(Group1): “Outlaws”: Christian vs. Locke
+4 4 Votes
Rate it:
By jazprof
- (Group1): “Outlaws”: Christian vs. Locke
- Created: Jul 27, 2007
- Last updated: Aug 13, 2008
- After episode: 3.22: Through The Looking Glass
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
I didn’t have any great ideas about this ep—but thought, eh, I’ll put down what i’ve got, get the ball rolling, …
The whisper that Sawyer hears: “It’ll come back around…”—if we look at Duckett’s last words more fully (“I was going to pay…It’ll come back around”), it makes me wonder if Duckett didn’t pay, who will, and how that fits with coming back around—it’ll come back around so that Cooper eventually paid? or will Sawyer have to pay sometime?
Two men influencing Sawyer in this ep-Locke and Christian:
Locke’s story about the golden retreiver—the point is that the mother is let off the hook for her guilt about the daughter’s death. Is Locke telling Sawyer there to let himself off the hook for his mother’s death? Does the boar represent his father (he does refer to it as “Daddy” - “Daddy’s got to be around here”) and the hunt is about his guilt at not protecting his mother?
How to reconcile what Locke does with Sawyer here with his later use of him to kill Cooper?
Christian—an odd mix of influences here. Christian is so often the advocate of the passive response, that there’s nothing one can do, fate is just going to run its course. Here he actually counsels Sawyer to do something in order to try and end his suffering, but ironically, doing something seems to put Sawyer right back on his fated course.
Other things might point to Christian as a “handler” (in the way that Ms. Hawking is), and may support my idea that Christian’s drinking problem relates to his having been on the side of course correction. Sawyer says “What’d you handle?” Christian says he actually feels gratitude for what Jack did to him. Also says that with one phone call he could fix things with Jack (Jack is the fixer, Christian is the anti-fixer or the nope-can’t fix-it-er).
Other random thoughts/questions:
Kate is looking for a gun from Jack seemingly before she knows about Sawyer and the boar. Why does she need a gun?
Kate reads Sawyer very, very well. She is definitely the dominant person in that relationship
Christian and Sawyer talk about Australia as Hell (reminiscent of Cooper thinking the island is Hell). Sawyer chooses “hot” not “sweet” when he orders the shrimp from Duckett.
Why does Sawyer’s description of Kate to Jack (Jack: “What’d she give you?” Sawyer: “Nothin she wasn’t willing to part with”) elicit the “That’s why the Sox will never win the series” response?
Sayid says to Charlie that after volunteering to be on the firing squad for a man who deserved to die, he (Sayid) had nightmares “for no reason.” Nightmares vs. Reason—> I think “reason” might not be the right place to find the answer to nightmares.
Key characters
| Short Name | Full Name | Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Christian | Dr. Christian Shephard | 336 | |
| John | John Locke | 3.3, 2.17, 1.4, 1.19, 3.13, 3.19, 4.11, & 3” href=”/episodes/theres-no-place-home-parts-2-3/”>4.13 | 1228 |
| Sawyer | James “Sawyer” Ford | 3.4, 2.3, 2.6, 2.13, 1.16, 3.10 | 451 |
Key episodes
| # | Title | Aired | Central character | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.16 | Outlaws | 2-16-2005 | Jack, Kate, Sawyer | 67 |
I think John was trying to tell Sawyer that his boar might be someone from Sawyer’s past, in this case the man he killed, exacting a bit of revenge on Sawyer… letting things come back around. Thus, Sawyer doesn’t kill the boar because, after all, what the boar did to him, he had it coming.
If you aren’t a detective already, then you should consider it as a line of work jaz.
I didn’t glean much info from this episode (the sound cut off halfway thru). I thought it was mostly filler until I read your post.
Great catch about Australia being referred to as “hell” and the “hot” rather than sweet shrimp.
well I did have a student who gave me a pipe and magnifying glass as a present once :-)
For more Lost online - links to complete episodes, theories, news, trivia, episode guides and details on the next season:
Check out sidereel.com/Lost sidereel.com/Lost_Theories
I’m new to this website what does group1 mean?
the boar represents sawyers father. because sawyer was alittle boy when his father died so he cant remember his face but he actually blame his father of his mother’s dying. later cooper says it. he says your mother wanted me to save her from his husband and her pathetic life. however sawyer looking for cooper he actually blames his own father and thinks his father is a pig, a boar in his dreams. locke said cat is my sister according to my motherb this releaved that boar is sawyer’s father
I think the boar could represent both Sawyer’s father and Duckett—as I think there are two things at this point that Sawyer needs to be let off the hook for—feeling that he didn’t save his mother from his father, and killing the wrong guy.
katrina, i am talking about sawyer’s dream. remember? sawyer saw a boar came to his room when he was child in his dream as like in real life his father came to house. same scene. we know the man’s face who sawyer killed. but we never saw sawyer’s father so that is why i am pretty sure that boar represents his father. like jack saw his father, locke saw his mother in this island
wonder if our sawyer read cooper the letter he had been carrying around, does anyone know?
kat, I think the meaning of the boar coming and attacking Sawyer’s stuff if we read the boar as his father—is that the boar is destroying his home (taking the tarp, etc.) as his father did.
Good discussion all.
Jaz, your question about in one moment Locke is trying to help Sawyer deal with his internal strife (story about the golden retriever) and then uses him to kill Cooper is very reconcilable. Locke, very early on, seems to be able to tap into Sawyer’s “issue” and tries to help him purge the demon through a parable: very Christlike in a way. But when that doesn’t work, Locke is willing to get his hands dirty (albeit through Sawyer) and allows a murder to take place. In this way Locke is very un-Christlike. Eye for an eye so to speak. But its all consistent with Locke believing that people need to take matters into their own hands to resolve their issues. A person’t issues can’t be solved by someone else. At least that my take.
Great analysis. The boar as a metaphor is really good storytelling.
Stip, so you think the first instance (purging his demon through giving up on the boar—giving up on revenge)—doesn’t work? See that’s where I’m confused. It did seem to work to me, so I wasn’t sure why we had to go back to an eye for an eye. (Which is actually a misused figure of speech for revenge imo)
You’re right about eye for an eye, my bad, should have come up with a better expression.
I know what you were saying. Yes, when Sawyer didn’t shoo the boar, he did give up on revenge - at that moment - and his demon was purged - temporarily. But then Locke intervened (for his own selfish benefit - much like Ben?) Locke took it beyond a metaphor - Locke made it real. Very real. So real that Sawyer couldn’t handle the aftermath.
It didn’t have to go that far, you’re right. Sawyer might have been just fine. But Locke forced the issue and, as he routinely does, created more destruction.