Alex Part 1: Why Do The Others Call Alex “Alex”?
+15 27 Votes
Rate it:
By AngeloComet
- Alex Part 1: Why Do The Others Call Alex “Alex”?
- Created: Nov 8, 2007
- Last updated: Sep 19, 2008
- After episode: 3.22: Through The Looking Glass
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
The Others could have called her anything. . .
— AngeloComet
In the first of a series delving into the character of Alex, I shall take some time to consider why Alex was continued to be named as such by The Others after being kidnapped from her mother, Danielle.
To bring this point more sharply into focus let’s review the circumstances as to how, apparently, Alex came to be in the custody of The Others. As Danielle tells it, she came to the Island seven months pregnant and gave birth to Alex a couple of months after. Although this hasn’t been made apparent, I tend to believe that the science team she arrived with were dead before Alex was born. I’ve no strong evidence to back that up but it just seems to make sense - if they were infected she would kill them to prevent her baby from being contaminated. (Although the idea that Danielle eventually shot her ‘infected’ science team and true love in defence of her newborn child has dramatic potential.) What else we know is, one week after Alex was born, The Others came and took her. The exact circumstances surrounding that kidnap are unknown.
So, why do The Others call Alex by the name Danielle gave her? She was one week old when she was taken. One week old! The Others could have called her anything they chose to, but they stuck with the name Alex, the name Danielle gave her.
I know some people get stuck on the idea of how it is The Others could have even known Alex’s given name. That doesn’t worry me. Close monitoring of Danielle in the days and weeks preceding the kidnap could have allowed The Others to know the baby’s name. Indeed, Ben (in a deleted scene) justifies the kidnap by stating Alex was a week-old baby being cared for by a crazy woman in the jungle (odds on there’s more to it than that!). How they knew doesn’t concern me. The Others made it their business to know. It’s why they stuck with the name Alex that I am dealing with.
There’s a very glib answer, of course. Why not? Alex is as good a name as any. They had to name the kid something, and the mother had given her a perfectly good name. So, why not? Well, if they wanted to completely sever ties between mother and daughter then changing Alex’s name would aid this transition. So this tees up answer number one: they didn’t change Alex’s name because, at some stage, there was every intention to re-unite mother and daughter. This is one good reason why Danielle was left alone and left alive. How could The Others expect Danielle to embrace the child she lost if even her very name had changed? Because the name Alex, sixteen years later, is the only connection Danielle has left. The importance of that is not to be underestimated. There may be very large ramifications resulting from Danielle and Alex being back together at the end of season 3. Personally, it’s seeing those two together that is a major draw for the forthcoming season, and it’s an aspect to Alex I shall delve into in a later ‘Alex’ instalment.
But let me leave you with what I think is another good reason why Alex maintained her birth name. Think of how Ben was brought to the Island; part of the Dharma Initiative - a group he clearly found no real love for (the likelihood is he found two people to like his whole time there: Annie and Horace Goodspeed). And what’s one thing that Dharma does to new people on the Island? Gives them a new identity. A lesser identity. Namely, Roger Workman. The reduction of a person into a name and a role.
Ben defied the Dharma Initiative. He rejected what they stood for. People, in respect to this, get to keep their names. Alex was named Alex. Alex gets to stay named Alex. So, place your bets. What’s Alex’s full name? Alex Rousseau, or Alex Linus? If we knew that it might make some of the other issues about Alex’s understanding of her life on the Island a little easier to guess at, but I’ll get into that and other issues next time. . .
AC We’ve discussed this before but i don’t remember mention of keeping the name for future manipulation, I like it +1. Its one hell of a long con though - 16 years. This surely has to point (if true) to Ben being able to see the future or at least be told the future.
AC: I love not only what you say, but how you say it. You a writer? (In case the answer is “no”, dude you should think about it!)
I’m totally buying your idea about not changing Alex’s name being tied to not killing “mad” Danielle. Ben has obscure reasons for his doings —some people here will say he’s synchro-freaking-niciting things ;-)
There’s something about names that tickled me all the time: the way Ben’s group always refer to the Losties by their last names: Jarrah, Ford, Austen, Kwon… except when they are “adopted”: Shephard is “Jack” only when he’s needed to do surgery on Ben. Locke is John when Ben accepts him in the Others group…
[Tangenting on my tangent, what about Pickett? Why is he “Pickett”? In fact, who calls him “Pickett”? All the time is Danny this, Danny that… but then Kate tells Sawyer “they call him Pickett”, so she must have heard it that way… or did she? ;-) ==> Hinting to “Kate is a mole” theories]
Oh and of course +1 from me…
Never picked up on that Pickett point, Occ - though rather than Kate being a mole it might point towards scripting inconsistencies. Still, I like inconsistency details; they’re good for trivia!
As for writing. I do so as a hobby with the dream of being published and famous and all that. Need to get past my own perfectionism first, though. And laziness.
LJ - you think everyone’s conning everyone! But on this I agree - even though I hadn’t thought of it quite like that.
I don’t know about scripting inconsistencies, AC… Same episode (S3E04, “Every Man for Himself”), and the only one calling the guy “Pickett” is Kate —and then of course Sawyer, when answering her. The rest of the episode, Ben and all the other guys calls him “Danny”. It has to mean something…
I like it alot, Angelo! Bravo kai +1 !
LOL, I not sure that’s entirely fair, though i do think if Ben’s or any of his cronies (Juliet included) lips are moving then there is generally some form of con going on.
Nice thoughts AC.
I have to agree that Ben probably foresaw Alex’s return to Danielle. He might not necessarily have planned to, and he might even have fought the idea, but he might have known it was inevitable. That would be if they have the ability to know future events, of course. Ben strikes me as a person who needs an ulterior motive for everything he does, whether that be changing the baby’s name or leaving it as it was.
I’m looking at it rather the other way around, ozzig… Maybe Ben didn’t get Danielle killed because he wanted Alex returning to her…
True enough. She is a teenager now. He might have been looking forward to the idea of giving her back to her mother.
great ideas! +1
Another superb post, Angelo. You’re a bright light in LT land thes days! +1
I never thought about why Ben kept Alex’s name. What a great subject to delve into.
Going partly on your theory and combining what Miss ozzig and Occam commented, I think Ben kept her name partly because of the title imposed on his father and because he expected to have to return Alex to Danielle at some point. Maybe he only wanted/needed her while she was a child?
I don’t think he expected to return her at that particular time, though. That was because of the impending attack. I think he had other plans for returning Alex or possibly recruiting/blackmailing Danielle in the process. Always a Plan B with Ben.
AC—I like it a lot, and it seems to fit very well with the way the S3 finale played out. I don’t know how this fits—but just thinking about Alex’s name reminds me of connecting her up to Greek mythology/tradition (as opposed to Hebraic Aaron), and makes me wonder if Danielle is supposed to allude to the Maenad/Bacchae in any way.
Occ—like the Pickett, Kate=mole connection.
AC—a question regarding the importance of having people keep their names/identities—in terms of the idea of fate benders or course correction would this mean that Dharma tended to putting people off course and onto a lesser path while Ben’s manipulations are directed at having people fulfill their destinies?
ninjazz: Why a “lesser” path? Why not a “bigger” one? One in which they are all a part of a greater whole —the Dharma Initiative.
“You got to put your past behind you”, Timon dixit. Maybe to be in tune with the Island, you have to leave your former “links” behind? That would tie nicely with the “killing your father” requisite Ben imposes on Locke… But, going back with my first point: you must forget about the individual and focus on the community. That’s why your “task” becomes your “tag” —linking too with “You are what you do” Prof (I think) posted some time ago.
Sorry, I meant a comment posted by ProfO to my only Group 1 thread…
Jaz. If Dharma were trying to resolve the Valenzetti equation, they’d want to control all factors within that resolution. The reduction of names (therefore identity, therefore individuality) increases control.
The ultimate reduction would be to have people labelled as numbers so as to create absolute controls within the equation.
I’ll be honest, this all seems a little intangible to be sensible, but running with your question; if the Valenzetti equation equals fate, then the reduction of name-identity aligns Dharma with fate-benders.
Ergo, the reverse is true for Ben and the cause for course correction.
The Maenad/Bacchae? It’s all (ho ho ho) Greek to me!
Hm… Took a look at Wiki about the Maenad and, definitely, it fits. Although I always pictured Danielle more like a banshee, the Greek root is more like it.
I already lost one long post, so I’m not going to try and link here to my previous one ,of which I could not add correctly! :(( I will just say that I agree with a lot of what Jaz says is what I believe to be true. If you read through the transcript available at lostpedia.com that is “Through the Looking Glass” ,reading especially the parts of Ben’s dialogue with Alex, I think you will probaby see as I do that Ben has a much more seeming awareness of the events that should take place. It reminds me of Ms. Hawking’s conversation with Desmond, she seems too know what should happen,even though Desmond does not understand fully how she knows. I am going to probably incur a little wrath for bringing this up for who knows ?? how many times. But I can take the heat(I Think) I believe that it is Ben that is in the coffin. He is the only one that makes any sense . That is why I think Jack is so desperate to go back,because he now knows Ben was right about most everything that he said.
Or-occular—I meant lesser in terms of what AC was saying about the DI turning people into their jobs, and I do generally see “jobs” portrayed negatively I think—like when they first get into the hatch, pushing the button becomes a job, Hurley is given the job of distributing the food, etc. But I take your point in terms of changing who they are.
AC, again I love your post, but I think I’m probably in the minority on this one……I think Alex keeping her name was simply part of the overall script. The first mention of Alex was when Danielle spoke with Sayid in her underground hideout, then we eventually see a girl that one of the Others referred to as Alex and we as viewers make the connection, “Ooooh, that’s Alex! That’s Danielle’s daughter!!!” If her name wasn’t Alex we would’ve just seen some young brunette girl. Not to mention Alex didn’t exactly get her mom’s looks (and thank you for that, casting directors!).
However, I still really like this idea because the writers could very well have gone with the “16 year-old daughter that looks like she could have a French heritage” connection and incorporated a name-switch by Ben. And regardless of whether or not Alex keeping her name means anything I do believe Ben had always planned to return her to Danielle.
I guess what I’m trying to say is….great job and keep up the good work.
I saw that coming from far away, kat… <:O)
For the most part I don’t believe anything that Ben or Danielle tell the Losties, so I don’t think we have enough information to guess as to what Alex/Danielle/Ben’s past is.
Danielle has never been in contact with the Others, who stole her newborn child, yet Ben gets caught in a net and she brings him to the Losties so they can talk things over? In what time-bubble-fantasy-snowglobe would THAT happen? Wouldn’t she drag him back to her bunker and interrogate him like Sayid? Clearly she’s lying, he’s lying, and we’re being lied to.
Rise, I disagree. I wrote a long post about Rousseau, commenting on her behaviour from her perspective, and argued against the idea that she has been nothing but as presented to us and is not lying to the Losties.
I’m not saying I am definitely right, understand, but I think I made a good case none-the-less.
Good pick on the Pickett/Danny item…odds are 10-1 that Sawyer calls himself Tater Salad in season 4.
I’m not saying everything Danielle has said has been a lie. But I don’t understand why she would turn over Ben to the Losties. Ben is only the SECOND person she’s seen since her newborn was abducted by mysterious island folk(not including her team members), and she hands him over to the Losties? Why? Wouldn’t she interrogate Ben? Wouldn’t she ask 100 questions about Alex? Why hand him over to a group of crash survivors? It doesn’t add up. She’s already proven her dishonesty once by stealing Aaron from Claire, supposedly to trade him for her own child. But wait a minute……she wants her child so bad she’s willing to steal Aaron and trade him, but not bad enough to interrogate Ben? She’s lying. Maybe not as much as I think she is, and maybe not as infrequently as you think she is, but there’s definitely some dishonest behavior going on. Combine that with her being disoriented ‘has it been that long?’ and I find her to be a very unreliable source of information.
Also, let’s remember that Rousseau has been reunited with Alex, courtesy of Ben Linus, with very little reasoning I might add(especially after supposedly kidnapping her and keeping her from Danielle for 16 years). Ben has reunited parents and children before, only after they’ve done his bidding. Recall Michael and Walt’s situation. Michael is manipulated into selling out the Losties and in return his child is returned to him. Perhaps Ben promised Rousseau that she would see her child again if she lied to the Losties and escorted him right into their camp. Seems like a very plausible benipulation scenario to me.
btw, +1, you’re an asset to the community, always get me thinking
And didn’t everyone assume that Alex was a he up until we actually found out that Alex was really a she? I think that plays right into a name-guided mini-twist and makes a name change unnecessary for the plot.
Rise, Danille had met all the fuselage Losties before she met Ben. She helped them get dynamite from the Black Rock to blow open the hatch.
I expect she also probably did ask Ben a thousand questions (hence why she knew he lied) and then turned to Sayid the torturer to get results.
Appreciate the debate, though. Nothing makes you work harder than your ideas being challenged by scrutiny!
YAE - the point is the writers have created a position where a kidnapped one-week old baby retained the name given by the mother she was kidnapped from by the people that kidnapped her! Even if they never originally intended this, it exists now, and it ought to be addressed.
Right, which leads me to believe that Ben might have been expecting this all along.
Maybe he didn’t plan on it, but considering how resourceful and cunning Danielle has been out in the jungle, perhaps the Others couldn’t contain her and just decided to leave her alone while making sure she didn’t disrupt what they were doing (possibly using her to manipulate the Losties-with or without her knowledge)…all the while Ben knew in the back of his mind that there could be a reunion at some point, escpecially after seeing how rebelious Alex had become.
I don’t know, just speculating. I’d be satisfied with any of the ideas presented in this thread.
+1 from me angelo…dont have time to read the comments at the moment but im sure they’re great too.Looking forward to your future Alex theories.
AC, Like the post but Im going to have to agree with YouAll on this one. The most logical answer is that a name change would not allow (less inteligant or less involved viewers) to make the connection. What the posters here must realize is that you are the small majority of viewers who are actually desperately trying to find clues and figure out every little inconsistancy in the storyline. A storyline which has evolved as the show has gone on. I believe I read somewhere Lost is viewed by upwards of 6 million people a week. (could be wrong there but its a lot)
I dont know about you but I know and conversate with many lost viewers in the real world (no offense this world is way more interesting) and they dont know of a 100th of what is discussed here. theyre looking at the show not as an internet clue fest but as a well acted show that keeps you guessing and twisting every week. When I discuss some of the theories and other clues that I pick up here with them they look at me like Im nuts.
From what I read here we are the very small minority. I can tell by most posters that they have the intelligence and imaginations to come up with, understand and elaborate on other theories. If it turns out in the end to be something as elaborate as something here we well all get it because weve read and theorized about it all along but to the normal 9 to 5 working weekly viewer its just not going to be taken as good..
If you wanted you could watch any show on TV with these same eyes and find just as many inconsistancies and why would they keep the name alex type stuff. After all Lost is just a show designed to keep viewers. You wont keep to many viewers if the show is not able to be understood by the average viewer who thinks about whats going on with lost for a mere 1 hour a week. TLE and other things on the net are simply backstory and info to make the show more interesting to the die hards.(like a game.) cont.
cont. It will probobaly end up with the regular weekly watchers happy with a conclusion of each persons journey and key answers to why theyre there. Yet we here will be unhappy with the amount of questions that remain unanswered. I can see us two seasons after the show is over still asking ourselves where did the food drop come from, they had to get food from somewhere a mysterious food drop keeps with the story and keeps the show from being repeated episodes of “How to survive on a deserted island”
Anyways, Sorry so long, I like mysteries and think alot of these theories are great and well thought out. I just dont think we are the viewers that the writers are catering this show to. The Lost Experience and other extras are the things that are geared to the more involved viewer so to not make us bored with the regular happenings on the show. How can any of these clues that you have to freezeframe and other things possibly going to relate to the average viewers perspective of the show.
Once again keep up the great theories AC I love them but I wouldnt worry as much about the small inconsistancies on a show that was written as it went on. (+1)
AC, I somehow missed this post, until now! I would tend to agree with Rise, YouAll and HurleyB, though! Very nicely written and presented! +1
Perhaps, Ben thought Rousseau would never see her child again, so a name change wouldn’t be necessary, or it would tend to make me wonder how anyone other than Rousseau would actually have known the babies name! It’s not like Alex could speak and say what her name was at such a young age. Which would then lead me to believe, there is more to the relationship between Ben & Rousseau which at present is unknown. Too many unanswered questions, to speculate upon!
Time will tell!
I’m guessing they call her Alex because it’s her first name. Can’t wait to see what’s in Part 2!
blizzard: Har, har, har. Oh, boy, you’re so funny… please find somewhere in the middle of a desert and try to amuse the sand. That would be sooooo nice…
Excellent questions being posed here. I imagine Ben did have a reason for keeping Alex’s name. What that reason is, who knows, but we’ve got some interesting speculations here for sure.
I don’t think anyone’s name has been changed; Ben’s father wasn’t “re-named” Roger Workman, his tag simply stated his first name, then his title, i.e. Roger, Work Man. Just like “Horace, Mathematician” on Horace Goodspeed’s tag. I don’t see the point in changing anyone’s name; in fact, the Others keep referring to the Losties by their surnames, even though most of the Losties didn’t even know Sawyer’s real name, for instance. Another possibility is that Ben retained Alex’s name as a backup, just in case she found out that her mother is alive.
Impossible to read all of these comments so I do not know if it was mentioned but as far as Alex being a Rousseau or a Linus…it was interesting to me what Locke said to Sawyer in reagards to killing Ben for shooting Charlotte…he said (paraphrasing) “…So I should kill him infront of his daughter!”. Why would Locke make this kind of acknowledgment when he knows Ben isn’t her father…or is he??? I always believed that there was a lot more to Danielle, a lot more.
ummmmm…aight i havent read all the comments, but….im pretty sure someone states very clearly that alex is the daughter that ben and danielle conceived…am i wrong???
Does it matter?! I personally don’t think Alex’s name carries any significance whatsoever. We have time travel, an open pregnancy issue, a freighter, a freaky black guy with scary eyes, some re-occurring numbers and a giant foot! Why are you worrying about Alex’s name. It’s a name at the end of the day, and Ben has far more things to worry about than how he names Alex! And also, dude, what is your point? I started reading this theory, I thought you were getting at something. You asked about 10ish questions, but didn’t come to a conclusion. Ok, maybe it does carry some significance, but at the moment we have no evidence to base that on. Sorry, dude. =]
Great theory. I liked it. I think Ben did this too because he did not like Dharma’s way of doing things. Good job!
Danielle delivered Alex herself… so I think you can assume that her team weren’t around when Alex was born.
If someone has responded with this input already I apologise.