LOST-Theories.com

Good points. I only became suspicious of Alex at one point in season 3. That was when she visited Jack in the cages, and took out the camera. The reason being that she used her dominant nature, to get Jack to answer her question. It was a fleeting moment of weakness. I definately think she’s on the level, as for Danielle i’m not so sure. Like you say she is a wildcard and has been left to her own devices. I’m inclined to think she may be one of the others, or at least telling half truths to the 815ers. How bout this for a plot twist… Danielle was stranded on the island, killed her team for some reason, and then joined with the others, recording the message at the radio tower, for Ben. She was betrayed, and the baby was taken. Ben never changed the signal at the tower. Why? Before the looking glass was blocking the signal, I think that he knew if any uninvited guests showed up, their short wave radios would be useless. More Benipulation.

Have you considered that Alex is possibly in league with someone other than Ben’s group? In my mind, Mikhail was theoretically Dharma but probably a double agent from a 3rd faction mentioned in another theory. He convinced Ben he was valuable and swirching sides, Ben allowed him to serve the others, but at a distance. What would someone like Mikhail do, sit there passively and do as instructed? No, he’d plot and scheme and recruit, say Klugh? Karl? who then recruits Alex? Ben of course would probably know/suspect but thought it could be handled, and it could explain both his trying to keep Karl away from Alex and his brain-washing attempts on Karl.

Sorry if this doesn’t fit in too well with the theory, but your theory brought this to my mind.

And please bear with me if I’ve repeated anything you’ve already said, I haven’t read all of your theories yet, but will eventually get there.

Ozzig: No worries. All opinions valid, especially since I am pretty much taking best guesses on what fits my perspective.

I tend to believe Mikhail was loyal to Ben. He ventured down and sacrificed himself at the Looking Glass after all. However, if there is a ‘seperatist faction’ (an idea I do subscibe to) then I would have thought the chief affiliates would be Alpert and potentially Juliet. Alex in league with them? I would have thought she’d be too risky - indoctrinating the daughter of the leader of the group you’re secretly working against to your side is a decidedly risky strategy, wouldn’t you think?

Well, not neccesarily. That Alex resented Ben and had a problem with calling him father always seemed a given to me, and perhaps she’d be a major plus in the recruitment department, with access to certain info.

As for Mikhail, he may have sacrificed himself, but for who? There could have been another faction who would have wanted that station destroyed. I think if Ben had actually wanted it destroyed, he would not have had his people down there guarding it. Wasn’t it Mikhail who killed them? I don’t think that was per Ben’s orders.

I’m no bomb expert, but didn’t he have a few minutes of time to get away? It did blow only a small spot on the station, just enough to let in water, it didn’t blow up the station or equipment or Charlie, why assume it would blow up Mikhail? I don’t think it was strong enough to travel for that.

Ozzig: Fair points. Doesn’t fit with my idea that Alex is a rogue independent like her mother, but I can’t find any genuine foundation by which to disagree with your theory either. Both are definitely viable.

I base my assurance that Mikhail is dead from what has been stated on the S3 DVD (UK release) by Lindelhof. He lists a bunch of Others that were dead by the end of S3, and named Mikhail as one of them. (As well as Isabel, too - grrrrrrrrrr.)

Well, did he say how Mikhail died? His death may be yet to come. Those producers are sneaky you know. I wouldn’t put it past them for a second to bring Mikhail back one more time, a la Mickael Myers.

Actually, we’re both calling Alex a rogue in a way. Regardless of where she might have affilated herself, I wouldn’t doubt that it’s only her own interests she works for (and that would include protecting Karl)

By “dead by the end of S3” I figure that great big grendade he was waving around was the way of it. It had to be something spectacular to kill that tough mother!

You’re probably right that he’ll be back though. The same way Ethan keeps cropping up. You just can’t keep a good bad Other down!

And Alex being rogue and playing two different factions off… Yep, I’m happy with that (though that puts her in a tremendous position of knowledge and power!).

I don’t think the granade killed him though. I think the Dharma shark got him as he was swimming away.

Angelo, I agree with your assessment of Alex and of Ben’s motives. Alex is a loose canon, like her mother and since I’ve read Ben’s diary, I’ve felt he was planning to try to form an alliance with the Losties.

I’m sure he felt it was better to have Alex with her mother, the Losties and him rather than causing trouble at the temple out of his control.

Another good one. +1

Interesting points. And I too think both mother and daughter are on the level. +1

AC, I’m with you that Alex is on the level…but just because it’s her idea to do something doesn’t mean that it’s not what Ben wants her to do. I believe that Ben exploits her rebellious nature and positions her to rebel when it coincides with his plan. Yes, I agree that Alex freed Claire of her own volition…but I also firmly believe that Ben wanted her to do so. He didn’t plant Aaron’s disease as a failsafe in case Claire escaped, he planted it so that after Alex set Claire & Aaron free, Aaron’s illness could serve as a convenient means to get Juliet into the Losties’ camp. As for Rousseau, I’m not positive yet that she has ALWAYS been on the level. I don’t think her jane of the jungle routine is fake, I don’t think she’s been baking cookies with the Others…..but I still find it suspicious that she simply brought Ben into the Losties’ camp after not seeing any natives for 16 years. They kidnapped her child and I can’t see why she would hand over her first lead in 16 years. It seems possible to me that Ben said ‘bring me into their camp and I promise you’ll get Alex back’. That would fit with the Lost universe and wouldn’t really make Danielle a fraud(for the most part). Alex was her weakness and I expect to learn that Ben exploited Danielle. Alex’s rebellion is predictable and I think Ben exploited her as well. That doesn’t make either of them evil or bad, it would simply render them as vulnerable as the rest of our Losties, and I don’t think that would be a tragedy by any means.

As for Karl, I think he was used as bait to force Alex’s predictable rebellion. Just like when Ben took Walt to force Michael’s hand, Ben locks up Karl. And what’s his excuse? To keep him from impregnating Alex. And who is our only source that this phenomenon of pregnant women dying is accurate? Ben. The myth of miscarriage is merely a system of control, a button that Ben pushes when it can help his cause, and he pushed it in this case knowing it would prompt Alex to set the Losties free(he made them think their freedom was earned) and forced Jack to stick around, which is all he wanted in the first place.

As for Mikhail, I think loyalty is a one-way street for Ben. Information is given out on a need-to-know basis and Ben strictly controls the flow of information to the Others. Would Mikhail die to protect whatever Ben has told him they’re protecting? Yes. Would Ben sacrifice him? Yes. But Ben will also use and exploit Mikhail if need be without telling him the complete picture. Mikhail is a chief communications officer but didn’t know about the Pearl. It’s exactly like the Swan. These separate pieces get isolated with no clue that they are working in concert with each other. Myth’s like the ‘incident’ & the miscarriages are used to keep each team afraid and isolated. You press the button because they tell you it saves the world and you have to press it, no questions asked. You’re in the dark. You follow orders. And then one day you realize there is no sickness, no quarantine, and you lose faith in your commanding officers. You shoot yourself. You lie to Desmond and steal his yacht. Perhaps this revelation is what Mikhail’s future holds, that his work has been in vain or that he has been misled.

Wow, everything that Rise just said! Because he covered it all as far as I’m concerned!

Risey, You should have posted a theory on this! Nice work!

AC, You make some very good analysis with respect to the future between Danille, Alex and Ben!

One other worthy note, was when Mikhail encountered Bonnie and Greta in TLG, he told them that Ben had told him, they were on assignment in Canada, so it proves that Mikhail is on a need to know basis, only, as is everyone else Ben has communication with.

Mikhail IS dead! But, his back story will be shown in future, but I am not sure if it will be in Season 4.

Rise, I really like your thoughts as well. Well stated. That said, one or two items for each of you.

Rise, with regard to the pregnancies, Ben is not our only source that complications do arise. If I’m not mistaken, in D.O.C., Juliet talks to Sun about her role as a Dr. on the island and the failed pregnancies under her care. Moreover, the character of Juliet, absent a bombshell, does not make much sense if there actually is no pregnancy issue.

Second Rise, I don’t think the “Karl” brain-washing incident was just bait to incite Alex’s rebellious nature. In a very real way, Karl’s indiscretion threatened Ben’s power because Karl directly impugned Ben’s authority by starting a love affair with Ben’s “daughter”. Even though Alex may be an outsider among the Others in many ways, Ben is still her “father” and Karl’s actions had to be met with severe consequences to reinforce Ben’s position of authority.

That said, I like your thoughts!

AC — another great post. A thought or two for you as well and a +1.

AC — One point on Alex. You stated that Alex’s behavior throughout this season has been fueled by her relationship with Karl. Personally, I don’t think this is the case as this would not provide Alex the depth I see possible in her character, and two, we run the risk of playing into that feminist critique (posted months ago) on the Lost show.

Rather, I am of the opinion that Alex’s behavior is fueled in part by at least three things: (i) alienation from the Others as, it appears, she is still viewed as an outsider; (ii) her age — given her station in life, a teenager/young adult, Alex is at the ripe age to rebel against authority (discussed below); and (iii) her innate character, which to some extent allows the viewer to connect Rousseau and her daughter (rebels who we believe are noble — i.e. why you, I and so many of our fellow posters are convinced they are on the level).

I like (ii) especially because it may also allow Alex’s character to relate to another issue: what is the goal of the Others and why did they terminate DHARMA. Weaving in Happy Atheists theory, many believe that the Others are realists who view the fruition of the Valenzetti Equation as unstoppable and believe that with Jacob, they can start a 2nd civilization. As such, maybe they fought DHARMA to protect humanity (themselves?). While their goal may be noble (ensuring that humanity, in some form, survives), their methods may not be (many of the Others have learned to tolerate certain evils as necessities).

Of course, Alex, being rebellious and young, may have a more idealistic (naive?) position. She may view Ben’s ultimate goal as laudable but reject the method of achieving it or she might outright reject the goal(s) of the Others as well. Thus, to me, Alex’s rebellion in season 3 is not just about a boy but is a refusal to buy into the society constructed by Ben and the Others …. a belief that there is a better way. Ah, the optimism of youth.

Either way, I believe it is her rebellious nature that is the cause of a taboo love affair not vice versa! (a refreshingly human, emotional and vibrant relationship among the Others)

In addition, Alex provides such a contrast to Ben — honest, helpful, doing what seems right to both herself and the viewer — and in some ways reminds Ben of the better parts of himself that have been lost (i.e. when he loved as well). Alex’s character then serves both to contrast her humanity against Ben’s but also Ben’s own destruction of his humanity (as he no longer understands love).

The question is…if Ben’s goals are indeed laudable, are his methods the only way to arrive their. If so, then Alex’s rebellion will ultimately be a lens to ratify Ben’s actions (i.e. this is the only way). Either way, her rebellion is a way to further understand Ben and his goals…and maybe, just maybe, to expose some of his humanity in the process.

Igs, great comments. For my defence, when I said Alex’s behaviour this season was fuelled by Karl it was written with the intent of saying what her behaviour was not fuelled by (i.e. a secondary, hidden agenda). I would certainly corroborate that Ben is indeed a massive factor in her actions; just think to where she fully betrayed Ben in person when she handed Locke a gun.

Interesting idea that Alex’s relationship with Karl is a form of rebellion. When reviewing the Alex material for these essays I did look around for a point where Alex says she loves Karl. She doesn’t. He says he loves her, but it’s never vocally reciprocated. (I went more for the Alex’s action speak louder than words view when considering her love for him, in the end, but your perspective is equally viable and leads to a conclusion that Karl could find himself dispensable.)