(Group 1: One of Them) Manipulation & Identity
+5 9 Votes
Rate it:
By jazprof
- (Group 1: One of Them) Manipulation & Identity
- Created: Oct 13, 2007
- Last updated: Aug 14, 2008
- After episode: 3.22: Through The Looking Glass
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
This theory is based on Sayid: Communication as Control and Connection by jazprof. You may wish to read it before continuing.
Ben’s capture by Rousseau is a set up that Danielle is in on, and the main focus of that set up and manipulation in this episode is Sayid.
— jazprof
In the flashback story Inman has Sayid torture Tariq so that they can locate a downed U.S. pilot. On the island, Rousseau directs Sayid to a supposedly downed balloonist whom Sayid later tortures. And then there’s one more search taking place—Sawyer’s for the noisy frog. Comparing those three stories, I’ve reached the conclusion that Ben’s capture by Rousseau is a set up that Danielle is in on, and the main focus of that set up and manipulation in this episode is Sayid.
First why I think the flashback story shows us Sayid being manipulated and what the results are. When Maj. Austen picks Sayid out to question Tariq it is supposedly because Sayid can translate. But at the end of the flashback story Inman speaks in Arabic, so why not have Inman question/torture Tariq? I don’t think it’s just a deniability factor—in fact, given that the pilot turns out to be dead, I’m not even sure if Inman is really looking for him. I think Inman’s main purpose here is to make Said perform the torture. Now what his motive is, or whether Inman is working here for the U.S. or for the D.I.(is he acting as Sayid’s “fate-bender” [see Tharde’s: http://lost-theories.com/theories/2007/jul/13/fate-benders/]) I don’t know. But the result is a change in Sayid’s identity—as he says to Ben:
“I was 23 years old when the Americans came to my country. I was a good man. I was a soldier. And when they left I was something different…. You want to know who I am? My name is Sayid Jarrah, and I am a torturer.”
The identity that is established here is one that Sayid continually tries to deny. When Inman releases him he says he will never torture again, yet we know he does. And the same pattern repeats on the island—he tortures Sawyer, goes on walkabout because he wants never to do it again, and yet in this episode he does.
Hurley makes a good contrast here—Sawyer at first uses Hurley’s identity (he’s fat—he’s got a secret food stash) as a means to black mail him into helping search for the frog. But as Sawyer contintually draws attention to Hurley being fat in his nicknames—Hurley breaks off and refuses to go along. He acknowledges who he is (‘fat, fat, fat”)—but that’s not all he is—people like him (unlike Sawyer). So it’s really Sawyer that needs him. Hurley turns things around from behavior based on fear of people knowing who he is to behavior based on cooperation and the need people have for each other. (This is the repeated pattern I keep seeing—fear vs. cooperation.) And another interesting contrast that is set up here is the way in which Hurley’s stash ties him to an identity which he fights against through cooperation—and the secret stashes of Charlie and Sawyer which also tie them to their past identities, and which, in just the previous episode, they’ve returned to through the use of fear.
Here’s the evidence I have for the fact that Sayid is being manipulated back into his role as torturer in the present day story:
The main piece of evidence is that Ben runs when released from the net and is then shot by Rousseau with the arrow. His running makes sense if he really were Henry Gale, but why would Ben run? In fact doesn’t he want to be captured? I think he runs so that Rousseau can shoot him—making her believable as his opponent. And then think about the fact that she has given Sayid her gun in order to establish trust. This necessitates shooting Ben with the crossbow. If she had had the gun and shot him with that she might have been more likely to injure him fatally. Then, everything she says to Sayid about Ben is directed toward not trusting him and torturing him (“talk to him Sayid…he will lie a long time”).
Why do this? I think this is part of Ben’s overall scheme to promote fear, conflict, chaos (for a good summary of what Ben’s strategy is see Prof’s http://lost-theories.com/theories/2007/aug/08/boards-pieces-and-players-inte/). Sayid mistakenly believes that what he is doing in this episode is not about a loss of control or giving in to violence/revenge but about truth. When Locke says to him “If you’re angry…looking for someone to punish…” Sayid replies “Why would I need to punish anyone? I want to find out who he is. I want the truth.” And yet when he is questioning Ben it’s clear that Shannon’s death is the main motivator—and the thing that Ben plays upon, goading Sayid into losing control.
Ben: Did you — did you lose someone? Did you lose someone here on the island? Did you lose someone, too? What happened to her?
Sayid: It was an accident. It was an accident. The woman responsible thought she was someone else — someone coming to hurt her — someone like you!
Ben: This is all a mistake. Slow down here, okay. Hurting me isn’t going to bring her back.
[Sayid starts punching Gale repeatedly]
The final result of Ben’s manipulation is, I think, shown in Sayid’s conversation with Charlie at the end of the episode—that is Sayid’s belief in the Others as an absolute and implacable enemy. This is contrasted with an earlier conversation in which Jack points out that Rousseau once thought of Sayid as an Other, and Locke’s point that for Rousseau everyone is an Other. Instead of the black/white perspective that Sayid has (and which I think Ben is working to create) Locke points out that who the good guys and bad guys are depends on who’s doing the defining—a point which could allude to Sayid’s namesake, Edward Said and his theory of Orientalism and construction of Mid-East peoples as “the Other” to the West. Said claims that Western representations are a “series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.” And I think ironically, Ben creates the same kind of representation of his own people in Sayid’s mind in order to manipulate through ongoing conflict.
One final thought about Sawyer’s story—the search for the frog is a contrasting story to the earlier search for the boar. Two directions Sawyer’s character could take—forgiveness (based on his character changing through love), or revenge (the rigid character arc he was set upon at an early age). In this episode, it’s interesting that the love alternative is voiced by Hurley (he suggests taking the frog far away where he could find a Mrs. frog) immediately before Sawyer squishes the poor fella.
Key characters
| Short Name | Full Name | Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ben | Benjamin Linus | 3.20, 4.9, & 3” href=”/episodes/theres-no-place-home-parts-2-3/”>4.13 | 1733 |
| Hurley | Hugo “Hurley” Reyes | 2.18, 2.4, 1.18, 4.1, 4.12 | 558 |
| Sawyer | James “Sawyer” Ford | 3.4, 2.3, 2.6, 2.13, 1.16, 3.10 | 455 |
| Sayid | Sayid Jarrah | 2.14, 1.9, 3.11, 4.3, 4.12 | 391 |
Key episodes
| # | Title | Aired | Central character | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.14 | One of Them | 2-15-2006 | Sayid | 88 |
Interesting, though I think that the creators have gone on the record saying that Ben didn’t get caught on purpose, and that he was on his way somewhere else.
My take on the ‘did you lose someone?’ comments was that Ben was trying to appeal to Sayid’s sympathy by pointing out that he (as Henry Gale) and Sayid had common ground.
And I personally just thought the tree frog thing was an annoying distraction from the real story! Still, a very thought provoking post, good stuff +1
CPB—drat! I looked that up and you’re right they do say he got caught by accident. It just seems to fit so well with the other stuff to think of them working together. Could there be a way that the writers are telling the truth there and yet Rousseau and Ben have still made some kind of deal? Maybe a deal after the fact?
Hi Jazproof though i disagree that Rousseau is in league with Ben she could very well be benipulated by him after all he has the one thing Rousseau wants Alex. +1 great ideas
Yeah, I was quite suprised when they said that, I’d always assumed that he got caught on purpose, probably to infiltrate the Swan Station, but I guess not. It could be possible he had some kind of deal with Rousseau, who knows? I personally can’t wait to find out what he killed Henry Gale for, that’s what’s bugging me!
Perhaps henry gale was parachuting down to the island with Naomi?
Not sure about that one JamTay, theres quite a lot of time the discovery of Henry’s Balloon and Naomi’s arrival, and I also think (I could be wrong) that Henry arrived prior to 815’s crash.
Fair point CPB just chucking that idea in for the time travel fans! But Naomi might have been on the island for a while before the losties found her.
jamtay1, Henry Gale was in a hot air balloon and he died sometime ago.
Good stuff jaz. CPB stole my thunder in regards to it being revealed at Comic Con that it was truly an accident.
I’m not being pedantic Jam, but didn’t the survivors witness Naomi’s helicopter crash into the sea? Also I don’t think she would have lasted long with a wound like that.
“pedantic” adjective
1.) ostentatious in one’s learning.
2.) overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.
synonym: didactic or doctrinaire
+1 to CPB for expanding my vocabulary. ;)
Anytime Sham, I know much bigger words than that lol
Like antidisestablishmentarism? :)
Actually I’ve always argued that, that isn’t a word it’s not in the dictionary!
See, now you’re just being didactic. lol
That’s one I don’t know, have you got a dictionary handy?
I think there will be other characters who met before the island, also I think that other characters seen in flashbacks may end up on the island, like Cooper, I think a likely suspect is Sawyers ex Cassidy.
Perhaps we will even see it happen in reverse with flashforwards!
Jazzie: I believe Sayid would have NEVER tortured again, if he didn’t end up on “the island”. What Sayid, does on “the island”, is purely for his and the other “losties” survival, which has no bearing on his statement.
We also know that each and every survivor on “the island” appears to have been brought there for a reason, whether by synchronicity or by some other design. It does appear that certain characters may have been previously selected, for reasons unknown!
Nice thoughts!
this is really the worst theory i ever read just quit you troll -1
hey i never tortured anyone the mexican sayid on the island may have tortured someone but not this sayid
I would say, word to the wise, however, that would hardly apply to you, now would it, TrollCrap?
So, I will simply state it this way. Stay out of our threads!
I think the fool has run off now, I’ve noticed him posting boring and sometimes offensive crap but have been too busy to do anything about it and there really is no need for him to be -1 genuine theories.
I do like a good parody but this moron hasn’t provided a single one.
you just hate me cause you aint me
I guess I should just tell S.A.M. not to hassell me. Speaking of which, I believe I have found video previewing how the Losties will finally make it off the island:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7662401130876431350&q=hassellhoff+spongebob&total=24&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
I’m hoping that Ben being Ben took advantage of the accident to strike a deal with Rousseau—I still can’t figure out otherwise why he would have made a run for it.
dabbi—abbi-do, though I think Sayid believes that he’s doing “What needs to be done”—I think in this instance the motive does have to do with Shannon’s death and his grief.
kitt-kat, the only other off island meetings I can think of are Charlie and Des and maybe Libby and Hurley (he does think she looks familiar).
Yes, Miss Jazzamataz, you are most correct in this instance!
KatDoesn’tTakeNoCrap! I completely with you about Ben. He is capable of making the best out of every situation. A good poker player anticipates all potential moves and outcomes. But, I’d be willing to take my chances, playing a round with him!
Jazzie, I like the video, but perhaps, you may wish to bring out some of your other worthy skills! I’m thinking vivisection!
Jazzie another fabbie analysis. I love your take on Sayid. He is, in my opnion, manipulatable (is this officially a new word?) because he so desperately wants to atone. And yet is drawn back to that which he knows best. His is a very sad story I think. In a way I am waiting for it to reach its conclusion now that Shannon has died. I hope they can rejuvinate him though because I think he is an excellent character/
It’s just hard for me to imagine Ben getting captured by accident. I’ve heard what the producers said, but it doesn’t make sense. I mean, one of the reasons his Gale cover-story was plausible is because Ben sorta looked like a guy who’d been stranded on the island for several months. He didn’t look like he does when he’s his normal self, nor did he look particularly like an “other”. How can his “look” be explained other than that he intended to get trapped?
Of course… everything I’ve said here only means that Ben told the truth about coming to get John and perhaps he had Gale’s story ready in case he was captured by a crash survivor… it’s just Danielle’s net that he didn’t anticipate. But… it’s one thing for a crash survivor, even Sayid, to miss one of Danielle’s traps, but for any one of the Others to miss them… it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Oh… and did you notice how, when Sawyer asked Hurley if he’d seen that tree frog around, Hurley said he had? Isn’t that a little like, “You hear that cricket? Have you seen it around?” “Sure, why?” You rarely just casually SEE such tiny noisemakers just hanging out (and I’m sure this logic applies ten times over in a jungle). That is, unless you’ve taken the effort to look for them.
Why would Hurley have seen this frog? Did he earlier go out to find it himself? Perhaps thinking its little legs would go great with his ranch dressing??
Thank goodness we have “Flash Forward with Fred” to clear these questions up for us. (Anthony the Tree Frog R.I.P.)
Profnicity & katzone—yeah I like combining all of those ideas—his clothing, and the fact that he has the Henry Gale story all ready, it seems like that isn’t an accident. But maybe smokie was chasing him (which would then prompt the question, why might smokie be interfering with Ben’s plans), he got led into Danielle’s trap and then had to make a counter-move. the whole thing seems to fit with the chess-game analogy as well (that is that winding up in the net was a move made against Ben for which he had to prepare an answering move).
Rewatching it I notice that Ben does run past Danielle—if he wanted to escape why didn’t he run in the opposite direction—there’s a lot of jungle cover right there. Running in the open gives Danielle a clear shot. Not the kind of mistake Ben would make I think. Also returning to the conversation about who Danielle defines as other—is it Sayid, Ben, or both? Therefore can’t really trust that she’s working on Sayid’s behalf here.
One last thing about Sayid/Rousseau that I forgot to mention is how much alike they look in this episode.
Prof—just thinking about what you brought up about Hurley, it occurs to me that the island (and the others as well?) keeps presenting problems tot Sawyer that he can’t solve on his own. Needed Kate to deal with the boar, Hurley to deal with the frog, Kate could escape the cages on her own but he couldn’t, digging out the bullet on his own—near death—Michael, Jin and the tailies have to save him. Maybe the island is working to make him into a team player?
great theory, sorry you had a troll intrusion.
great post jaz…
Kat…Great idea about the island teaching Sawyer to be a team player…..he can play on my team any day ; -)
heh, wtf, guess kat and I are spedning too much together in that straitjacket, eh?
“killing Coop”
I hope this doesn’t mean that Sawyer has killed his own inclination to be cooperative.
Could Anthony Cooper be a pun associating him with an anti-cooperative force, or am I taking word-play too far into word-foolery?
Can’t resist—here’s another. Maybe it’s the time of year, but just thinking Ben Linus=Linus from Peanuts. Does this mean Jacob is the Great Pumpkin?
Somewhat more seriously, isn’t “Ben” Hebrew for “son of”—interesting that his name defines him as a son.
jaz: “I’m sorry, kat.”
kat: “Sorry, for what jaz?”
sound of an explosion followed by a rain of:
v ! - - ^ ! > v ^ ^ ! - ! ^ > ! ! ^ v v ^ ^ ^ - - -<
they heard a helicopter at night but never saw it.