Lost: Lighthouse

Spoiler warning: This post contains a discussion of Lost season six, episode 108, “Lighthouse.” If you haven’t seen it yet and you do not like to be spoiled, move along! But I will blather for a moment about nonplotty things to give you some time to get away. Because I am nice and smell like strawberries.

This week’s episode of Lost was Jack-centric, which meant that I was prepared to be extremely bored, because Jack doesn’t really interest me all that much, I’ll be honest. As a character, he just doesn’t do it for me. I get where they are going with him and I even, to some extent, understand what they are trying to say with his character, but at this point anyone in the love dodecahedron quadrangle triangle whatever the hell it is makes me quiver because I fear that the love, uh, thing is going to be brought up again and I’m going to wander off to the kitchen to reorganize the spices and then realise that I missed half the episode with my evasive maneuvering.

Thankfully, Kate only showed up for all of 30 seconds in this episode, primarily to look soulful and inform us that Sawyer is “on his own,” so that was a relief. And, you know, I know that there are people who like Kate (and liked Juliet, and like Jack), but I am not one of them. I’m sorry, I liked her ok in the first season but she’s been going downhill from there. If anyone has a compelling argument for why I should start liking Kate again, I would be happy to hear it, though!

Honestly, the whole love entanglement thing is one of the things about Lost which frustrates me more than anything else. The show already has a lot going on. Most of it interests me and makes the wheels in my brain spin frantically. The show even has various depictions of love and relationships which I find engaging. The need to create this pivotal romance which keeps getting all up in my mythology escapes me. Can’t we all just run around in the forest with guns now?

Speaking of which, how about that Claire? Has she crossed over to the dark side? Her little hideaway was definitely high on the creep factor and was clearly meant to be evocative of Rousseau. Indeed, her whole character trajectory now what with the infection and the missing baby and stuff is sort of a repeat. Is the Island stuck in a loop? And Claire has gotten me thinking about Rousseau much more; she and Claire both have inconsistencies when telling stories, for example, and it’s possible that both characters were turned in some way. Like, when Christian was wandering around all over the Island and popping up to hang out with Claire…and how alone was Rousseau in the jungle? Claire does recognize that the entity in Locke’s body is not actually Locke, but she’s viewing him as a friend, which is a bit weird if you ask me because my friends don’t take over the bodies of dead people.

Over in flashsidewaysville, we see Jack repeating the sins of his father with his own son, which kind of bears out my theory that the flash sideways is about a world gone slightly twisted. The characters didn’t go to the Island, didn’t learn anything, didn’t have a chance to change the trajectory of their lives, and as a result they are doomed to do the very things which they didn’t want to do. Things go wrong. Nothing happens as planned. Even as we see certain themes repeating themselves in both timelines, which suggests a certain amount of determinism and “some things were meant to be.”

I am becoming more and more intrigued by the objects and spaces our characters find on the Island. I am a sucker for lighthouses in general so of course I got all excited to see a lighthouse, and even more so when I saw what its function was; again, I have a soft spot for decaying equipment and mysterious scribblings and mirrors, so I was as happy as a pig in a wallow when Hurley and Jack started messing around up there. Well, until Jack smashed the mirrors, of course. Not cool, dude.

The names in the lighthouse appeared to correspond to degrees, which bears out a theory which has been percolating in the back of my mind for a while. As we saw in previous episodes, the world of Lost seems to presuppose that there are lines and networks of energy moving across the Earth and that people can tap into these lines and also intersect with them, and that this is both time and space dependent. Remember the pendulum in the Lamp Post Station and how it moved across lines of energy like a dowsing rod of some kind? And how the Dharma folks used that to find the Island? And how a very precise bearing was needed to reach the Island by the freighter crew? And all that stuff about time windows and things needing to happen at specific moments?

I think that, in the mythology of the show at any rate, some people have an innate ability to tap into that energy. That’s what makes them candidates; they are connected with the Island in some way. Hurley most obviously, with his ability to see dead people. Miles, too, clearly has a connection with the dead. I think it’s possible that the degrees in the lighthouse correspond to, well, bearings, as it were, for those characters. Given that Jacob was dialing in on people to spy on them, I don’t think that this is so far fetched. Once Jacob figured out which bearing went with which person, he could start narrowing things down to determine who fit with the energy of the Island.

But, every time I try to theorize about Lost, my brain turns into one of those snake in a can things and explodes, so I am going to stop typing now before I overthink this any further.

Female Celebrities Behaving Oddly? It Must Be Mental Illness!

My pal Ouyang Dan from FWD/Forward has written two great posts recently talking about the way the public devours celebrity, and specifically about the way in which the public frames female celebrity. “The Public Consumption of Britney” is up over at Bitch Magazine, and “On Speculation and Boundaries…” was published at FWD after the unexpected death of actress Brittany Murphy.

Both posts stuck with me, and left me with some lingering thoughts and ideas about female celebrities, mental illness, and the way the public thinks about celebrity. Ouyang Dan has a way of doing that to me. Her words are insidious. They incubate in my brainmeats for a while and then BAM something explodes.

The thing about female celebrities is that they are very much viewed as public property. Yes, the public is possessive and proprietary about male celebrities, but not quite in the same way it is about women. Women who are prominent public figures are constantly scrutinized and held to very high standards. Every change in their appearance is noted and discussed.

Every pound lost or gained. Every hair cut. Every outfit. Every word that exits their mouths. Every bite eaten, drink drunk, dance danced. Every moment, from strong to vulnerable, concert stage to hotel room, is considered fair game. And the public very much acts in a way which shows that people think that they are entitled to literally devour female celebrities. When challenged on this, people push back with the argument that if they didn’t want this, they shouldn’t have become famous.

Yes, evidently if you don’t want to be picked apart by buzzards, you should not try to build a career for yourself. If you are a woman and you are a good speaker, writer, actress, singer, musician, artist, you should keep it to yourself. Expressing yourself means that you automatically sign a contract which says that you belong to the public and that the public can do as it pleases with you. The public can make you, break you, and then discard you.

You are, literally, not in control of your own body when you are a female celebrity. Hollywood is sometimes called a fishbowl, especially for women, and it’s a very apt comparison. No place is safe. There is no escape. Private phone calls, emails, conversations, all can potentially be used against you and all of them are.

This cannot be an easy life to live. I’m sure that there are some talented women out there who have seen this and opted not to showcase their talents because they don’t want to deal with it. We are probably missing out on some supercool ladies because those ladies know that this public consumption is not something that they are prepared for or particularly want to deal with.

Nowhere is this more apparent than when women who lead very public lives behave “oddly” in the opinions of their voracious public. Any erratic behaviour cannot possibly be due to random factors, stress about public scrutiny, or any other influences.

No, it must be because of drugs. Or mental illness. But probably both. Especially if you are a female celebrity and you die, get ready for the public to start performing an autopsy within seconds, despite lacking access to training, experience, or facts.

Very few female celebrities have openly discussed psychiatric diagnoses. Yet, many members of the public believe that a number of celebrities are in fact mentally ill, and seem to think that they have detailed information about the nature of this mental illness. They speculate quite freely on what diagnoses celebrities may have, and use their behaviour as armchair psychiatrists to decide what’s “wrong” with female celebrities.

Make no mistake: If you are a female celebrity, there is something wrong with you. If you’re not mentally ill, you’re a catty uptight bitch. If you’re not either of those things, you are greedy and selfish, looking for your next big opportunity. You can’t be a woman and be value neutral, and just exist, in Hollywood. There’s got to be an angle somewhere, and the public will decide what that angle is.

This plays into a larger issue about women, which is that they are all assumed to be “crazy” and people think that they cannot actually endure high-stress situations like those experienced by celebrities. The assumption is that any woman would develop mental illness if she was a celebrity because women are prone to mental illness, only a paparazzi snap away from losing their shit and becoming certifiable. And, of course, when you are being consumed by the public, the public will pick over your supposed mental illness in exhaustive detail.

It’s not entirely improbable that some celebrities do have mental illness. And maybe if we lived in a society where mental illness was less stigmatized, we would know about it because these women would be open about their diagnoses. They would freely discuss their mental illness and talk about the ways in which it interacts with their careers. But the fact is that we live in a society where mental illness is regarded as a moral failing and where members of the public feel quite free saying that people with mental illness are bad people who probably need to be locked up for the safety of the general public.

In that kind of world, what woman is going to admit to  having mental illness? And what celebrity, even in a psychiatric crisis, is going to say “yes, I am mentally ill”?

The rampant speculation which swirls around female celebrities in general makes me deeply uncomfortable, because it speaks to a lot of problems in our society. But the speculation in particular about psychiatric issues and drug abuse (some people might argue that drug abuse can be considered a psychiatric issue) makes me really upset. The idea that public ownership of celebrity extends even to private medical records is something that I really think we need to address.

Part and parcel with that comes the fact that we need to break down the ableism which surrounds mental illness, and start to force people to reconsider the way they think about mental illness, particularly in women. Not every woman who behaves “erratically” is mentally ill. Not every female celebrity has a mental illness. And mental illness does not make you a bad person.

Trickling Spaghetti

Deborah Blum at Slate: The Chemist’s War

Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Radley Balko at Reason: Is Texas About To Execute Another Innocent Man?

You’d think given recent headlines that Texas might be a bit more reluctant to execute a possibly innocent man.

invisiman52 at Racialicious: Why “African American” IS the Most Accurate Term

If we, African Americans, shutter our own imperialist gaze we might find more in common with Africans than we thought.

Amanda Hess at The Sexist: Rape Analogy: The “Walking In A Bad Neighborhood” Theory

When you say that women who wear too-short skirts, or too-high heels, or too much make up are not sufficiently protecting themselves against rape, what you are really saying is that women who act too much like women deserve to be raped.

Dick J. Reavis at Indyweek: The Secret World Of Day Labourers: The Hole

We had a job—and not a job anybody would want— maybe because of a machine’s limitations, or if not, because our em­ployer’s trailer had a flat tire.

Alan Prendergast at Denver Westword: Health-Care Hell

But as the hospital bills began to roll in, the company launched a review of her application and prior medical records, a process known as “post-claim underwriting.”