makes it much worse. I think that's another reason why this character is so loathed and considered unredeemable by so many.



Juniper said it better than I ever could.

Don't get me wrong - Ana-Lucia is one of my favorite characters. But just because I like her very much and understand the reasoning behind her actions, doesn't mean that I'm going to automatically condone everything she does. As much as I like Ana-Lucia, I have to admit that I found her murder of Jason very disturbing. I agree with Juniper that Ana-Lucia had lowered herself to Jason's level when she murdered him. It did not seem like justice to me - just revenge. For me, it ties to a few of the quotes about revenge I had earlier posted . . . especially:

"Something of vengeance I had tasted for the first time; as aromatic wine it seemed, on swallowing, warm and racy: its after-flavor, metallic and corroding, gave me a sensation as if I had been poisoned." - Charlotte Bronte

[Grhmlz]

A "moral" law does not mean you believe that some external higher power should determine right or wrong. Actually, it assumes that there is something inherently within us as humans which would make us capable of determining right and wrong without written laws or religion.

Actually, i happen to respectfully disagree. Morals are the distinction between right and wrong because we assume we have something inherently within us to determine which is which! However, how do we know who's "inherent" distinctions are the right ones and who's are the wrong ones if we just leave it at that? We are then, in essence, declaring some peoples of a given society as "gods" because they get to enforce their moral convictions while we condemn others for their inherent moral convictions because they differ! If there is no "universal or divine" connection, then we are just left with a bunch of "inherent encodings" that may differ from human being to human being. How do we get anywhere with that?


You needn't even believe in the existence of a higher power to subscribe to moral law.

Then where does you're basis for comparison lie for determining what is Moral and what is not? A "moral foundation" is built upon a "higher reasoning" otherwise the point of deferentiating between right and wrong becomes mute. We would be left with "moral relativism" without a higher reasoning power in which the lines between "right and wrong" become blurred and interchangeable!

Therefore, your argument would in fact help to support an argument in favor of Ana's actions because her "inherent moral encodings" just may differ from yours. So, if she believes she is morally in the right for enacting revenge; how is the "inherent encoding" from your reasoning anymore superior to this character's if you choose to acknowledge there is no need for a higher/divine power to decide that?

Also, impersonating a priest or simply walking into a confession box does not make all right according to Catholic doctrine either, by the way, a fact of which I'd assume Eko is aware being that he's impersonating a Catholic priest.

Well, to begin with,Catholicism prescribes to the belief/absolute faith in the existence of a "higher power." Catholic Doctrine derives from "biblical scripture" which endorses "forgiveness" and "redemption" as two very important themes in Christianity! Also, i would like to point out that these are current running themes on the show.

How do we know what truely lied in Eko's heart after his brother was shot and never heard from again? Did he conform his ways in body, soul, and mind? He very well could have but this transformation would have occured between Eko and his "god" and not between Eko and society's moral judgments. Eko can very well have been forgiven his "sins" and been "redeemed" if he had a truely repentive heart! Therefore, in conclusion, i don't think it is fair to assume that Eko is still "impersonating" a priest.

Understanding the desire to kill someone does not make it inherently right, and far from excuses it, Grhmlz.

But it doesn't necessarily make it inherently wrong either. For example, i can kill someone in self-defense and not be held morally accountable because of the intent behind it? That is what i am trying to point out. Who's moral foundation gets to reign as the supreme truth? Yours? Mine? The Character of Ana's? The Eye For An Eye standard is a valid example that at one time a functioning society believed "revenge" to be morally just!!! Were they wrong to believe that? If so, why? Why do we get to say it was wrong to follow that as "morally acceptable"?

The fact that the world is not black and white or good versus evil (in my opinion) is why we need laws and civilized society in the first place. We aren't to follow them when it's convenient to us personally, or because one thing was "truly bad" in our own opinion. If laws are imperfect, which they are, we take issue with them and improve them, even if that takes too long to yield any result to us personally.

Yes, i agree with you here. We most certainly need some form of order and maintenance of civilization to avoid anarchy and utter chaos. And if we find issue with the ways laws operate, we attempt to moderate/adjust them to make improvements.

But this just provides further ammunition for my argument that Ana may have committed a "legal" wrong but not a "moral wrong." Legal and Moral are not interchangeable words. Yes, there are times when legal laws are based off of morals but there are also times when morality has no place in the law. This is the reason that there is a constant need/challenge to the "legal" laws established because so many people are operating on varying moral degrees. That is why we have disputes!!! So, in conclusion, Ana may have been acting morally just if the character subscibed to the Eye for An Eye moral standard. Now, if the law doesn't subscibe to this moral philosophy then Ana may be merely guilty of committing a "legal" wrong and not a "moral" wrong.

As a cop, I would have hoped that they meant something to her. She simply wanted to take revenge and see him dead, and so she killed him without hesitation.

But once again i argue, this mentality can simply be based off of an "Eye For An Eye" standard which would make the act "morally just" in Ana's eyes. The fact that she is a cop doesn't erase this inherent moral encoding that may be found within this character. Yes, she broke legal laws and if caught she would have to face the consequences of it but that does not necessarily make her a "moral stain" against society.

That would have been infinitely easier than having to face him in court and put justice in the hands of the law and people to whom he had done no wrong personally.

Okay, so Ana should be morally punished by the same society that, in and of itself, reverts to a systematic "Eye For An Eye" standard through the use of Capital Punishment??? Because the last time i checked, California was not one of the states that suceeded in abolishing the death penalty. Now, i ask, how hypocritcal is that? Morality wouldn't be able to come into play here. Legality would because legally she had no right to enact the "eye for an eye" standard of justice but the state does maintain that legal right. So, once again, we are back to the scenerio that Ana committed a LEGAL wrong and not necessarily a MORAL wrong.

Also, secondly, Any "legal" crime is considered a crime against the state and not the victim. The victim is classified as a state's witness. Therefore, that would make the state willing to enact revenge because it wants him dead. So, now we have Ana and the "state" standing on top of the same moral philosophy.

She didn't consider him as another human any more than he did her, which I personally think makes her as pathetic and "truly bad" as the rest of them. She lowered herself to that level in my opinion.

How do we know she didn't consider him a human being? Are we walking around inside of Ana's head? Is it because she may not have reverted to what you and i classify as Morally acceptable? That's not good enough for me. The "Eye for An Eye" Standard has very little to do with turning someone into a "replica" of the original perpetrator. It's basis is equitable retribution for the wrongs someone inflicts upon another.

The fact that this show goes further than any other I've seen to break stereotypical thinking and establish that we aren't good or bad, but complex, makes it much worse. I think that's another reason why this character is so loathed and considered unredeemable by so many.

Well, this is why i like to step into the pattern of philosophy when analyzing characters such as Ana which is: to never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. I may not have condoned her actions in shooting Jason because i don't subscribe to the "eye for an eye" standard but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. Therefore, when i come to the conclusion that what i think she did was wrong i'm going to do it with a sense of empathy and understanding because of the circumstances. I don't feel i'm in a position to morally condemn the character of Ana.

Lastly, Of course human beings are complex creatures. Ana is a complex character and that's what makes her real. I certainly wouldn't find it realistic to watch some "Mary Sue" doing everything right all the time.

[Fish1941]

If Ana-Lucia had truly believed that she was morally right to murder Jason, why didn't she tell Sayid that she had killed him . . . despite revealing the circumstances leading up to the murder?

And why do humans go through great lengths to justify murder for revenge? Why do we do that? Does it really make us feel better that we have some kind of control over our lives . . . to that extent?

I may not have condoned her actions in shooting Jason because i don't subscribe to the "eye for an eye" standard but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

But, because it exists, does it mean that it's right?

[Grhmlz]

If Ana-Lucia had truly believed that she was morally right to murder Jason, why didn't she tell Sayid that she had killed him . . . despite revealing the circumstances leading up to the murder?

Here is my opinion on that. Ana may have believed she was acting within a moral framework at the time when she enacted the Eye for An Eye standard against Jason. However, at a later date, she may have reformed her moral outlook and felt a sense of guilt over shooting him. This is one scenerio that may be true and if it is it would play into the "forgiveness" or "redemption" theme! This would subscribe to the notion that an "Eye For An Eye" standard works against the moral fabric but a repentative mind can eventually lead to absolution of the wrongful act (Personally, this is the scenerio i see playing out).

Now, a second scenerio is that The Eye for an Eye Standard is "morally justifiable"; however, guilt is a natural human reaction in situations that involve highly emotional measures to be taken. Then, the "guilt" residue would not be linked to an immoral act that was committed but rather it would be no different than feeling guilt when killing someone in self-defense because both acts would be deemed "morally acceptable" at their core.

It's really up to the discretion of the viewer in how they choose to interpret the situation. "Guilt" is exactly what it is and whether the guilt derives from "morally justifiable" circumstances or "immoral acts" the end result is still the same. Ana, more or less, initially felt shame and was not willing at that time to express the truth to Sayid for fear of being judged or misunderstood.

And why do humans go through great lengths to justify murder for revenge? Why do we do that? Does it really make us feel better that we have some kind of control over our lives . . . to that extent?

All very good questions but very complicated questions. This is the very nature of what makes human beings so complex!

Is it based off of A fear that those who wrong us will not be held accountable for their actions, whether it be in society or in an afterlife (if you prescribe to that belief)? Hmmm....maybe!

Or on some level after digging under the harsh exterior of "revenge", is it just about wanting the person responsible to feel sorry for the pain they inflicted by making them feel your pain? I think this sounds probable.

In the end, i believe that the answers already lie within the individual and it's a matter of seeking it out through a divine guidance. Society and the legal system aside, It's just a matter of reaching that "truth" when someone is willing to open up to it. Forcing it out of people most certainly does work. It's an understanding a person has to come to terms with. I think that this may be the process that the character of Ana is experiencing! Which will be a necessary process in coming to terms with the act she committed, releasing any unresolved emotion over it, and seeking forgiveness so she can let go!!! This all leads to redemption.

But, personally, while i don't support revenge killing, i do not parallel it to a mere cold and callous attitude of "HAHA!!! I got You Back!!!" I think it goes alot deeper than that, even if it is morally wrong, which is why i have room to find empathy and compassion to at least understand the plight of what the character of Ana endured and how she reacted!!!

But, because it exists, does it mean that it's right?

This is the "million dollar question." This is where the big "moral debate" comes about who has the authority to ultimately determine whose "inherent encodings" are right and whose are wrong.

For example, if you were living in Old Testament times the answer to your question would be, "yes." A divine power, God, enabled the use of an "eye for an eye" standard as being morally justifiable and intune with Divine law. It was not uncommon for people to be stoned to death for their crimes.

Then, in the New Testament, we have this practice abolished! Therefore, is it now morally wrong to inflict an "eye for an eye" standard of justice? Well, society still definitely engages in the use of it through capital punishment. But then again, we have some U.S states that prescribe to it while others do not!

So, we are left without an absolute answer to that question except for what we conclude within ourselves. Was Ana wrong for prescribing to the to "the Eye for An Eye" standard of justice? Maybe or maybe not!!!

[juniper]

Grhmlz,
Actually, i happen to respectfully disagree. Morals are the distinction between right and wrong because we assume we have something inherently within us to determine which is which! However, how do we know who's "inherent" distinctions are the right ones and who's are the wrong ones if we just leave it at that? We are then, in essence, declaring some peoples of a given society as "gods" because they get to enforce their moral convictions while we condemn others for their inherent moral convictions because they differ! If there is no "universal or divine" connection, then we are just left with a bunch of "inherent encodings" that may differ from human being to human being. How do we get anywhere with that?....

Therefore, your argument would in fact help to support an argument in favor of Ana's actions because her "inherent moral encodings" just may differ from yours. So, if she believes she is morally in the right for enacting revenge; how is the "inherent encoding" from your reasoning anymore superior to this character's if you choose to acknowledge there is no need for a higher/divine power to decide that?

Are you respectfully implying that there is no morality in atheists, or that the fact that there are morals is evidence atheists are wrong? Actually, I do believe human beings are "encoded" differently. We all have free wills, yet we don’t generally run amok and do whatever pleases us regardless of who we hurt in the process. Most of us take those consequences into account to an extent; some would simply on the pretense that what they are doing is morally right, even despite human or religious law. How is that declaring anyone else a “god”? It seems to mean that once again, it’s pointless to discriminate entire peoples into “right and wrong” categories. I believe you're taking a religious view to equate moral rightness, which is wrong not just in my opinion, but by definition.

Um, no. My argument is that what she did was illegal and also repulsive to me for reasons I mentioned. How that works in her favor isn’t apparent to me. Others have stated that in their personal opinions what she did was morally wrong, and you know what? I agree with them, but that wasn't my argument. Besides, unless some higher power left a recording on your voice machine informing you of the rightness of various morals, I’m not sure how that would be of any more use to you in convincing someone who disagreed with you, hon. In fact, I’m fairly certain I wouldn't agree with certain posters here on what is morally right or what crimes are worse, but I don’t see that as any reason why one of us has to be “god” and the other should be disrespected and their morals deemed invalid.

Well, to begin with,Catholicism prescribes to the belief/absolute faith in the existence of a "higher power." ...Therefore, in conclusion, i don't think it is fair to assume that Eko is still "impersonating" a priest.

I know that. I was responding to a poster who mentioned Catholicism, who seemed to flippantly indicate that since Eko had impersonated a priest and confessed, that that would in essence mean he was forgiven and if so perhaps Ana could be Catholic and do the same, rather than that he truly repented. I never said anything about disagreeing with the religion or Eko’s motivation. I simply took issue with that person’s interpretation of it. Thanks, though.

Your next four lengthy paragraphs also seemed to basically concede with what I posted, that it was legally wrong; but I don't believe you noticed that.

Okay, so Ana should be morally punished by the same society that, in and of itself, reverts to a systematic "Eye For An Eye" standard through the use of Capital Punishment??? Because the last time i checked, California was not one of the states that suceeded in abolishing the death penalty. Now, i ask, how hypocritcal is that? Morality wouldn't be able to come into play here. Legality would because legally she had no right to enact the "eye for an eye" standard of justice but the state does maintain that legal right. So, once again, we are back to the scenerio that Ana committed a LEGAL wrong and not necessarily a MORAL wrong.

Again, I disputed your previous post that the belief that revenge killing is morally wrong must have anything to do with a higher power, and was thereby excuseable. I don’t have the foggiest notion when I insisted that it is morality and not legality which makes her crime inexcusable; but hey, assume away. The point is that a trial was well within Jason’s right, and she as an officer of the law was well aware of the fact, and the crime being “personal” ought to make no difference. Also, the death penalty was legally enacted because there are many who believe death is an adequate punishment or a necessity for the conviction of certain crimes, whether I agree with it or not. Now, if I were to bypass that law and commit murder myself, I don’t consider the fact that I would be apprehended for murder to be unjust or hypocritical. As I’ve stated, we can better fight laws without disregarding them completely for personal reasons.

How do we know she didn't consider him a human being? Are we walking around inside of Ana's head? Is it because she may not have reverted to what you and i classify as Morally acceptable? That's not good enough for me. The "Eye for An Eye" Standard has very little to do with turning someone into a "replica" of the original perpetrator. It's basis is equitable retribution for the wrongs someone inflicts upon another.

I don’t believe she bothered to consider for a moment that he had a life outside of his hurting her personally. He could have had a spouse, children, an entire community who knew nothing of his crime and whom he treated decently, not being inherently “evil”. He now has no fair trial, no chance for repentance or a future, and those whom he left behind cannot have their answers, and will effectively be left to suffer. What they might come to realize is that a trigger-happy “bad cop” shot him repeatedly until he died. If they thought it necessary to take revenge on her, I would empathize and understand their perspective as well, but I wouldn’t condone it and doubt I would feel any sentence was too harsh. Meanwhile, there are officers of the law and civilians who risk and sacrifice their lives in order to defend those laws and protect those rights which she went out of her way to deny him (not to mention those who aren’t granted those rights), there are loved ones of victims who sit through sentencing and trust the justice system to do its part while they do theirs and attempt to come to terms with their pain and some even manage forgiveness, and that society needs and trusts us to do just that is not a small consideration, nor is the fact that Ana's actions compromise (if not insults) all of that.

I never said anything about being a “replica” of anyone. In Lost-speak, Ana is an “Other” just as Jason was to her. It doesn’t matter if we personally know who ends up hurt by our actions, just that they do. That is why the law is important even if imperfect, not relying on “an eye for an eye” standards on what we personally consider excusable or justifiable, because five people can’t even agree on that on this message board. I don’t think she bothered to consider all this beyond her own act of revenge, no.

Well, this is why i like to step into the pattern of philosophy when analyzing characters such as Ana which is: to never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. I may not have condoned her actions in shooting Jason because i don't subscribe to the "eye for an eye" standard but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. Therefore, when i come to the conclusion that what i think she did was wrong i'm going to do it with a sense of empathy and understanding because of the circumstances. I don't feel i'm in a position to morally condemn the character of Ana.

Lastly, Of course human beings are complex creatures. Ana is a complex character and that's what makes her real. I certainly wouldn't find it realistic to watch some "Mary Sue" doing everything right all the time.

Sure humans are complex as a rule, but I find sociopaths to be relatively lacking in several complex emotions, namely empathy. I find Ana to be similar. I also believe that there exists a bit of gray area between how I perceive Ana and a “Mary Sue” doing everything right all the time, if indeed such a person exists.

Do you honestly believe that someone who takes my position just doesn’t understand where she’s coming from as well as you do? I never said I morally condemned anyone. I see no point, really. I actually understand terrorist acts that result in thousands of innocent deaths and don’t consider the perpetrators to be “evil”. I believe that they believe that they're not only justified, but doing "good". Do I condone what they’ve done or need to walk a mile in their shoes before I make my decision? No, I don’t believe so; not by a mile. It’s morally wrong according to me, wrong according to law, and according to the countless people who were forced to suffer for it. Feel free to disagree.

p.s. I’m not sure if every other sentence was intended as a strong point, but if you’d ease up on the exclamation points, I’d be greatly obliged!!!!!! ;)

[Grhmlz]

Are you respectfully implying that there is no morality in atheists, or that the fact that there are morals is evidence atheists are wrong?

Actually, i implied nothing of the sort. I supplied an objective argument regarding "morality" and whose "moral" codes should be allowed to reign supreme!

Atheism is still defined as doctrine just like any other religion is a doctrine. The difference being that most religions acknowledge the existence of a "God" while atheism does not. Any "doctrine" references back to "a higher power" whether it acknowledges a God or not because that higher power allows us to dechiper between right and wrong. Otherwise, there would be nothing left to seperate us from other animals. Just because i mentioned "higher power" does not automatically translate into me talking about a particular GOD! That would depend on whether or not i was discussing a specific doctrine.

Actually, I do believe human beings are "encoded" differently. We all have free wills, yet we don’t generally run amok and do whatever pleases us regardless of who we hurt in the process.

What a minute, we have "free will"? According to whose Doctrine?

So, you believe human beings are encoded differently? Well, how do you explain more than one person coming to the moral conclusion that "revenge killing" is wrong? Or that more than one person comes to the moral conclusion that "revenge killing" is justified? Who gets to determine which group of people carry the right morals and which group of people carry the wrong morals?

Ana didn't run amok as you put it! She was the victim of a crime that nearly left her dead and then enacted "an eye for an eye" standard of justice ONLY on the man that tried to kill her which enforces "equitable retribution." Jason on the other hand did run amok! He was the perpetrator of crime after crime and clearly did what he pleased in society as his "extensive" criminal record indicated.

Most of us take those consequences into account to an extent; some would simply on the pretense that what they are doing is morally right, even despite human or religious law. How is that declaring anyone else a “god”?

But to acknowledge that there are consequences, someone has to already prescribe to moral rightness/wrongness! Morality has to derive from somewhere (whether you acknowledge an Actual God or Just a higher reasoning innate within the person) and more or less it transforms into religious or man-made law!

How does this declare anyone a god? It does in a very abstract sense because when there are so many doctrines/philosophies that are transformed into law, we are now picking and choosing whose morals are sound at the expense of others. Then, anyone holding true to these selective moral codes than hordes it as the absolute truth over others that don't subscribe to them.

Example: Society came together and decided that a state could inact "an eye for an eye" standard of justice but an individual can not. Therefore, anyone that subscribes to this so-called truth now holds themselves morally superior to those that do not follow this code of reasoning.

See, the philosophy behind Ana merely being a cold-hearted killer would be based on a moral superiority complex because this philosophy wants to reign in black and white. In this scenerio, there is no room to dechiper the intent behind the act which intially differed from Jason's intent.

It seems to mean that once again, it’s pointless to discriminate entire peoples into “right and wrong” categories.

But that's what is being done with Ana. It's being presumed that she is either right or wrong for killing Jason based on moral judgments! So, how is it pointless?

I believe you're taking a religious view to equate moral rightness, which is wrong not just in my opinion, but by definition.

Frankly, whether i'm taking a religious view or not is irrelvant because it is a legitimate argument despite any religious position of mine or lack there of.

Morality does not define itself in terms of where it came from. Therefore, my argument is just as valid as yours! Perhaps, in your opinion it is wrong but by definition i'm protected.

Um, no. My argument is that what she did was illegal and also repulsive to me for reasons I mentioned. How that works in her favor isn’t apparent to me. Others have stated that in their personal opinions what she did was morally wrong, and you know what? I agree with them, but that wasn't my argument.

How does the argument work in her favor? Because in order to brandish someone as repulsive someone would have to be casting moral judgment upon Ana's behavior! That becomes personal opinion and not absolute truth. Therefore, the mere fact that Ana broke a "legal" law does not make her repulsive in and of itself. That is my argument.

Besides, unless some higher power left a recording on your voice machine informing you of the rightness of various morals, I’m not sure how that would be of any more use to you in convincing someone who disagreed with you, hon.

;) Hey, this debate was going so well! Why did you have to go and disappoint me and revert it into juvenile antics of cheap shot attempts at mockery! lol

But I'll humor you this once! In the chance that i subscribed to a higher power (and i guess you are referring to a God here) i think that higher power is bit more old-fashioned than that! Why direct me to a voice machine when there is good 'ole book collecting dust somewhere that left an actual "textual" recording on moral rightness? See, i wouldn't even have to convince anybody of anything they could read and judge for themselves. Think Mr. Eko would be willing to help me out in this department? :D

In fact, I’m fairly certain I wouldn't agree with certain posters here on what is morally right or what crimes are worse, but I don’t see that as any reason why one of us has to be “god” and the other should be disrespected and their morals deemed invalid.

Well, ummm... this was the whole point of my argument regarding Ana. Why should Ana's morals be deemed invalid just because we may or may not agree with what she did?

And for the record, i've already declared that i don't agree with her decision to shoot Jason but i still maintain empathy and compassion for the woman because she is a human being that believed what she was doing at the time to be right and just.

I know that. I was responding to a poster who mentioned Catholicism, who seemed to flippantly indicate that since Eko had impersonated a priest and confessed, that that would in essence mean he was forgiven and if so perhaps Ana could be Catholic and do the same, rather than that he truly repented. I never said anything about disagreeing with the religion or Eko’s motivation. I simply took issue with that person’s interpretation of it. Thanks, though.

Well, pardon me, because i didn't find your sentiments that clearly expressed in your posting regarding this portion.

Now, if i'm understanding the argument that this individual made, they are equating Eko's repentance to Ana. That Ana can also repent and be forgiven. I would absolutely agree with that if both Ana and Eko have sincerely felt repentative and sought forgiveness from their God! It is the heart and the intention behind it that matters!

Your next four lengthy paragraphs also seemed to basically concede with what I posted, that it was legally wrong; but I don't believe you noticed that.

Yes, i was conceding that it was "legally" wrong. I was taking issue with the fact that "moral" judgment was being mixed in with "legal" judgment to cast Ana as an evil cold-blooded killer by many out there. That term is a not a "legal" description for a "criminal" it is a term derived after one casts moral judgment upon another.

Again, I disputed your previous post. I don’t have the foggiest notion when I insisted that it is morality and not legality which makes her crime inexcusable; but hey, assume away.

Well, actually, i was speaking on a more general descriptive basis over the course of what i have been reading but somehow you must have taken it my whole argument has being directed at you which is why it probably didn't make much sense to you! I chose some of your postings to elaborate on what i felt would make a valid argument.

The point is that a trial was well within Jason’s right,

Agreed.......

and she as an officer of the law was well aware of the fact,

Agreed.......

and the crime being “personal” ought to make no difference.

........until we get here. The crime being "personal" ought to make no difference according to who? You? Me? To Ana?

I'm sorry but the mere fact that it became "personal" makes all the difference in the world because she is no longer the outsider. The arguement that Ana should be able to stand back objectively would be complete nonsense because it will be taken personally. This is an example of how morality and legality can clash because Ana's own moral code will enter the picture. There are emotions involved and the legal system doesn't deal in emotions.

Also, the death penalty was legally enacted because there are many who believe death is an adequate punishment or a necessity for the conviction of certain crimes, whether I agree with it or not.

Yes, that was my point that people subscribe to it.

Now, if I were to bypass that law and commit murder myself, I don’t consider the fact that I would be apprehended for murder to be unjust or hypocritical.

This is where i disagree with you. It is highly hypocritical because it is carrying a double standard. The State is acting as a governing institution that upholds laws that we are expected to abide by. How can the state turn around and go against one of its own legal standings when it comes to revenge killing? That is a hypocritical stand for the state to hold on legal grounds without submitting to moral philosophy! Therefore, had Ana died, the state could have enacted a revenge killing by sentencing Jason to die. However, if Ana committs a revenge killing, she is condemned by legal law. It is a double standard for the state to prosecute Ana for a revenge killing when it engages in the act of capital punishment based on legal debate.

Now, if i submit to moral philosophy, Ana is held accountable to the state for enacting a revenge killing but who in turn is the state accountable to? What gives them the moral right to inflict death out of revenge but someone like Ana can not when she has the same moral philosophy running through her mind? That is completely hypocritcal and a double standard as well based on moral debate.

As I’ve stated, we can better fight laws without disregarding them completely for personal reasons.

As much as i wish this were true, sadly that is not always the case. I can think of monumental historical occasions that led to physical violence in order to obtain human rights/freedoms.

I don’t believe she bothered to consider for a moment that he had a life outside of his hurting her personally. He could have had a spouse, children, an entire community who knew nothing of his crime and whom he treated decently, not being inherently “evil”.

Well, by all rights, that is Jason's problem. He was the initial perpetrator not Ana. Ana did not go out of her way to track down some innocent man that had family ties and a Sunday suit for church to impress the Pastor every weekend! This man shot 4 bullets into her with the mere intent of killing her for no reason. "Extensive Criminal record" does not indicate to me he was an abiding member of society with close ties to community and family. I can argue my moral philosophy and say that Jason was selfish for not thinking about all these "kind dear folk" he supposedly had connections to when he went out there and decided to pull out a gun on a pregnant woman? The fact of the matter is that if he hadn't committed that crime, Ana never would have killed him.

He now has no fair trial, no chance for repentance or a future, and those whom he left behind cannot have their answers, and will effectively be left to suffer. What they might come to realize is that a trigger-happy “bad cop” shot him repeatedly until he died.

Hmmm...yes, well i wonder if jason was thinking the same thing about Ana while he was busy pumping four bullets into her? If she had died, she could have had no chance at repentance for things she may have done in her past, no chance for a future, and those she left behind would be left to suffer asking why? I guess Ana came to realize that he was a "trigger happy criminal" that shot her four times to kill her and suceeded in killing her baby!

Or maybe we should ask that old lady in Echo park that he assaulted?

So, in that light, your argument makes me giddy than because apparantly a criminal like Jason clearly was entitled to redemption even though we will never know if he wanted to change. Therefore, Ana will always maintain the right to repent and have a future too!

Meanwhile, there are officers of the law and civilians who risk and sacrifice their lives in order to defend those laws and protect those rights which she went out of her way to deny him (not to mention those who aren’t granted those rights), there are loved ones of victims who sit through sentencing and trust the justice system to do its part while they do theirs and attempt to come to terms with their pain and some even manage forgiveness, and that society needs and trusts us to do just that is not a small consideration, nor is the fact that Ana's actions compromise (if not insults) all of that.

Well, please pardon me, if i don't bow down before the almighty "justice system", in this show, that allowed a repeat offender like Jason to keep slipping through the cracks of the system? This man was out on the street left to assault an old lady in a park and he had a rap sheet a mile long. Perhaps, if the "system" worked better in the first place, crimes like Ana's wouldn't result from crimes like Jason's. Sorry, i'm putting the blame back where it starts.

But then again, if this argument is true, shouldn't we be setting an example by forgiving Ana for her crime? I mean, hypothetically speaking, if we are right and she isn't shouldn't we then show her that revenge is not the answer by our own example? Therefore, We don't enact revenge on her!

In Lost-speak, Ana is an “Other” just as Jason was to her. It doesn’t matter if we personally know who ends up hurt by our actions, just that they do. That is why the law is important even if imperfect, not relying on “an eye for an eye” standards on what we personally consider excusable or justifiable, because five people can’t even agree on that on this message board. I don’t think she bothered to consider all this beyond her own act of revenge, no.

But, i have to step in here and argue that the law does acknowledge differences regarding motivation and intent. That is why there are varying degrees of murder, involuntary and voluntary manslaughter charges, there's justifiable homicide with certain defenses etc... Jason and Ana would more not have been charged with the same crime due to the differences in intent and motivation.

Sure humans are complex as a rule, but I find sociopaths to be relatively lacking in several complex emotions, namely empathy. I find Ana to be similar.

Okay, if we are suppose to expect Ana to show "empathy" towards her ''perpetrator" that is going way beyond me now. Empathy means to "intellectually or emotionally identify with another." Are you seriously going to argue for me that Ana should have related to what this man did to her and then identified with it? That would mean that she could understand why he did what he did to her and then feel bad for him!!!!

No, sorry, that argument doesn't fly for me. Feel free to try and explain any other situations you are referring to and why you feel she lacks empathy but should have it.

Do you honestly believe that someone who takes my position just doesn’t understand where she’s coming from as well as you do?

Ummm....and where did you reach this conclusion? I clearly have a position as well as you do; however, just because i choose to analyze/debate varying points in detail does not mean i have somehow sought to personally undermine you.

But to answer your question, i believe that we won't have the same understanding because we are arguing from 2 different places on where this character is coming from! However, did i at anytime express that there was something wrong with that? No!

I never said I morally condemned anyone.

Well, personally, i believe we can all be guilty of it at times. Even if we try to come across in "a nice way." Whenever we hold our morals to be in higher regards and tell someone else that they are wrong! As your example below provides:

It’s wrong according to me, and according to law, and according to the people who were forced to suffer for it.

:D TTYL!!!!!!

[Leigh]

The point is that a trial was well within Jason’s right, and she as an officer of the law was well aware of the fact, and the crime being “personal” ought to make no difference.

I don’t believe she bothered to consider for a moment that he had a life outside of his hurting her personally. He could have had a spouse, children, an entire community who knew nothing of his crime and whom he treated decently, not being inherently “evil”. He now has no fair trial, no chance for repentance or a future, and those whom he left behind cannot have their answers, and will effectively be left to suffer.

Oh please....I so hate all that criminal rights jargin. What about HER right to not get shot four times by some loser. Had a life? Uh, the guy was obviously a career criminal....he was a burglar/thief, shot Ana (a cop) four times, has tons of priors, beat up an old woman. This guy was a waste of humanity, she did everyone a favor. Oh no, did I just say that *insert socially unacceptable gasp here*

Sorry, but who cares about his RIGHTS....she had a RIGHT to not be nearly killed and lose her baby. If the bullets hadn't gone through her vest and she had been able to get back up and shoot him back, her actions wouldn't be in question, it would be looked at as self defense....but just b/c she waited till she wasn't half dead to go and take care of what she physically couldn't do earlier, we now call her a cold blooded killer and throw the book at her? That makes zero sense. I can't believe you're actually saying poor guy about someone like him....people like him don't reform, sorry to say....so many people refuse to think that someone could ACTUALLY just be a horrible person....not evenyone is reformable. Trust me. Like I said, social outlooks and stupid legalities aside.....to me, Ana had every damn right to kill that useless piece of crap, it's just a shame our society protects criminals and condemns good people who do what is neccessary.

[Fish1941]

Oh please....I so hate all that criminal rights jargin. What about HER right to not get shot four times by some loser. Had a life? Uh, the guy was obviously a career criminal....he was a burglar/thief, shot Ana (a cop) four times, has tons of priors, beat up an old woman. This guy was a waste of humanity, she did everyone a favor.

If Jason McCormack was a waste to community for shooting Ana-Lucia, wouldn't you say that Mr. Eko was a waste to his community for his crimes? Or Kate? Or Charlie for murdering Ethan out of revenge and his own insecurities when the Lostaways needed information? Was Sawyer a waste to his community for his transgressions and for killing a man (the wrong one) out of revenge?

If someone like Mr. Eko was given the opportunity for redemption, why not someone like Jason? He had been captured by the LAPD. Even more importantly, he had confessed to shooting Ana-Lucia. All she had to do was identify him as the guy who had shot her and give Justice a chance to punish the guy. She couldn't do even that?

Like I said, Ana-Lucia is one of my favorite characters, but unless she already has in her mind, she needs to face the fact that she didn't dispense justice to Jason McCormack. All she did was lower herself to his level. And she doesn't even have the benefit of confessing to the crime (at least as far as we know).

[Yariene]

I can remember this to save my life. Do we actually see Jason with the the bullets holes or the only thing we see is Ana shooting at him?

[juniper]

Originally posted by Grhmlz
Actually, i implied nothing of the sort. I supplied an objective argument regarding "morality" and whose "moral" codes should be allowed to reign supreme! Otherwise, there would be nothing left to seperate us from other animals. Just because i mentioned "higher power" does not automatically translate into me talking about a particular GOD! That would depend on whether or not i was discussing a specific doctrine.
And I argued that because we're going to argue different moral codes, if you consider "an eye for an eye" as one and "revenge killing is wrong" as another, you're going to have conflict, hence we need laws; as for deciding which one reigns superior, I don't know who can make that distinction, if you actually believe that to be the case.

You do realize that there are different types of atheists, whether it should be considered a religion is debated among them, and that many of them believe that no supernatural or higher power exists, but everything can potentially be proven scientifically despite the fact that we cannot and likely will not scientifically prove much? I don't believe it's fair to assume that we either cannot speak of morals or cannot be separated from animals because of it.
What a minute, we have "free will"? According to whose Doctrine?

So, you believe human beings are encoded differently? Well, how do you explain more than one person coming to the moral conclusion that "revenge killing" is wrong? Or that more than one person comes to the moral conclusion that "revenge killing" is justified? Who gets to determine which group of people carry the right morals and which group of people carry the wrong morals?
How do you explain that so many do not, and yet consider their own morals right? Whose Doctrine? None, I'm saying that based on what I believe. If you choose to disagree, then feel free. I don't believe you can make a valid argument of which people carry the right and wrong morals, and as I said, I don't see much point in classifying people as "right and wrong" based on them, only their actions. For instance, if you want to put Jason's crime in a much more harsh light than Ana's, for hers can be excused by "equitable retribution", I personally disagree with that as that's how vendettas are sparked. As I've stated, we don't agree on acceptable moral codes, or heck, even from where they are derived. That is why we need laws.
Society came together and decided that a state could inact "an eye for an eye" standard of justice but an individual can not. Therefore, anyone that subscribes to this so-called truth now holds themselves morally superior to those that do not follow this code of reasoning. See, the philosophy behind Ana merely being a cold-hearted killer would be based on a moral superiority complex because this philosophy wants to reign in black and white. In this scenerio, there is no room to dechiper the intent behind the act which intially differed from Jason's intent.
Society as collective individuals and applying to that whole, and which assumes equal rights among them (whether actually adhering to it or not). Again, it is imperfect, but that still is vastly different from one individual reigning morally superior over another. It is based on a legitimate system of laws, whether derived from a collection of morals or elsewhere.
It's being presumed that she is either right or wrong for killing Jason based on moral judgments! So, how is it pointless?
I said it's pointless to categorize people into "right and wrong", not an individual act committed by them. An act is less complex than a person. Like I've said, I don't believe people who commit atrocious acts are thereby "evil", just the acts themselves.
How does the argument work in her favor? Because in order to brandish someone as repulsive someone would have to be casting moral judgment upon Ana's behavior! That becomes personal opinion and not absolute truth. Therefore, the mere fact that Ana broke a "legal" law does not make her repulsive in and of itself. That is my argument.
Her actions (which is not a person)!!! I am casting a moral judgment on her behavior, not saying an act makes a person a worthless individual. I believe most are much more likely to dismiss Jason as a "morally wrong" person than Ana, so perhaps this argument can be better suited to his cause.
Hey, this debate was going so well! Why did you have to go and disappoint me and revert it into juvenile antics of cheap shot attempts at mockery! lol
I apologize if I mocked you, and I do respect your opinions. It seems to me a valid point. Not everyone is going to reference the same text as you, or interpret it similarly, so not to disrespect you, that isn't going to be compelling to me. Because you have a text in which you can read what you know to be good whereas I do not, in all honesty doesn't make mine less (or more) valid in my opinion.
As much as i wish this were true, sadly that is not always the case. I can think of monumental historical occasions that led to physical violence in order to obtain human rights/freedoms.
As can I sadly, mainly in cases where people were being denied equal rights and freedoms as humans, but since those people have suffered so much in order to obtain them, I personally believe it would be nice to respect those rights and freedoms, and leave the sad violence to those who as of yet have no legal representation and are denied their human rights and freedom.
It’s wrong according to me, and according to law, and according to the people who were forced to suffer for it.
Yes. It is. Her behavior. Not Ana, or anyone else separate from their behavior.
No, sorry, that argument doesn't fly for me. Feel free to try and explain any other situations you are referring to and why you feel she lacks empathy but should have it.
Okay then, you're right. How would you suggest? It's my opinion. I can't remember ever having interpreted any underlying deep connection between her and other people as I do with the other characters and actors as well as most people I know. I'm not the only one who feels this way, and you're not the only one who doesn't.
This was the whole point of my argument regarding Ana. Why should Ana's morals be deemed invalid just because we may or may not agree with what she did?
I've said I don't believe there exists a way to deem whose morals should be deemed invalid, if any, and mainly because others are going to be contradictory and I don't believe they should be enforced upon one any more than religion. They belong in a personal sphere and as a personal guide of accordance, not to inflict upon others. That is why I don't think morals alone make for a valid reason to disregard others. Law, for instance.
So, in that light, your argument makes me giddy than because apparantly a criminal like Jason clearly was entitled to redemption even though we will never know if he wanted to change. Therefore, Ana will always maintain the right to repent and have a future too!
Yes, I believe so. I'm glad you're giddy. :cool:
This is an example of how morality and legality can clash because Ana's own moral code will enter the picture. There are emotions involved and the legal system doesn't deal in emotions.
Ana does have emotions, but acting on them can be dangerous. I would hope the legal system doesn't, as emotion clouds judgement overmuch, and I believe that makes it more reliable in passing unbiased judgement for an illegal act than do human morals.

Originally posted by Leigh
Sorry, but who cares about his RIGHTS....
*raises hand* I do, and that's not to say I care less about hers, just the fact that neither of theirs should have been denied, but because of their actions both were. I say she should have thrown the book at him for being a cold-blooded killer instead, then I wouldn't take issue with her action. I don't see Ana as a "good person" as you seem to, and have no more way than you of knowing which people are "reformable", which is why that doesn't work and I'd leave it to the justice system. I know it's frustrating, believe me. I acknowledge the law is imperfect, but I also explained why it shouldn't just be scrapped.

[Leigh]

Legalities, morals, blah blah blah....we are all clearly seperated by how view these things and their relation to eachother and how they pertain to Ana, so I supposed we'll just agree to diagree. ;)

[Grhmlz]

Juniper, i'm going to agree with Leigh and say that we should just agree to disagree here.

Although, except on the fact of Ana and how her crime should be viewed, i'm really not all that sure on what we would be disagreeing on. Perhaps it's my fault for not making myself completely clear, but i was trying to present an objective presentation on morality/legality and how it may or may not be viewed by others. I was never representing myself, religious or otherwise, in most of what i was trying to argue and debate except for maybe a few times on the specific points with Ana!

Clearly, we both feel she shouldn't have shot Jason and killed him; however, we completely hold different points of view on how Ana and her "crime" should have been looked at!

:) Yariene, we only saw Ana shoot the gun! We never actually saw the bullets in him. Why? Do you think there's the slightest chance that she may have missed? ;) lol!

If someone like Mr. Eko was given the opportunity for redemption, why not someone like Jason? He had been captured by the LAPD. Even more importantly, he had confessed to shooting Ana-Lucia. All she had to do was identify him as the guy who had shot her and give Justice a chance to punish the guy. She couldn't do even that?

:) Fish, i respect your point of view, but as someone who works in the legal field i would like to explain to you why i think Jason really confessed to shooting Ana.

When criminals are apprehended, especially repeat offenders like Jason, they are told to plead "guilty" by their attornies (most often by public defenders) so they can get them reduced sentences for their crimes. See, there's also something in the system known as the "plea-bargaining" system in which the STATE (prosecutor) will reduce the charges in exchange for a "guilty plea." While i most certainly do not advocate anarchy (we need law and order), the sad truth is that the system doesn't really care about the "victim" nor the the alleged "criminal." As long as the STATE gets a conviction, that is all that matters to them. It is not their job to care even if people happen to care on an individual basis that are working within the system.

Ana was a cop and probably fairly aware of that. She's probably use to re-arresting repeat offenders like Jason over and over only to watch them slide through the system and back onto the streets. Jason was pleading guilty so that he could get a lighter sentence and be back out on the streets sooner. I highly doubt he was pleading guilty to try and reform his ways or in an attempt to apologize to Ana. His rap sheet provides evidence of that. Therefore, take into account Ana had that knowledge and the fact that Ana was still in a highly emotional state over what happened to her, is it surprising that she reacted the way she did? Personally, i think she may have forced herself to return to work too soon in an attempt to distract herself from all the pain and loss.

Like I said, Ana-Lucia is one of my favorite characters, but unless she already has in her mind, she needs to face the fact that she didn't dispense justice to Jason McCormack. All she did was lower herself to his level. And she doesn't even have the benefit of confessing to the crime (at least as far as we know).

See, while i agree that she shouldn't have shot Jason, this is where i get confused. So often, i will read about people reacting with more anger towards Ana's "crime" than they do with Jason's initial crime! The implication coming across with that is Ana was obligated to live up to some Higher moral code than Jason was and that is absurd to me!

I'm relating to her state of mind and why she shot Jason and not merely on the fact that she may/may not have thought she was "dispensing justice." This is why she is not a "cold blooded killer" to me. This is why i can draw sympathy from her situation even when i don't agree with the act itself. She was no where on Jason's level when she shot him because Ana's motivation was based off of pain he had inflicted upon her while Jason's motivation was completely born out of a selfish need to escape the very laws we are holding Ana accountable to! Ana never caused this man any prior harm but he did cause her harm.

So, i understand Leigh's position when she says Ana did society a favor by killing him off! And while it's easy to say this man deserved a chance to redeem himself, how many chances does he get? His extensive record implies that he had no intentions of changing his ways. And this may sound cold and harsh but perhaps she saved the state valuable time and money from doing it themselves when the time came that Jason actually suceeded in killing someone (which is very probable to me)?

Once again, just taking a look at it from a different perspective.

[Fish1941]

So often, i will read about people reacting with more anger towards Ana's "crime" than they do with Jason's initial crime!

I don't feel more anger toward Ana's crime than I do with Jason's. I think that both crimes were horrible. Period.

[Leigh]

Yeah but saying that you almost sound like you are equating them with eachother.

Jason - petty ciminal, thief, burglar, assaults the elderly, shot a cop.
Ana - shot a criminal who killed her unborn baby and almost her.

How you can consider those two to be on the same level....well, I'm sorry but I find that a bit disturbing.

[Fish1941]

Fish, i respect your point of view, but as someone who works in the legal field i would like to explain to you why i think Jason really confessed to shooting Ana.

When criminals are apprehended, especially repeat offenders like Jason, they are told to plead "guilty" by their attornies (most often by public defenders) so they can get them reduced sentences for their crimes. See, there's also something in the system known as the "plea-bargaining" system in which the STATE (prosecutor) will reduce the charges in exchange for a "guilty plea." While i most certainly do not advocate anarchy (we need law and order), the sad truth is that the system doesn't really care about the "victim" nor the the alleged "criminal." As long as the STATE gets a conviction, that is all that matters to them. It is not their job to care even if people happen to care on an individual basis that are working within the system.


But that does not justify Ana-Lucia's actions. I'm sorry. Even if Jason had not felt any true remorse while confessing, Ana should have left his fate up to the courts. Ana-Lucia is one of my favorite characters, but by killing Jason, she had merely stooped to his level.


Yeah but saying that you almost sound like you are equating them with eachother.

Jason - petty ciminal, thief, burglar, assaults the elderly, shot a cop.
Ana - shot a criminal who killed her unborn baby and almost her.

How you can consider those two to be on the same level....well, I'm sorry but I find that a bit disturbing.


I am equating them with each other. I'm sorry, but when she shot Jason, Ana-Lucia took another man's life. She committed the same action that he did. Even worse, Jason was not in a position to defend himself, when she shot him. Nor was he posing an immediate threat to her or anyone else at the time. She had committed cold-blooded murder. Just as Jason tried to murder her in cold-blood . . . and end up killing her unborn child.

I don't believe there is any justification for murdering someone out of revenge . . . or taking the law into one's own hands. I'm sorry, but that is my belief.

[Gage]

But that does not justify Ana-Lucia's actions. I'm sorry. Even if Jason had not felt any true remorse while confessing, Ana should have left his fate up to the courts. Ana-Lucia is one of my favorite characters, but by killing Jason, she had merely stooped to his level.



I am equating them with each other. I'm sorry, but when she shot Jason, Ana-Lucia took another man's life. She committed the same action that he did. Even worse, Jason was not in a position to defend himself, when she shot him. Nor was he posing an immediate threat to her or anyone else at the time. She had committed cold-blooded murder. Just as Jason tried to murder her in cold-blood . . . and end up killing her unborn child.

I don't believe there is any justification for murdering someone out of revenge . . . or taking the law into one's own hands. I'm sorry, but that is my belief.

People stoop to others levels all the time, people can't help them selves, its what people do.

She meant to kill Jason, she meant to commit cold-blooded murder. People break the laws all the time, people do wrong things and you know sometimes people know they are or did. People do things and usally they will regret them & Ana probaly will start feeling a little bad but he still deserved it. She knew it was wrong but she had lost her unborn child, she was angry, she wanted revenge, she planned on getting just that. Yes, it wasn't the right thing to kill him but let him go to prison probably wasn't going to satisfy her. If your unborn child was killed would you just put the man in prison and say okay that’s that its all over now, we're even. Getting revenge in that way isn't right but she snapped, she had enough, she lost her baby, she had to go to therapy (who wants that), she lost her boyfriend (We don't know why, but it could be & probably is about the baby).

Letting the court take care of it wouldn't have made things okay in her eyes. The court will sentence him but he is still alive, she was angry & killed him out of revenge, she wanted to take care of it herself. Killing is wrong anytime but she had lost her baby, she had lost a lot. She snapped, she lost things, her baby & just snapped. She was angry & wasn't thinking. It was against the law & wrong, but still she isn't the kind to give up a fight. He was a murderer, he was a bad guy. Just think of it as one less bad guy in the world, it’s not like he was an innocent, he had it coming and he deserved it. He was going to go do these things again, if he was sentenced to prison he would probably get out in a matter of time & would do it again. And there was always the slight chance he would have got off, slight with him but still Ana didn’t want to risk that.

[Dezdemona]

Yeah but saying that you almost sound like you are equating them with eachother.

Jason - petty ciminal, thief, burglar, assaults the elderly, shot a cop.
Ana - shot a criminal who killed her unborn baby and almost her.

How you can consider those two to be on the same level....well, I'm sorry but I find that a bit disturbing.
You find THAT disturbing? Read over your OWN posts because they're what's disturbing.

We live in a society governed by laws, enacted by people the majority of the citizens elected, with a view to forming a CIVILIZED society where we don't have to settle all our differences at gun point. That's the way it is, whether you like it or not - and obviously, I'm more than grateful we don't live in the kind of anarchy you seem to sanction, where everyone who's wronged should have the legal right to enact his or her personal form of vengeance. If caught, Ana would more than likely be doing 25 to life because because cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder isn't sanctioned. Period. Whether it's committed by a former cop or a low-life scum, the act of killing another human being leads to jail.

Moreover, Ana had legal recourse because all she had to do was identify him and he'd have been locked up for a good long time, possibly the rest of his life. And whether you believe in the system or not doesn't change the fact that we're supposed to believe that Ana DID. She was a police officer, sworn to uphold the law, so she certainly had no doubts about the legal "wrongness" of her actions. The bottom line is that Ana, Kate, Sawyer, and Sayid are all on the same level - they're all cold-blooded murderers who would be investigated and prosecuted if they were back in civilization and their crimes were known.

fish1941 -I don't believe there is any justification for murdering someone out of revenge . . . or taking the law into one's own hands. I'm sorry, but that is my belief.

Don't apologize. What you refer to as "my belief" is a basic cornerstone of all legal systems in the Western world, and a few dissidents trying to rationilize the behavior of some ficitonal character isn't going to change that.

[Leigh]

Fish, you basically just said that Ana's crime was worse then Jason's. I can't even acknowledge you now b/c you said that....b/c I honestly don't even know how to go about responding to that, it's THAT outrageous to me.

You find THAT disturbing? Read over your OWN posts because they're what's disturbing.

We live in a society governed by laws, enacted by people the majority of the citizens elected, with a view to forming a CIVILIZED society where we don't have to settle all our differences at gun point. That's the way it is, whether you like it or not - and obviously,

No I don't like it and I think that much of our "laws" and "governing" is a load of hypocritical bullcrap. The legal system is more a game than it is a way of protecting anyone. We turn victims into criminals, and we protect the rights of the criminals. The system is MAJORLY FLAWED. Just b/c it's still in place doesn't mean it's right and that it's the "ultimate truth". Just b/c somethings a law doesn't mean it's not flat out wrong morally or to some people. I have my beliefs just like you do....mine are harder just b/c I know life and people and I've been through stuff and I've seen the worst in people and I get what scares them and what works and I know what TRUE justice is and the legal system rarely provides it. MY OPINION, to give an example: someone molests your child (and it's 100% truthful), to me you should be able to kill them....but then YOU'D be thrown away....that makes sense. *rolls eyes* Someone rapes someone (and it's 100% guaranteed that it happened) the loser should be castrated. Yeah, maybe you think my beliefs are harsh but I live in the real world where there are truly evil people and the only way to protect the innocent people and avenge victims is sometimes to do things that might make people who don't understand harsh reality gasp. The world generally sucks a lot of the time, people do horrible things to eachother for evil reasons....does that mean we should all get strapped and start popping people off? No. But there are some crimes that are inexcusable and that deserve swift easy justice....getting put in a cell and given 3 meals a day and a free education is not the solution for dealing with a rapist, child molester, or cold blooded murderer who killed for cruel/pointless reasons.....

On the topic of Jason....the guy is a WASTE of humanity....LIKE I SAID BEFORE....but even looking at it reasonable....THINK ABOUT THIS....had the bullets not gone through her vest and she'd been able to SHOOT HIM BACK, it would then be acceptable b/c it was self defense. She shot him back when she could....which just happened to be later on....that's her right. Was she totally right? No....but was she totally wrong? Hell no. And she shoudn't serve a day in jail for it. That is MY belief. We all believe different things so who cares.

[Razor]

We live in a society governed by laws, enacted by people the majority of the citizens elected, with a view to forming a CIVILIZED society where we don't have to settle all our differences at gun point. That's the way it is, whether you like it or not - and obviously, I'm more than grateful we don't live in the kind of anarchy you seem to sanction, where everyone who's wronged should have the legal right to enact his or her personal form of vengeance. If caught, Ana would more than likely be doing 25 to life because because cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder isn't sanctioned. Period. Whether it's committed by a former cop or a low-life scum, the act of killing another human being leads to jail.
Well, like it or not, you live in a society which only aims to achieve justice (but fails on many occasions) and also one which does differentiate between the two types of crimes shown on LOST (ie killing of an innocent versus seeking retribution for that crime and killing the perpetrator). I acknowledge that both are legally wrong but I certainly don't view them as "equal". Just as shoplifting a pack of gum and robbing a bank are both theft and against the law - but, not equal crimes. IMO, retribution is a "lesser crime" simply because the killing is of someone, due to their prior offense(s), who has proven themself to be, even if only slightly, less than human. :cool:

I also doubt your stated likelyhood that Ana would receive a 25 to life sentence (precedent?).

"The "crime" of vigilantism is not expressly prohibited by law. What constitutes the "crime" in vigilante activity is the underlying crime that is committed in conjunction with vigilante activities. In charging the vigilante, the federal government and most states attempt to make a distinction between whether the underlying crime is a felony or misdemeanor. The most common sentence if the underlying crime is a misdemeanor is probation. Reduced charges, such as third-degree murder or manslaughter, are common when the underlying crime is a felony, the most common sentence being ten years in prison."

Here (http://www.wisecounty.com/themuse/Column24.htm) is an interesting article of a California case where a mother shot (five (5) times ... and in the courtroom) and killed a man who had allegedly molested her son. This isn't even a fair retribution case, meaning it wasn't a life-for-a-life, yet she was freed after serving only four (4) years of a ten year sentence. A very interesting read.

[Leigh]

I acknowledge that both are legally wrong but I certainly don't view them as "equal".

That's sort of what I was saying, you just said it better. Of course they are both legally wrong, but so what. Laws do NOT always = truth/right. It's not a black and white issue....there's a million shades of gray there and we can't just look at someone and say "According to this piece of paper you broke the rules. Now we lock you up." What's the point then of ever even having trials and lawyers and such then? And hell even trials are bogus too for that matter....it's all a game....you can get out of a horrid crime on a frickin technicality? How is that right? But I guess that's justified b/c the aquittal (sp?) was a result of a "law" that says that has to be done when that happens. *rolls eyes*

Crap happens. There are evil people in the world. Some take their own justice, it's their right in a situation as horrible as this. That is what I believe and I will always believe and no amount of "legalities" will change that. I don't care what the law says about these people, I care what I know and why they did it. THAT is what matters to me. THAT is what life and humanity is about.

[Grhmlz]

But that does not justify Ana-Lucia's actions. I'm sorry. Even if Jason had not felt any true remorse while confessing, Ana should have left his fate up to the courts. Ana-Lucia is one of my favorite characters, but by killing Jason, she had merely stooped to his level.

Okay, let me ask you this question. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Jason had shot Ana and suceeded in killing her! He is arrested, brought to trial, and then found "guilty" of MURDER!!! Then, the Jury sentences this man to die by lethal injection! Do You think the State, the jury, and the executioner are guilty of stooping to Jason's level too? Because the only reason they'd be killing him is because he killed Ana!

On a moral note, and not a legal one, where is the difference in the state doing it versus Ana? There isn't a difference in my opinion! One is indivdualistic while the other is systematic! That is the only difference. They both are seeking retribution for a prior "wrong" that has been committed.

We live in a society governed by laws, enacted by people the majority of the citizens elected, with a view to forming a CIVILIZED society where we don't have to settle all our differences at gun point.

But that's the irony isn't it? We come together to form laws and governments with the intention of creating a "civilized" society only to learn that it is a "utopian concept" at best. Because the fact of the matter is, if we were living in true "civilization" people like Jason wouldn't exist. When all peoples are behaving in a civlized manner, they would be conforming to it instead of committing outrageous acts of murder, rape, phedophila, incest etc......! When is it going to realized that "crimes" like Ana's only exist because our "civilized" society is ineffective in dealing with the initial "crimes" of people like Jason? Throwing one's hands up in the air and shrugging it off in an "Oh well, So sad Our System isn't Perfect" attitude is not the answer.

And on a moral note, i find it hypocritical that our electors send the message that if we come together as a state and decide that revenge killing is okay as long as we do it collectively (through systematic sanctioned capital punishment) it's right but if an individual does it they are wrong and should be held accountable for not letting us do it? Whoa!!!!!!! Whatever!!


That's the way it is, whether you like it or not - and obviously, I'm more than grateful we don't live in the kind of anarchy you seem to sanction, where everyone who's wronged should have the legal right to enact his or her personal form of vengeance.

I'm certainly not advocating anarchy here and i don't think i've read where anyone has said that either. However, i am arguing that Ana's crime should not be held in the same regards as Jason's because there is different motivation and intent behind each crime.

If caught, Ana would more than likely be doing 25 to life because because cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder isn't sanctioned. Period. Whether it's committed by a former cop or a low-life scum, the act of killing another human being leads to jail.

Wow, i can write an argumentative synopsis on this one if i really wanted to!

Where should i begin? Alright, let me start by saying that "killing" someone doesn't necessarily make you guilty of "murder." Self-defense killing is one example of that. It would be classified as a justifiable homicide. See, even our "legal system" acknowledges that all "killings" are not on the same level. That is why we have different classifications of killing with Murder in degrees of 1-3, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, justifiable homicide (self-defense killing) etc....etc....

I don't think Ana would have been found guilty of Murder 1 charges, even if she was intially arrested on it, due to the intent and motivation behind the "crime." The legal definition of Murder is legally defined as the act of killing someone with "premediated malice." Well, Ana may have premediated the killing but she doesn't meet the standard of malice. In order for her crime to be of "malicious intent", she would have had to have a disposition of wanting to inflict injury on a person. Furthermore, having a disposition means that it's a natural tendancy for Ana to feel like killing for no reason! Thus, this is why she is more than likely legally guilty of an act of retribution because she did not kill out of malice but instead killed out of a need to "punish an evil act" committed against her.

This does not make her a cold-blooded killer even by legal definition. She's a killer but not a malicious killer!

Don't even get me started on the inequities of the sentencing in the justice system. Do you realize that during a time not too long ago a man could get a lousy 6-8 year sentence for murdering his wife because it was classified as a "crime of passion"? Yet, a woman doing the same thing to her husband or killing as a last resort due to domestic violence could get anywhere between 15-20 years for the same type of crime? Hmmm.......what is your answer to something like this when the "system" itself refuses to change it? Sit back and take it? I wonder how many people would say that if it happened to them?

Moreover, Ana had legal recourse because all she had to do was identify him and he'd have been locked up for a good long time, possibly the rest of his life.

How do we know he would have gone to jail for a long time? The point of Jason pleading guilty was so he could get a "lesser" sentence not a fair sentence. Do you honestly think his attorney was going to advise him to pursue his constitutional right of a "trial by jury" and plead "not guilty" with his rap sheet? Not to mention, piss off some judge because he cost the state time and money by refusing to plea bargain? People that pursue their legal right in court usually wind up with a stiffer sentence than they would have if they had taken the plea bargain like Jason did.

And whether you believe in the system or not doesn't change the fact that we're supposed to believe that Ana DID. She was a police officer, sworn to uphold the law, so she certainly had no doubts about the legal "wrongness" of her actions.

Okay, i think it's been pretty much established that we know she broke the "law." By legal definition should she have shot Jason? Absolutely not!!!

However, why should i condemn her morally? I'm i suppose to crucify her because she reacted on human emotion due to a crime that almost took her life instead her standing by the law? I refuse to do that because of the circumstances here. What was Jason's reason for shooting Ana? The answer is there wasn't a reason except maybe to get away. Now i ask, why did Ana shoot Jason? The answer is because this man shot her with the intent to kill and killed her unborn baby! How do Jason's reasons and Ana's reasons equal=the SAME????? If i were a judge, i would not sentence Ana the same way i would sentence Jason.

Now granted, even if it is morally wrong to kill Jason, why aren't Ana's actions understandable and forgiveable? Because i think her actions are!!!

[Fish1941]

Now i ask, why did Ana shoot Jason? The answer is because this man shot her with the intent to kill and killed her unborn baby! How do Jason's reasons and Ana's reasons equal=the SAME????? If i were a judge, i would not sentence Ana the same way i would sentence Jason.

Ana-Lucia had killed a man when he was incapable of defending himself. She killed him with malice aforethought. And she killed him out of revenge. Ana-Lucia has no excuse for Jason's death. Revenge is not an excuse. Why do people think it is? Are we still dictated by an "eye for an eye" mentality? All she did was stoop to Jason McCormack's level, when she killed him. That's it.

Fish, you basically just said that Ana's crime was worse then Jason's. I can't even acknowledge you now b/c you said that....b/c I honestly don't even know how to go about responding to that, it's THAT outrageous to me.

Leigh, this is what I had said:

“I am equating them with each other. I'm sorry, but when she shot Jason, Ana-Lucia took another man's life. She committed the same action that he did. Even worse, Jason was not in a position to defend himself, when she shot him. Nor was he posing an immediate threat to her or anyone else at the time. She had committed cold-blooded murder. Just as Jason tried to murder her in cold-blood . . . and end up killing her unborn child.”

Leigh, I like you. And I’m happy to find a fellow fan of the Ana-Lucia character. But please do not misconstrue my words. I never said that Ana’s crime was worse than Jason’s. I was trying to say that their crimes were at the same level.


However, I also want to say something about Ana-Lucia's shooting of Shannon. I find it very interesting that many of the fans seem more inclined to rant against Ana-Lucia's accidental shooting of Shannon than of her murder of Jason McCormack. Yet, at the same time, many fans are willing to excuse Charlie's murder of Ethan. I think that the episode, "One of Them" might be a reflection of a mindset that many of the fans are either drifting into or allowing to be expressed . . . especially since Shannon's death.

It didn't matter that Ana-Lucia's shooting of Shannon was accidental. The main gist to most fans seemed to be that she had killed one of the castaways - someone they consider as "one of us". Whereas Charlie's actions are excused because he had killed a villain (shades of Ana-Lucia's murder of Jason, perhaps?). It doesn't matter that Charlie had committed cold-blooded murder or that he had killed Ethan when the latter was down and barely able to defend himself. Ethan was an "other" . . . or "one of them".

The gist is of the two deaths is not the circumstances surrounding the incidents, but who was killed. And that only seemed to matter to many of the fans. So, like the Lostaways, many fans are developing or have embraced a "us against them" mentality regarding the characters. I wonder if the producers had deliberately planned to expose this, when they had Ana-Lucia kill Shannon in "Abandoned".

Okay, let me ask you this question. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Jason had shot Ana and suceeded in killing her! He is arrested, brought to trial, and then found "guilty" of MURDER!!! Then, the Jury sentences this man to die by lethal injection! Do You think the State, the jury, and the executioner are guilty of stooping to Jason's level too?


Yes, I do.

[Grhmlz]

Ana-Lucia had killed a man when he was incapable of defending himself. She killed him with malice aforethought. And she killed him out of revenge. Ana-Lucia has no excuse for Jason's death. Revenge is not an excuse. Why do people think it is? Are we still dictated by an "eye for an eye" mentality? All she did was stoop to Jason McCormack's level, when she killed him. That's it.

I'm not disputing that she killed a man! Also, due to my own personal beliefs, i'm agreeing with you that she should not have done it! Ultimately, what real purpose did it serve for her anyway? She can't ever take back the shooting incident that almost cost her own life and she won't ever be able to get the child back that she lost. And that's the tragic truth.

However, I do not subscribe to labeling her as a "cold-blooded" murderer for very specific reasons. First off, "cold-blooded" refers to a complete void of emotion and Ana does not fit that standard. This was a revenge killing which makes the "killing" very emotion-based. Ana killed out of feelings of pain and anger that were born from a "wrong" committed against her. Secondly, she did not kill out of "malice aforethought." Malice requires having a DISPOSITION to inflict injury upon another. A DISPOSITION means that Ana would have a NATURAL TENDANCY to inflict injury through killing! Ana isn't a natural-born killer because she killed out of retribution not because it naturally came to her for no reason at all.

Lastly, i continue to argue that the REASONS do matter!!! The Reasons DO make Ana's crime different from Jason's! Ana and Jason's crimes could never be on the same level due to the fact that Ana's crime derived from retribution as where Jason's did not!

The Law recognizes this fact by analyzing motivations and intent. Jason and Ana's actions are both classified as "crimes" but not on the same level. I argue it would have to be recongized morally too. Why? Because if we take a moral approach that mirrors "a zero tolerance policy", ALL killing would be wrong if we weren't allowed to analyze motiviation and intent. Then guess what? People that kill out of self-defense wouldn't even be allowed to argue that! They would have to punished the same way Jason would "just because someone died." See, i think what Ana did falls somewhere between Jason's crime and someone killing in self-defense. And that's what revenge killing almost is, "a delayed form of self-defense." But, it's not cold-blooded killing either!

Who's to say that an "Eye For An Eye" Standard is right/wrong? If we talk Christian philosophy, this practice is old testament based and accepted by "God." It was completely embraced by society and still is! (ie.....Captial Punishment is just a systematic form of it compared to an individualistic approach).

Yes, I do.

:) Just Checking. Glad i'm not the only one that finds that to be hypocritical of the government to issue laws against "murder" but then they turn around and do it themselves.

However, I also want to say something about Ana-Lucia's shooting of Shannon. I find it very interesting that many of the fans seem more inclined to rant against Ana-Lucia's accidental shooting of Shannon than of her murder of Jason McCormack. Yet, at the same time, many fans are willing to excuse Charlie's murder of Ethan. I think that the episode, "One of Them" might be a reflection of a mindset that many of the fans are either drifting into or allowing to be expressed . . . especially since Shannon's death.

It didn't matter that Ana-Lucia's shooting of Shannon was accidental. The main gist to most fans seemed to be that she had killed one of the castaways - someone they consider as "one of us". Whereas Charlie's actions are excused because he had killed a villain (shades of Ana-Lucia's murder of Jason, perhaps?). It doesn't matter that Charlie had committed cold-blooded murder or that he had killed Ethan when the latter was down and barely able to defend himself. Ethan was an "other" . . . or "one of them".Yes, i think from a fan-base perspective that many fans could be relating to the characters they choose to relate to rather than the direct circumstances at hand. Although, i'm sure the writers were more than aware that all of these "incidents" were going to draw many different reactions/perspectives from the audience as a whole due to different backgrounds/beliefs.

The gist is of the two deaths is not the circumstances surrounding the incidents, but who was killed. And that only seemed to matter to many of the fans. So, like the Lostaways, many fans are developing or have embraced a "us against them" mentality regarding the characters. I wonder if the producers had deliberately planned to expose this, when they had Ana-Lucia kill Shannon in "Abandoned".


Yes, i think from a fan-base perspective that many fans could be relating to the characters they choose to relate to rather than the direct circumstances at hand. Although, i'm sure the writers were more than aware that all of these "incidents" were going to draw many different reactions/perspectives from the audience as a whole due to different backgrounds/beliefs.

However, Charlie's actions were not committed out of "cold blooded" murder IMO. Ethan was there to cause harm and it was a form of self-defense. It doesn't matter if Ethan was lying on the ground! That is the opportunity to defend when the person initiating an attack is at a disadvantage. Charlie was hung from a tree to die and he had every right to feel threatened by Ethan at any distance. I wouldn't have expected Charlie or anyone of them to wait until Ethan was on top of them to try and defend because then it might be too late! It would be like Ana not having the immediate opportunity to defend herself and the result is she got shot 4 times!

[Leigh]

Fish....sorry. What threw me was the "even worse" bit....even if unintended it, came off as though you meant that that made Ana's crime worse and for that I was horrified....at least you sort of cleared that up....I'm still shocked you think they are equal....but whatever. :banghead:

:D

I'm too tired for this debating tonight....maybe tomorrow I'll thow my two dollars in. And yes, I said two dollars. Everyone knows I'm not capable of just giving two cents. ;)

L.

[ashhead]

A Question about when she killed Jason. Obviously there was a fair amount of revenge involved. She wanted him to feel pain for what he did, wanted to watch him die, and maybe didn't feel that prison was a fair trade-off for what he did. But how much self-loathing do you think was there? I wonder if she felt guilt over losing her baby, even though it wasn't her fault, maybe she felt lacking. By killing Jason, is she trying to make up for that? But even more than that, is she trying to get herself punished. She knows about csi type stuff, and would know that she would be a prime suspect. She didn't seem to do much to cover it up, so do you think that by killing him she trying (perhaps subconsciously rather than consciously) she was doing something for which she could be punished?

Kinda on the same theme as that question, do you think she honestly felt that she would be satisfied by killing him, working in the field she does. Which would either make you think that she was completely broken, to the point where only revenge was left, or she felt so guilty that she had to kill him.

[Gage]

^I think she didn't think prision was a fair trade off for what he did & she did want to watch him die & feel pain. I think she did/does really hate herself for what happened (with her baby & Jason). I think she did feel guilt for her unborn child. Usally when someone you love dies you usally blame yourself, even if it wasn't your fault. I don't think she was trying to get herself punished. I think she was just very angry & hurt. She had nothing anymore, she lost alot because of him. She was very angry & wanted revenge. From what we know she didn't do much to cover up Jason's death but she said he was never found so someone had to have done something (maybe in another flashback :D). I bet she does want punished a little, well actually I think she wants to be dead (in "Collison") I think some of her wanted to be killed then. But I don't think when she killed Jason she was thinking about herself, being punished. I think she was broken & I don't think that she actually felt that killing him would satisfie her much but I think she felt she had to do it, she had to be to kill him (for her baby & all). She does feel guilt though.

[Fish1941]

Well, like it or not, you live in a society which only aims to achieve justice (but fails on many occasions) and also one which does differentiate between the two types of crimes shown on LOST (ie killing of an innocent versus seeking retribution for that crime and killing the perpetrator). I acknowledge that both are legally wrong but I certainly don't view them as "equal".

If both are legally wrong and involves the murder of an innocent or defenseless person, then both actions can be viewed as “equal”.

However, Charlie's actions were not committed out of "cold blooded" murder IMO. Ethan was there to cause harm and it was a form of self-defense. It doesn't matter if Ethan was lying on the ground! That is the opportunity to defend when the person initiating an attack is at a disadvantage. Charlie was hung from a tree to die and he had every right to feel threatened by Ethan at any distance. I wouldn't have expected Charlie or anyone of them to wait until Ethan was on top of them to try and defend because then it might be too late!

Charlie didn’t have the right to shoot Ethan several times when the latter was in no position to defend himself. Also, either Jack or Locke made it perfectly clear that they needed Ethan to get more information about why he had kidnapped Claire. I think that Jack's beating of Ethan was perfect payback.

Why do people insist that retribution or revenge is a good excuse for murder? It isn’t. All that person is doing is lowering him or herself to the level of the perpetrator. It’s a personal and selfish excuse to hurt the person who had hurt you. All Charlie did was lower himself to Ethan’s level. Sayid certainly understood that. Which is why he had warned Charlie not to indulge in petty revenge when the two went after Danielle, after she had kidnapped Aaron.

[hannahsquiggle]

random as this sounds, she has a huge mouth and always opens it soooooooo wide!!

[Razor]

If both are legally wrong and involves the murder of an innocent or defenseless person, then both actions can be viewed as “equal”.

.You can view it that way, if you wish, but the law does not.:cool: In order to be equal, "innocent" would have to equal "defenseless" ... and it doesn't (that I know of). It even depends on your definition of "defenseless". When Jason conned Ana into lowering her weapon - wouldn't the fact that she was unable to defend herself from what happened (by definition) make her "defenseless" also? Besides, Jason murdered an innocent and defenseless person (Ana's unborn child) - Ana did not. She murdered a defenseless person (or at least unarmed).

[Raven O'Reilly]

random as this sounds, she has a huge mouth and always opens it soooooooo wide!!

.... Not clever.

[Scarlett]

OK, I'm admitting it: Ana said she was sorry. There. I feel better. ;)

And I do hate her a tad less now that she actually showed some remorse.

[nightskiesfading]

Gotta agree with Jen, after all, Jourtney...

Ana redeemed herself with me a bit in this episode, with her talk with Sayid and Henry. I guess I understand her character more, she is not a likeable person, but she is okay with that and isn't going to change it. Doesn't mean I like her, but she wasn't bad this episode.

[ActionAimz]

Ana wants to be a likeable person. She said she tried most of her life, but eventually gave up. So there is something about her that we have yet to see that made it hard for her to interract positively with other people. Maybe she had a rough childhood, who knows. I think over time she just resolved herself to be who she is, but you can tell she desperately wants to be accepted on the island and it bothers her that people don't trust her, although she fully understands why. She is deeply regretful for what happened with Shannon, I loved that we got to see her sincerely apologize to Sayid, and that Sayid understands why things happened the way they did. Charlie needs to be bitch slapped, but that's for another thread. LOL.


OK, I'm admitting it: Ana said she was sorry. There. I feel better. ;)

And I do hate her a tad less now that she actually showed some remorse.

That's very cool

Gotta agree with Jen, after all, Jourtney...
.
Is this a General Hospital reference?

[interested]

I'm starting to like her character. I never hated her character, but I disliked her. Now I'm starting to be very intrigued by her character...I think the "always tried to make people like me but finally gave up" thing was revealing. I'm glad she apologized, and she seemed to mean it.

I liked most that she seems to be bewildered by the fact that Sayid doesn't hate her. (i.e. people don't like me--I know--I don't try to make them anymore--but you, you actually have a very legitimate reason to hate me and yet you don't...what's up with that?)

I'm finding the Sayid/Ana understated/unspoken communication interesitng too; they seem to understand one another without saying much.

[Pie]

I just don't get why people don't like Ana Lucia. Sure, she's mean sometimes, but so is Sawyer, and everybody loves Sawyer(Does that sound like a great sitcom, or what?)! She didn't intentionally kill Shannon, so no one can use that as an excuse for hating her. *shrug* I think she's a great, interesting character and I can't wait to learn more about her.

[Grhmlz]

Charlie didn’t have the right to shoot Ethan several times when the latter was in no position to defend himself.

I disagree.

Ethan hung Charlie from a tree to die! In Charlie's mind, shooting Ethan was about future self-preservation and safety. I didn't see it as being about revenge. Ethan was coming to the scene with criminal intent in mind. Where is the inherent right for Ethan to "defend" himself when he is the one who has already "perpetrated" a crime? That makes no sense. Charlie had every right to feel threatened because Ethan's previous actions towards Charlie establish that!

Because of the sitution he is placed in on the island, his situation is different from Ana's. Ethan made it clear in a verbal/physical assault that he would be back to kill him/others if he didn't get Claire back. That kind of a threat motivates someone to take action out of fear for their life. Ana's situation, on the otherhand, is more about retribution because as far as we know Jason didn't make any other attempts on her life and it didn't appear like she was killing Jason for fear of her life.

Sorry, but saying Ethan had the right to defend himself is too much like saying a "burglar that breaks into my home with the intent to committ a crime and cause me harm has the right to defend himself against me!"

Why do people insist that retribution or revenge is a good excuse for murder? It isn’t.

Personally, i wasn't arguing that it was an excuse. I'm just arguing that in a situation like Ana's it is "understandable" and "forgiveable" and not based on the same reasons as the "original perpetrator" who's reasons were colder and "more callous."

All that person is doing is lowering him or herself to the level of the perpetrator.

How are they lowering themselves to the perpetrator's level? The reasons/motivations are completely different. Therefore, even if "revenge" killing is wrong, Ana would never be on Jason's level because she is not the "original" perpetrator.

It’s a personal and selfish excuse to hurt the person who had hurt you.

Well, it's most certainly personal but not selfish! "Retribution" is based off of feelings of pain and justifiable anger from a wrong committed against a person, like in Ana's case. "Selfish" is the "original perpetrator" because they are responsible for the feelings of "anger/pain" living inside of the "individual" now seeking retribution.

************************************************
Okay, i like Ana even more after this past episode. I don't understand when there are complaints expressing that the "writers" wrote Ana this way on purpose to get people to like her and it's lame. This shouldn't be surprising, afterall, the writers said they were going to explore this character's deeper vulnerability by peeling back the layers of personality? This episode shows that they are beginning to show that side of Ana that has been hidden.

[Fish1941]

Ethan hung Charlie from a tree to die! In Charlie's mind, shooting Ethan was about future self-preservation and safety.


I wholeheartedly DISAGREE.


If Ethan had been an immediate threat, then Charlie would have every right to defend himself . . . even if it meant killing Ethan.

But Ethan had been put down by Jack. He was in no condition to defend himself. And Charlie shot him several times like a dog, knowing full well that the Lostaways needed Ethan for information.

Charlie shot Ethan because he wanted revenge and he misguidedly saw himself as Claire's protector. He was trying to make up for his failure to protect Claire from Ethan when they were kidnapped. His ego had been bruised and Ethan's murder was a way for Charlie to make up for it.

There was NO EXCUSE for what he did.

Well, it's most certainly personal but not selfish! "Retribution" is based off of feelings of pain and justifiable anger from a wrong committed against a person, like in Ana's case. "Selfish" is the "original perpetrator" because they are responsible for the feelings of "anger/pain" living inside of the "individual" now seeking retribution.


It's SELFISH. I really get tired of people making excuses for the actions of their favorite characters, whether that person is Ana-Lucia, Charlie, Sawyer or anyone else. Why is it so hard to admit that a character (whether well-liked or not) had made a serious mistake?

[LGOI42F]

Almost every character on that island has done something bad a good amount has killed someone. The reasons they killed the person are not excusable reasons, there is no excusable reason to kill someone. They might have had good reasons but not excusable ones. Killing someone is wrong, nothing can excuse that. But maybe that’s why there on the island, to face these things, to change. Just think if that plane didn't crash where would they be, they might be paying time for killing someone. But the plane did crash they have been given a second chance. Ana killed Shannon by accident & it made her think of Jason, she is remembering her past & what she's done. I believe by the end of this show everyone will have changed they will know what they've done in there past & realize it was wrong.

If these people were meant to die (or planned to die :giggle:), they will anyway. The writers could have killed Shannon by Libby or Bernard. What would everyone be saying then. "Don't mistake coincidence for fate." Lost is all about fate, get over it.

Sawyer, Ana, Charlie... killed someone & it was wrong, they should not be excused but can you blame them anyway?

[Grhmlz]

But Ethan had been put down by Jack. He was in no condition to defend himself. And Charlie shot him several times like a dog, knowing full well that the Lostaways needed Ethan for information.

A victim uses self-defense to protect themselves not criminals. Ethan came to that location with the clear/present intent to cause immediate harm/threat to anyone that got in his way! What activity was he enaging in that warranted self-defense? Okay, so Jack had Ethan pinned to the ground? That was not a guarantee that Ethan no longer posed as an immediate threat to them.

Charlie's decision wasn't the best one but it's definitely understandable given the circumstances. And while it is true that the survivors hoped to obtain some information, the odds were highly against Ethan being that forthcoming.

Charlie shot Ethan because he wanted revenge and he misguidedly saw himself as Claire's protector. He was trying to make up for his failure to protect Claire from Ethan when they were kidnapped. His ego had been bruised and Ethan's murder was a way for Charlie to make up for it.

Sorry, but something tells me that being hung from a tree and left to die had "alot" to do with Charlie's actions against Ethan. And Although Charlie wanted to protect Claire, his objective in shooting Ethan was to prevent him from hurting/killing either Claire or himself again. That motivtion/reasoning is based off of self-preservation/survival. Not revenge.

It's SELFISH. I really get tired of people making excuses for the actions of their favorite characters, whether that person is Ana-Lucia, Charlie, Sawyer or anyone else. Why is it so hard to admit that a character (whether well-liked or not) had made a serious mistake?

First off, i am not at all condoning murder committed by my favorite nor my least favorite characters. I am, however, making a conscious choice to show "sensitivy" to the situations these characters found themselves in because i don't see everything in "black and white" even when it comes to someone loosing their life. I do not believe characters like Ana/Charlie should be punished to the "harshest degree possible" like others because of motivation/intent behind each situation. I will always take that into account before making a final "judgement." Now, maybe you view it as selfish but to me Not all "loss of life", though tragic in and of itself, does not result from selfish motivations. At least, not from my viewpoint. Therefore, i choose to admit a character like Ana made a serious mistake while showing leniancy at the same time due to circumstances.

[Kind]

Right now, I'm fairly indifferent to Ana-Lucia. I understood why she killed Shannon, after what she'd been through with the Others. I will say:

1. I think Skaters hate her because she kicked Sawyer's ass.
2. Jaters hate her because she's stealing Jack away.
3. Shannon fans hate her for the obvious.
4. Sayid fans hate her because she tied him up and killed his true love.

That's just my two cents. Although I think, when Ana-Lucia killed Jason, Sawyer basically did the same thing: Both took the law into their own hands and murdered someone, except Sawyer killed an innocent person.

[Fish1941]

Right now, I'm fairly indifferent to Ana-Lucia. I understood why she killed Shannon, after what she'd been through with the Others. I will say:

1. I think Skaters hate her because she kicked Sawyer's ass.
2. Jaters hate her because she's stealing Jack away.
3. Shannon fans hate her for the obvious.
4. Sayid fans hate her because she tied him up and killed his true love.

That's just my two cents. Although I think, when Ana-Lucia killed Jason, Sawyer basically did the same thing: Both took the law into their own hands and murdered someone, except Sawyer killed an innocent person.


I think you need to add Charlie to that list, as well. He, Ana-Lucia and Sawyer all committed murder for revenge. Kate . . . might be another story.

[mondobizarro]

Charlie killing Ethan is completely different to Ana killing Jason.

Ethan was a serious threat to all of the survivors, he pretended to be one of them and hurt Charlie and Claire, who he cares about. Charlie killing Ethan was in some ways self defence, the guy hung him from a tree and wasn't going anywhere. Charlie also wanted to protect Claire from further hurt and the rest of the survivors. If Charlie didn't kill Ethan, someone else would have in the end after they interrogated him. Charlie shot him Ethan when he did to ensure that Ethan didn't escape and couldn't do any further damage, it was also somewhat a crime of passion because Ethan had hurt Claire.

Ana was a police officer, if they don't do right by the law then what kind of society do we really live in? Cops are meant to maintai justice, not seek cold-blooded revenge. Jason was cold-blooded and deserved jail, but no one deserves death. Ana shot Jason in cold-blood, simply for revenge for what he did to her and her unborn baby. She knew that Jason would go to jail for his crimes but she wanted an eye for an eye. What gives Ana the right to end a life? She didn't shoot Jason in self defence, she shot him for revenge. Two wrongs don't make a right, Ana should have known better as a cop than to murder a criminal when he would have gone to jail anyway.

[hinemoa]

Jason was cold-blooded and deserved jail,but no one deserves death

Unless Charlie, Kate, Sayid or any of the characters you actually like are the ones doing the killing. Then I suppose the person they killed deserved it! Your theory is weak.

[BattleRoyale]

Unless Charlie, Kate, Sayid or any of the characters you actually like are the ones doing the killing. Then I suppose the person they killed deserved it! Your theory is weak.

Let's face it, we are very biased when it comes to characters on Lost.:rolleyes: we bend our logic and reasoning for them, so arguing about it very much...never-ending. Personally, I don't hate anyone but as the characters stand right now, I am annoyed by Jack and Charlie. One needs to get off the spotlight and the other needs to step up, be a man, and apologize to the people he hurt.

[Raven O'Reilly]

One needs to get off the spotlight and the other needs to step up, be a man, and apologize to the people he hurt.

Aaaaaaaa-men! :w00t:

[BattleRoyale]

Aaaaaaaa-men! :w00t:

;) I'm glad others agree with me, because I've been feeling this way for a while. From what I've gathered, the last few episodes should have plenty of action, so maybe some of the characters will change and evolve for the better.:w00t:

And to contribute to the AL debate, I hope for her episode she is more active (which is a given) and changes for the better as well. I sorta miss the old kick-ass tough girl she used to be.

[ActionAimz]

;) I'm glad others agree with me, because I've been feeling this way for a while. From what I've gathered, the last few episodes should have plenty of action, so maybe some of the characters will change and evolve for the better.:w00t:

And to contribute to the AL debate, I hope for her episode she is more active (which is a given) and changes for the better as well. I sorta miss the old kick-ass tough girl she used to be.



Aww I love your comments although I haven't been following the entire debate in here particuarly because all of Lost characters have done bad things, well nearly all of them. And I don't think Lost is trying to debate morality, just create interesting charactaers that have gone to very dark places. That said, I don't expect any character on Lost to be perfect, that is what made S1 so great. But with S2 so much happens with no follow up at all. Some day they simply must address Charlie's role in TLC. He was supposed to be going dark, but then they seemed to just drop that and now he's cracking jokes and gathering twigs with Eko. And I enjoyed Jack so much better when he wrestled with trying to be perfect and fix everything and never quite succeeding nor knowing when to quit trying. Lately Super Jack seems to do everything right and harbors an annoying cocky attitude to go along with it.

I am expecting lots of Ana next week, which for me is too bitter sweet to think of right now.

[Raven O'Reilly]

Aww I love your comments although I haven't been following the entire debate in here particuarly because all of Lost characters have done bad things, well nearly all of them. And I don't think Lost is trying to debate morality, just create interesting charactaers that have gone to very dark places. That said, I don't expect any character on Lost to be perfect, that is what made S1 so great. But with S2 so much happens with no follow up at all. Some day they simply must address Charlie's role in TLC. He was supposed to be going dark, but then they seemed to just drop that and now he's cracking jokes and gathering twigs with Eko. And I enjoyed Jack so much better when he wrestled with trying to be perfect and fix everything and never quite succeeding nor knowing when to quit trying. Lately Super Jack seems to do everything right and harbors an annoying cocky attitude to go along with it.

I am expecting lots of Ana next week, which for me is too bitter sweet to think of right now.

OT: But personally I think Charlie already "went dark" when he helped Sawyer. I think he knew it and I don't particularly think he liked it. I think that Sawyer was straight forward with Charlie in the end of that episode becuase he knows Charlie is not the same as he is and I like to think Sawyer made that point on purpose, as if to say "Don't be like me." It gives Sawyer some humanity, but also makes me wonder if he's saying "Don't be like me... unless I need you for something." I'm not saying any of this is true, just an opinion.

As for Jack, I think we've ALWAYS seen him as Mr. Perfect in every way. This season was supposed to be darker and I think we've been seeing a brewing towards something big. I mean, Jack's attitude change to an almost bitter anger towards particular characters, especially Locke, makes me wonder where his "dark place" really is. I mean, what has Jack done wrong? We haven't really seen that yet, in comparison to what other characters have done (i.e. murder.)

But uh... back on topic! :D

My issue with Ana is along the same lines that annoy me about Kate.

To me, Ana and Kate represent a caricature of a woman that we often see on TV. I mean, the bad ass women are seen as empowering themselves and then we have the damsels in distress. Ana is more of the former in the sense that emotions tend to rule her life (at least at one point and perhaps for a good reason like the death of an unborn child, don't get me wrong) than a combination of reason and emotion.

Though, I do enjoy seeing her, like the other characters (though maybe not for Kate and Shannon), go through stages of personal reflection and emotion. I like seeing how they've changed on the island compared to what they were outside of the island in the fairly recent past. They're growing either in the right or wrong direction, or in any direction, really.

I just hate how Kate gets all angsty, like Shannon. That's just a personal pet peeve of mine though. :)

[BattleRoyale]

But uh... back on topic! :D

My issue with Ana is along the same lines that annoy me about Kate.

To me, Ana and Kate represent a caricature of a woman that we often see on TV. I mean, the bad ass women are seen as empowering themselves and then we have the damsels in distress. Ana is more of the former in the sense that emotions tend to rule her life (at least at one point and perhaps for a good reason like the death of an unborn child, don't get me wrong) than a combination of reason and emotion.

Though, I do enjoy seeing her, like the other characters (though maybe not for Kate and Shannon), go through stages of personal reflection and emotion. I like seeing how they've changed on the island compared to what they were outside of the island in the fairly recent past. They're growing either in the right or wrong direction, or in any direction, really.

I just hate how Kate gets all angsty, like Shannon. That's just a personal pet peeve of mine though. :)

I think AL's episode will show more complexities to her character. She's the most versatile in her flashbacks. I can't wait...

Hee Hee, even moderators get offtrack.

[Raven O'Reilly]

Hee Hee, even moderators get offtrack.


No we don't. What you saw was an illusion... :shifty:

[Becky Thatcher]

I feel stupid reviving a long-dead thread, but I didn't know this was here, and it's better than spamming the Sana thread with my Pro-Ana rants. I don't care if she's "dead" (the jury is still out on that :shifty:)

So, yeah.

I don't understand how people can just flat out hate Ana. I mean, she screwed up a couple times. She's human. The main issues I see people having with Ana are:

She stole (insert Jack/Sawyer here) away from Kate. Which annoys me to no end. That is NOT a reason to hate someone. Sawyer and Jack have their own brains, and if they like Ana, that's their business. Hating her is not going to dissuade Jack or Sawyer from liking her. As an Ana liker, I can only speak for myself when I say I don't hate Kate because she took Sawyer/Jack away from Ana. To me, that seems really shallow

She shot Shannon- This I can understand more. But it was an accident. She screwed up.

Also, people don't like her because she's "brutal" or "forceful" or just flat out "b-tchy!" She is alot like Sayid, who is one of the most beloved characters on the show.


To end, I don't get it.

[Pommers]

I liked Ana, I don't see why some Kate fans think she is a bitch.

Kate had Jack and Sawyer wrapped around her little finger from the start, it is so satisfying now Jack has Juliet and Kate is crying inside with jealousy. She is trying to steal Jack off Juliet which is unfair as she decided on Sawyer and broke Jack's heart. Now Jack has Juliet she can't take it.
I don't see how Kate is more deserving of Jack for reasons I've listed. Jack and Ana were very similar as they were both leaders of the middle of the plane and the tail.

Ana toyed with Jack and Sawyer but just in a flirty way, it was nowhere near as bad as Kate's jealous ways. Ana killing Shannon was an accident as well.

[((Sawy3r815))]

Thank God Ana killed Shannon even if it was a accident. The only thing that bitch did was sun tan and pleasure Sayid.