(Group 1: The 23 Psalm) Past Guardian/Future Guidance
+9 9 Votes
Rate it:
By jazprof
- (Group 1: The 23 Psalm) Past Guardian/Future Guidance
- Created: Sep 29, 2007
- Last updated: Aug 14, 2008
- After episode: 3.22: Through The Looking Glass
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
I think he [Eko] is killed by his own judgment of himself.
— jazprof
I had an idea about the relation of Smokie and Vincent before watching this episode and then while watching began to draw an analogy to the roles played by Eko and Locke. (I know, dangerous thing preconceptions.) Linking Smoke and Vincent is suggested early on by the fact that Walt mistakes the sound Smokie makes for Vincent. If Smokie is Cerebus then we could think of Cerebus/Vincent as a canine pair in the following way:
Cerebus: guards the gates of Hades. His primary role is to keep those in Hades from leaving. Symbolically he keeps people from escaping from their past. Smokie seems to record images from people’s memories when first encountering them. On the second encounter some action is taken (killing Eko, dragging Locke down the vent, chasing Juliet). (Is the killing of the Pilot an exception to this rule, and if so why?)
Vincent: leads people to things which point to some future event (either for good or ill). He takes Shannon to Boone’s grave before she dies and leads her into the jungle where she is shot. He also leads Hurley to the Dharma van which Hurley uses in the rescue. Leads Jack onto the beach and later into the jungle to find the remains of the plane and the transmitter.
Looking at the details of the episode there are some interesting ways in which Eko and Locke might be seen as a similar pair (though not identical as Eko’s role as a judge of the past, at least as far as Charlie is concerned, is ambiguous).
The opening scene in Eko and Yemi’s village: a prominent shot of a goat before the action begins. The goat a symbol of sacrifice, a scapegoat. The men yelling “Get the children”—what happens here has eerie parallels to the way the Others function and Ben’s insistence that Locke kill his father. Both groups take children and insist on killing a member of the older generation as part of the initiation into the group (at least for Locke.) Is killing of fathers or father figures a way of freeing one from the past or tying one to the past? That seems like the central question in so many of the character’s stories. In Eko’s case I think it ties him to the past—he is the sacrifice replacing his brother. This early replacement keeps repeating with Yemi later taking his brother’s place on the plane and in death while Eko becomes the Priest. (He does not assert he is a priest on the island until after finding Yemi’s body.) And then finally Eko himself dying. One other interesting point about brothers replacing brothers is that it creates a parallel between Eko and Charlie.
The conversation with Claire about Aaron and Moses. One thing Eko says about Moses tends to connect him to Moses—they both have difficulties speaking or moments of not speaking. In both cases perhaps the difficulty signifies being in touch with some higher power beyond language. Other connections: Moses carves the commandments on stone tablets. Eko carves scripture on his “Jesus stick.” Moses is identified with the Law and with Judgment. Charlie treats Eko as a Judge—complaining “You can’t judge me.” Also wonders if Eko is going to hit him with his Jesus Stick (cue Ian Drury) and notes the stick has blood on it. Moses dies before reaching the Promised Land. Eko dies before rescue.
Parallel of conversations between Yemi and Eko in flashback scenes to vision-Yemi and Eko in “The Cost of Living.”: In the church, Yemi will not hear Eko’s confession saying that it would be meaningless as he does not have a penitient heart. Later Yemi tells Eko that God will forgive Yemi but not Eko. And Eko’s reply to Yemi when he will not hear his confession in the church is very similar to what he says before he dies.
In the church: “I only did what I needed to do to survive.”
Before his death: “I did not ask for the life I was given. But it was given nonetheless. And with it, I did my best.”
Here is what I think this means in terms of Eko being killed by Smokie. I think what Yemi says to Eko—that he cannot confess because he is not penitent and that God will not forgive him—Eko internalizes that judgment. I think it is that internalized judgment which Smokie reads on first meeting Eko, and then embodies in the vision of Yemi before killing Eko. In other words, though Eko says “I did my best”—and partly believes that—I think he is killed by his own judgment of himself.
Locke as Eko’s opposing figure: His conversation with Michael about silent movies (Moses’s/Eko’s silence). What Locke likes are scenes in which a safe cracker listens to and interprets the sounds of tumblers to open a safe and then finds a white bag of money with a big dollar sign on it. In silence—Locke listens, interprets, and unlocks (heh) mysteries, mysteries that involve reading non-verbal signs. Later in this episode, Locke is teaching Michael to shoot—another guidance into the future (of Michael’s shooting and killing Libby and Ana-Lucia).
Other Eko/Locke contrasts: Eko’s Jesus stick is seen in this episode connected to judgement. When Locke has it it becomes a directional indicator as to where Locke should go. When Eko and Locke discover the Pearl Station, Eko is leading Locke back into his own past to the hatch he should have found first. Eko takes away from the Pearl encounter the need to keep entering the numbers (repeat the past) while Locke takes away a crisis in faith which leads toward the future.
Key characters
| Short Name | Full Name | Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eko | Mr. Eko | 2.21, 3.5, 2.7, 2.10 | 288 |
| 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 | 1248 |
| Yemi | Yemi | 99 |
Key episodes
| # | Title | Aired | Central character | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.21 | ? | 5-10-2006 | Eko | 171 |
Hmm, so if universe rules and can course correct itself then you can’t change the future but only to move forward you must confront the past..you cannot hide from it. It seems to me that maybe time is irrelevent, since what is past was once future and future will come to pass. It’s all one. In saying that, finding the swan first was out of his hands. It was in his destiny. He was suppose to do it. If the future is predetermined any actions that might “screw up” universes plan would have been corrected in the past. Example, Desmond trying to change the future when he was able to go back and destiny stepping in and saying hellllo…you cant do this! So, keeping with destinys intervention…if John wasnt suppose to find the swan first I dont believe he would have…it wouldn’t be allowed. I’m not sure where im going with this or what my point was. It’s a bit much to think on with only my first cup of coffee and cigarette of the day. But I’m keeping in mind that “Only fools are bound by time and space”.
i feel john was on the path but he let his observant passive open mind get too wrapped up, too obsessed, too biased to the opening of the swan that this clouded his perception, his intuitiveness and he thereby missed the cue to the pearl, which was his true destiny. so he still had a path but fell to a distraction and got side-tracked, he had to clear his mind and take that swaet-lodge trip to communicate with his inner-spirit or whathaveyou and then he went to a more determined and level-headed man, not predictable but at least walking a distinctive path all his own seemingly divinely inspired this got to the next level of understanding and found the pearl and flame respectively. this is very similar to the path of enlightement taken by many monks and wise men in transcendental and Tibetan meditation, clearing the mind judgement, ego and thought and just being an open vessel for transmission for messages from the pure energy… i think this silent reciever also typifies eko for numerous reasons
+1 … nice observations
Jaz the faithful… Jaz the reliable… Dutifully trudging forward; keeping the dream that is Group 1 alive!
Excellent as always sensei. I’ll be disappointed if I don’t see a book written by you given all the time you have put into these posts.
In fact, I want an autographed copy! :)
unless the pilot HAD been on the island before! lol. You know, then there would be no inconsistancies.
I’m kind of hmmm hmmm about the whole thing. I think the science part of lost is going to be shown before the faith part, and we just don’t know enough yet.
but that’s not to say don’t try.
lunaash, I like frogo’s response about Locke’s path.
Thanks Inhabitant.
Jack—I guess if the pilot had been there before—my sense is that there’s a different answer.
sham, thankee kindly—I will be most happy to autograph you a copy. You may even have set the synchronic gears in motion to produce said text. :-) What shall it be called: “Getting Lost”?; “Lost, My Mind”?; “Love Laboring on Lost”?; “Lost in Thought”?; “Collected Works of the Wandering L-T All-Star Freaky Orchestra Cymbalist”? :-)
great post jaz, also great comments
Ooo, that’s a hard one jaz. They are all so good. ;)
Perhaps the smoke monster had already inspected the pilot… left… and was returning to deliver its judgment.
Excellent analysis as always, jaz, and very thought-provoking comments. Group 1 posts are awesome.
It seems that all incidents on the show are shown as analogies and are visual representations of what the writers are thinking and everything you see should be taken too literally but more theoretically.
The writers dismissed the idea of nanotechnology so is smoky just a representation of course correction, right and wrong, ying and yang, white pebble, black pebble, man and woman ……..
But if this is true, how the hell did it pick eko up and slam him about until he died?? Man this is getting confusing.
i like the Vincent —> smoky analogy lol +1 from me pal
Excellent work as always Jaz. I like the way you tie Smokie and Vicent together but I don’t see them as being similar, more like they are opposites of one another. Both exist for differing reasons.
Smokey exists to pass judgement or maybe even justice (the way I see it anyway) or to serve the island whilst Vincent exists to aid course correction and goes against the island. Does that make any sense? Its just occured to me.
As for poor Eko I think you are spot on. Had he been more sure of his past actions, and less troubled by his choices, Smokey would have accepted this.
Good stuff Lady Jaz.
Thanks everyone.
mrss. I think I mostly agree with you—I was drawing attention to some similarities (both guardians/guides), but I think the similarity is there in order to show the contrast or opposition (does that make sense?).
Smokie=Judgment (Justice)
Vincent=Course Correction
Yes I agree with that description. I’m not sure if one represents the island and one opposes the island though. I think both of those forces could be island related. I don’t think either is necessarily good or evil either.
Good call Jaz. I think thats exactly why there is a similarity between the two. I wouldn’t have seen it before but this post really made me sit up and think. I’m glad you say its not just about good and evil because I think its more about polarity.
Polarity… good word. :-)
Heh, Polarity Bears, Nikee’s polarity dancing, When John lifts ups his eyes and looks north—will he see the polarity star?, Has Flash Forward Jack developed Bipolarity (the mental price of bi-location)?
Jazzamatazz: Great post! Nice observations. +1
Please go over to the offensive page and see what crawled in here and tell me we should ignore them.
jazzie: Great post, as always. The whole “guidance” theme ties nicely with 23rd Psalm (“The Lord is my Shepherd”).
I want to point to another parallel here: Charlie’s acceptance of Eko as a leader mirrors Boone’s with Locke. Both ended up dead, although Charlie’s death was not directly related to Eko…
…aaaaand I killed the thread.