How convenient that little Ben won't remember any part of being shot by Sayid, according to Richard. This fixes the whole issue of Ben not remembering Sayid when the losties capture him in the jungle as "Henry Gale" (conversation between Hurley and Miles). This was clearly a patch job by the writers, IMO. This show is fantastic, so I guess they can get away with this one. Was just wondering how other viewers felt about the cheap fix to that little writing "oops". couldn't they have come up with a better way of explaining Ben's lack of recognition of Sayid in the Swan in 2004? Ben pretending not to recognize Sayid would have been more plausable.

It was cheap, I have to admit that. But we don't really know what Richard does with Ben at the temple. Maybe all the members of the Others were different people before somebody took them to the temple and changed them. What I find weird is that Richard basically told Sawyer that they are the "bad guys" because he said becoming an Other is to loose once innocence.

I agree. I loved everything else about it, but I hated that. It wasn't even necessary (that we know of). There was no reason to believe Ben didn't know this all happened to him.

Yes, I agree. It was a little too convenient. I am disappointed about this.

Ok, so it's not just me. Perhaps part of the procedure to making Ben an "Other" in the temple is so dramatic and so powerful that he loses his memory along with his innocence. I could buy that....if he didn't still remember being a Dharma kid, Annie, his abusive father etc. Why only that one incident? Oh well.

I seriously thought this was one of the best episodes of the year until the very end. Here is why... The writers gave us a great exchange between Hurley and Miles about time travel. Essentially, they took all the questions we ask here on the board and had the two characters answer them. It was fantastic and funny. Not to mention well done. They ask a very important question (asked here on the board many times)...How come Ben doesn't remember Sayid from his childhood? If whatever happened, happened them Ben should remember who Sayid is. Unfortunately, they used an easy way out by using Richard Alpert to explain how Ben will lose his innocence and have no memory of those events. This conveniently explains why Ben doesn't remember Sayid.

For me that is not good enough. I know some will be fine with that for that sake of the story but it came off as a escape door. On thelostdiary.com the writer attended a panel with Lindelof and as he states on his website "someone asked the panel if the writers ever wrote themselves into a situation they then realized they couldn't get out of. Damon answered, "Sometimes when we back ourselves into a corner, we just walk up the side of the wall." This seems less than clever and more like cheating.

Sorry if this sound like I am down on the show. I am not. Far from it. But for some reason I just can not get passed the last 3 minutes of last nights episode.

I don't know why they couldn't have just went with the "Ben knew exactly who Sayid was,but kept it to himself" angle.

It would hardly be out of character,and makes more sense than Ben forgetting he was shot.

already another thread

i agree to an extent but....lets say Richard kills him and re-programs him, i don't really see it as that much of a cop out.

If we are going to use the "jump the shark" reference it would be now. Of all the "suspension of belief" moments on this show, I would say this one is a little too forced to cover up the writers tracks. This would explain why he thinks he was born on the island. Now that Little Ben does not remember his past, will he not remember how bad his dad treated him?

Seems like this is the big thing from last night, but we still don't know if Richard is being truthful about the whole thing.

Also, since we don't yet know the grand scheme of Lost this could well play into several theories (Dissociative Identity Disorder being the main one...and my theory), so it's too early to just say "cop out" and KNOW that you're right or wrong.

Like you though, I loved the episode, especially the end with Locke at Ben's bedside. Great stuff.

-- J

i agree to an extent but....lets say Richard kills him and re-programs him, i don't really see it as that much of a cop out.

Yes, but Ben still remembers the rest of his childhood up until that point in his life. Cop out. Would have been creepier if Ben knew all along about being shot and who Sayid was, etc. Fits his whole character perfectly. But I can't figure out why the writers would do this. Its so simple to leave it be. Why make that excuse? There must be something more to it that we'll understand later.

I don't really care, honestly. It may have been convenient, but so is a lot of other stuff on the show. If it neatly sews up a potential plot hole and moves the story forward, I'm willing to go with it.

he does remember it in s3 when he kills him....

richard will tell him all what works best for the others

I could understand it being a patch job if they were seasons apart but you are talking about patching something only episodes apart and a major development in the story. It will have its reasons, just takes some incredible patience from us to see how it pans out.

It will depend on how it all plays out.

Since I started a thread at the same time as this one I will just combine what i posted here for the sake of avoiding multiple threads...

The writers gave us a great exchange between Hurley and Miles about time travel. Essentially, they took all the questions we ask here on the board and had the two characters answer them. It was fantastic and funny. Not to mention well done. They ask a very important question (asked here on the board many times)...How come Ben doesn't remember Sayid from his childhood? If whatever happened, happened them Ben should remember who Sayid is. Unfortunately, they used an easy way out by using Richard Alpert to explain how Ben will lose his innocence and have no memory of those events. This conveniently explains why Ben doesn't remember Sayid.

For me that is not good enough. I know some will be fine with that for that sake of the story but it came off as a escape door. On thelostdiary.com the writer attended a panel with Lindelof and as he states on his website "someone asked the panel if the writers ever wrote themselves into a situation they then realized they couldn't get out of. Damon answered, "Sometimes when we back ourselves into a corner, we just walk up the side of the wall." This seems less than clever and more like cheating.

Sorry if this sound like I am down on the show. I am not. Far from it. But for some reason I just can not get passed the last 3 minutes of last nights episode.

i thought it was much more interesting to think that Ben knew all these people, especially Sayid. The whole idea that Sayid made Ben the man he is was fascinating, and to know that he meets him 30 years later with that knowledge would explain a lot. I have my fingers crossed that Ben somehow still remembers everything.

That plot device kind of destroys all of the "little answers" we got through time travel. We assumed that he treated Kate better than Sawyer and Jack (breakfast, etc.) because he knew she was the one who saved him. We assumed he took Sawyer and Kate, because he knew he could make Jack operate on him if he uses the two of them as leverage. Also Harper's "you look just like her" doesn't refer to Juliet herself then. All of that kind of doesn't make any sense anymore. Sure, we don't know if Ben will get back to the DI and interact with the Losties. Maybe Richard told him everything that happened ...

The trouble is that the process that Ben is about to go through is something that the writers decide upon. Erasing part of his memory being part of the process has clearly been written in because they want Ben to lose his memory - not because it makes sense to be part of the process. To me, that is the problem with what has been written. If it wasn't for the writers wanting them to go back in time and for Ben to meet Sayid etc, then I really don't think the memory loss would be part of the process, it has been written in to allow the other things this season, and that's a bit poor. Not the end of the world though, there are many worse things going on which are far more silly than this, at least this part will actually tie up and make logical sense, even if it's a bit dull.

One thing that I have always enjoyed about Lost is it's lack of out-and-out "deus ex machina" plot devices (even when taking the time travel element into account). However I suggest that Richard Alpert's comment about Ben losing his innocence was more like a thinly veiled retcon than a plot device.

The question is, was there any other possible way that the writers could have been used to explain Ben not remembering Sayid when they met "again" in 2002? This was probably the best way forward from a story telling point of view.

Essentially, they took all the questions we ask here on the board and had the two characters answer them. It was fantastic and funny. Not to mention well done. They ask a very important question (asked here on the board many times)...How come Ben doesn't remember Sayid from his childhood? If whatever happened, happened them Ben should remember who Sayid is. Unfortunately, they used an easy way out by using Richard Alpert to explain how Ben will lose his innocence and have no memory of those events. This conveniently explains why Ben doesn't remember Sayid.

I understand what people are thinking but as I posted earlier, the 2 episodes were literally back to back not seasons apart. They could forsee the implications of adding Ben to the mix but they have added little Ben with more than just a "Oh hey looksie its lil Ben Linus"...they added him as a major part of our losties experience in the past so I dont see why they would just add a touch of selective amnesia unless it has a bigger story to unfold.
100%
i thought it was much more interesting to think that Ben knew all these people, especially Sayid. The whole idea that Sayid made Ben the man he is was fascinating, and to know that he meets him 30 years later with that knowledge would explain a lot. I have my fingers crossed that Ben somehow still remembers everything.

I think this is what annoying people the most. A lot have been disappointed that suddenly Ben might not have been so all knowing about our losties as we came to think he was. The Juliet connections have suddenly gone out the window, but I do recall TPTB saying something along the lines of the 2 most important women in Bens life were his mother and Annie.

One thing that I have always enjoyed about Lost is it's lack of out-and-out "deus ex machina" plot devices (even when taking the time travel element into account). However I suggest that Richard Alpert's comment about Ben losing his innocence was more like a thinly veiled retcon than a plot device.

The question is, was there any other possible way that the writers could have been used to explain Ben not remembering Sayid when they met "again" in 2002? This was probably the best way forward from a story telling point of view.
I just don't believe they should have written it at all. They shouldn't have allowed Sayid to meet young Ben - that should have been the thing they concentrated on, finding a way to write it so they don't even meet, rather than writing a way for them to meet then Ben to forget that they did, it's always going to be more contrived. Anybody else could have shot Ben with the same outcome ultimately, even if he was shot by accident in a similar way like Ana Lucia shot Shanon, or anything else.

Maybe Richard was addressing the fact Ben wouldn't remember that it was Kate and Swayer who saved Ben's life by taking him out to the Others.

The one thing I know about Ben is that he's always got his own agenda, so it wouldn't surprise me if Ben not only knew who Sayid was when he got captured as Henry Gale but was counting on the fact that Sayid was be there.

Same with Sayid shooting little Ben as well. Sayid is a killer, Ben's been using him to get Widmore's guys, thus it wouldn't surprise me that Ben had planned on the fact Sayid would try to kill him at one time or another once they returned to the island.

How convenient that little Ben won't remember any part of being shot by Sayid, according to Richard. This fixes the whole issue of Ben not remembering Sayid when the losties capture him in the jungle as "Henry Gale" (conversation between Hurley and Miles). This was clearly a patch job by the writers, IMO. This show is fantastic, so I guess they can get away with this one. Was just wondering how other viewers felt about the cheap fix to that little writing "oops". couldn't they have come up with a better way of explaining Ben's lack of recognition of Sayid in the Swan in 2004? Ben pretending not to recognize Sayid would have been more plausable.

i'm sure ben is going to have contact with all the losties once he is "patched up" by richard. he might not remember being shot by sayid, but his older self does remember the losties from 1977. i know he does. i'm sure it all comes together, why he has manipulated all of them for so long. as ben says, he always has a plan.

That plot device kind of destroys all of the "little answers" we got through time travel. We assumed that he treated Kate better than Sawyer and Jack (breakfast, etc.) because he knew she was the one who saved him. We assumed he took Sawyer and Kate, because he knew he could make Jack operate on him if he uses the two of them as leverage. Also Harper's "you look just like her" doesn't refer to Juliet herself then. All of that kind of doesn't make any sense anymore. Sure, we don't know if Ben will get back to the DI and interact with the Losties. Maybe Richard told him everything that happened ...

I agree - I don't see why Ben couldn't have remembered (it actually makes MORE sense as noted above and by other posters) - so for all you other posters, please explain why this storyline is "convenient" or hokey or whatever. It actually seems the opposite to me.

Because Ben has shown no signs of knowing who Sayid was as an adult. If the story had been constructed this way, with Ben remembering from the start, then the writers would have included at least something for us to go back to and notice, but there isn't anything, and we are now being shown pretty much conclusively that this is the case - Ben did not remember Sayid, and what we have been shown so far should not indicate that he did.

So, for the writers to want to include Sayid in Ben's past, yet have it so Ben doesn't remember, they needed a device. Simply saying "well, the others wipe his memory" doesn't seem all that convincing to me. But I'm not pulling my hair out over it - I would have been irritated far more if he did remember, since then nothing would make sense.

The perfect example of 'convinient writing' is when Locke, turning the wheel probably hundreds of years in the past,ends up in 2007, while Ben turning it in 2004 shows up in 2005.

I think this is disappointing for all those who were expecting Ben to have remembered all these people from his past and made them part of his Machiavellian plans just as some sort of revenge, but honestly, if you set that expectation aside, I don't think it is a bad plot device.

It is not at all unusual for people to lose their memory of a very traumatic event. And I think not only getting shot, but also whatever is going to happen to him in the temple is going to be traumatic. I think what they are saying is that what Ben is about to go through is going to change him utterly, but he himself may not realize it, because he wont remember it happening, and may not even remember who he was before. Also, I think they may have been saying not only that he wont remember that Sayid shot him, but also that Kate and Sawyer and Juliet really stuck their necks out to save him. It makes his subsequent actions a lot less personal.

I agree - I don't see why Ben couldn't have remembered (it actually makes MORE sense as noted above and by other posters) - so for all you other posters, please explain why this storyline is "convenient" or hokey or whatever. It actually seems the opposite to me.

Like I said i think what is upsetting people the most is a lot of discussion and theories went into the whole wow Ben knew them all along. It opened up so many wonderful doors as to why Ben did this or why he did that. Suddenly the door got slammed shut in the space of 1 line and has left a lot of people a little peed off.

TBH I have enough questions I need answered, Im quite happy with how its panned out so far I really dont need a psychological understanding of bens motives towards the losties from S2 and onwards rehashed just because they ended up in his childhood time. I wanna know if Alpert is in fact a Cylon and the temple is a ressurection ship =))

The perfect example of 'convinient writing' is when Locke, turning the wheel probably hundreds of years in the past,ends up in 2007, while Ben turning it in 2004 shows up in 2005.
The lazy writing was a sacrifice that the island demanded

Perhaps Alpert is lying to Kate and Sawyer about the "forgetting". Perhaps "forgetting" means...he will remeber it as I tell him to remeber it.

IMO maybe he's not supposed to and whatever reason does remember...everything. He always has a plan after all.

French press coffee on the beach anyone?;)

Agreed. Ben forgetting about Sayid shooting him when he was a child is a little too convenient. Furthermore, the Lost writers know it.

Whatever hocus pocus Richard pulls off in an attempt to make Ben forget this chapter is his life doesn't quite work. Therefore 27 years later when the Losties and Ben meet he initially adopts the alias, Henry Gayle, because at first he isn't sure if he is meeting Losties who are pre-DHARMA Days or post DHARMA days.in their personal timelines and he doesn't want to potentially reveal they have met before if it is the latter.

Yes, but Ben still remembers the rest of his childhood up until that point in his life. Cop out. Would have been creepier if Ben knew all along about being shot and who Sayid was, etc. Fits his whole character perfectly. But I can't figure out why the writers would do this. Its so simple to leave it be. Why make that excuse? There must be something more to it that we'll understand later.

Yeah Ben remembering Sayid would have been nice. Then the whole "You are a killer Sayid" conversation would have had more weight to it.

I am willing to see how exactly this all plays out. At no point in this series has anyone really known what is going on in Other Ben's head.

The kid is also out pretty cold. What he remembers may be more like:

1- Ben eats some dinner. Rubs his tummy, yum!
2- Ben helps Sayid escape.
3- Ben and Sayid are walking through the jungle.
4- Ben sees Sayid hold a gun up to him.
5- Ben wakes up in the Temple with Richard.


Richard's warning may be more along the type of "don't expect your past to change." Aka, don't expect Ben in 2004 to remember "oh Kate and Sawyer saved my life! I am going to give them a hotel room with silk sheets." Ben in 2004 is still going to put them into cages.

What I find weird is that Richard basically told Sawyer that they are the "bad guys" because he said becoming an Other is to loose once innocence.

I admit, Richard's emphasis on that fact was a bit ominous, but loss of innocence does not necessarily = bad guys. I take it to mean they have a different set of priorities. We can't accurately judge until we know what they are working toward (which has got to be the theme of season six)

Ok, so it's not just me. Perhaps part of the procedure to making Ben an "Other" in the temple is so dramatic and so powerful that he loses his memory along with his innocence. I could buy that....if he didn't still remember being a Dharma kid, Annie, his abusive father etc. Why only that one incident? Oh well.

Personally, I'd have perfered if Ben did remember everything, all along. But he DOES remember some things. He was holding that doll Annie gave him as an adult, which implies that he does remember her.

As for his dad - it would be bitterly ironic if Rodger tries to become a better father after Ben's shooting, but Ben kills him anyway to become an Other. We all thought it was motivated by the abuse, but if Ben can't remember it...

Yeah, I'm betting it's not going to play out as simply as Richard put it. We've seen Desmond and Daniel have sudden recalls of something they've forgotten. So maybe Ben starts to remember things over time, especially once he starts interacting with the losties in 2004.

Ben, Charles Widmore and Desmond have all referred to having "dreams" - maybe they're all just recalling memories that were forgotten due to the TT rules but at a certain point they're allowed to remember. This might actually be a better explanation for Ben's obsession with Juliet. He initially had dreams about her (maybe associated with dreams about his mother) which led him to believe she was destined to be "his." But Ben hasn't really shown any obsession with Juliet since "The Other Woman" time period (most interactions have been very cold between them), so maybe he started to have a clearer memory of who she was in the 70s and that she was just a well-meaning person who tried to save him.

I think when Ben wakes up after the Sun-beating in 2008 he's going to say something to indicate that he knows Juliet, Kate, Sayid etc are back in the 70s.

That plot device kind of destroys all of the "little answers" we got through time travel. We assumed that he treated Kate better than Sawyer and Jack (breakfast, etc.) because he knew she was the one who saved him. We assumed he took Sawyer and Kate, because he knew he could make Jack operate on him if he uses the two of them as leverage. Also Harper's "you look just like her" doesn't refer to Juliet herself then. All of that kind of doesn't make any sense anymore. Sure, we don't know if Ben will get back to the DI and interact with the Losties. Maybe Richard told him everything that happened ...

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. This device is really ridiculous if it is as simple as it seems. If WHH, then Ben spends another 20 years with his father and Dharma, then another 10 years or so with Richard. Are we supposed to believe that in that time he never learned who shot him? Especially after Sayid crashes on the beach? I don't understand the point of this at all.

Having said that, I think the whole show was poorly written. I didn't buy Kate's motivation for leaving Aaron behind. Because she lost him for a minute in the supermarket? Her conversations with Cassidy were forced. And I really don't get her motivation for going nuts trying to save Ben. Just because she left another kid behind she feels she has to save this one? Even after Alpert basically comes out and tells her that he will in fact grow up into the monster that she knows 30 years in the future?

Juliette's scene with Jack made no sense either. She can complain about him not trying to help Ben. I understand that she lived with the kid for a few years and may have developed a relationship with him. But why complain to Jack about his coming back to the island. How the hell is he supposed to know they don't need saving?

And then to top it off, you take a critically injured kid (whose gunshot wound has moved around his body) and have him trek through the jungle with Sawyer and Kate with no medical attention whatsoever and have him be hunky dory when he gets to Richard.

I will say I really enjoyed the Hurley/Miles stuff, but the rest just did not ring true for me.

If we are going to use the "jump the shark" reference it would be now. Of all the "suspension of belief" moments on this show, I would say this one is a little too forced to cover up the writers tracks. This would explain why he thinks he was born on the island. Now that Little Ben does not remember his past, will he not remember how bad his dad treated him?

LOL!!
I just find it so hard believe that in a show that has a "Hurley bird", a disappearing island, zombies, ghosts, a smoke monster and time travel, someone not remembering someones face 20+ years after the fact is where some people draw the line.

ok well we do know that Ben is returned to DI because he grows up to become a workmen like his father Roger- Ben is a hostile plant and after the purge becomes the leader. What happens to him in the Temple is a pivitol moment for Ben we now know what makes Ben what he is, and that whole comment from Widmore i know what you are is beginning to make sense. As for Ben not remembering- I think he won't remember being shot cause whatever happens in the temple is probably tramatic and since it makes Ben "different" it would make sense that he wouldn't remember Sayid shooting him- it doesnt' mean he won't remember Sayid, Juliet, Sawyer etc.. I think when Richard said he wont' remember this he meant being shot and dying. Take Locke for example Ben kills him, he does remember it but not right away. I think we should wait and see how things play out before we pass judgement on the writers.. and it is is a quick fix so be it this is the best show ever written they do what they do for a reson.

The perfect example of 'convinient writing' is when Locke, turning the wheel probably hundreds of years in the past,ends up in 2007, while Ben turning it in 2004 shows up in 2005.

Another fine example.
100%
LOL!!
I just find it so hard believe that in a show that has a "Hurley bird", a disappearing island, zombies, ghosts, a smoke monster and time travel, someone not remembering someones face 20+ years after the fact is where some people draw the line.

You've got it all wrong. This show can be as far fetched as any other scifi fantasy, filled with unbelievable things. But we as an audience can't accept sloppy cover-up writing. It's not about remembering a face. The writers are using an eraser, where they didn't need to. (as far as we know at this point). They may have plans to build on this claim later, but for now it seemed like a waste. I personally think its more intrigueing to wonder whether or not Ben remembers the losties, especially Sayid. For me that's pretty much ruined now. Hopefully we'll discover there were more reasons to write in the memory loss.

What puzzles me is the assumption by Hurley and Miles, and many posters here, that Ben doesn't remember Sayid and the rest of the Losties. Ben grows up to be a liar who constantly says that he doesn't know things that he in fact does know. Why would anyone who knows Ben be sure that he didn't remember Sayid just because he didn't say to Sayid when he was beating up on him, "You shot me when I was a kid, isn't that enough?'

I also agree that a Ben who has waited thirty years to act on this childhood info about the Losties is far superior to changed-amnesiac Ben.

It seemed to me that confusion about time travel and memory, mostly fueled by the vague writing of the Desmond-Daniel encounter, made Darlton just want to take the issue off the table here. Not only lazy writing, but cowardly writing, although perhaps mandated by a nervous ABC.

Cardie

I think we need to let this play out. I'm sure within the next few episodes we'll get an answer to what Ben remembers or doesn't remember. We can't really say definitively what Richard meant yet. I'm sure Ben will remember at least some of what's going on, because he remembers Annie's wood doll being a birthday present. So let's wait for next week until we all start crying foul.

It is not at all unusual for people to lose their memory of a very traumatic event. And I think not only getting shot, but also whatever is going to happen to him in the temple is going to be traumatic.The problem (for me) isn't the memory loss itself, but the way they explained it.

They could have had Ben, in a subsequent episode, mention his inability to remember the shooting. Instead, having Richard explain that the Other Initiation Process wipes one's memory (only the memories which might conflict with earlier pre-time travel seasons of the show of course) comes off as a somewhat transparent attempt to head off a potential plot hole. What's worse is the characters themselves brought up the plot hole earlier in the same episode.

I just find it so hard believe that in a show that has a "Hurley bird", a disappearing island, zombies, ghosts, a smoke monster and time travel, someone not remembering someones face 20+ years after the fact is where some people draw the line.No one in this thread has complained about a character not remembering someone's face after 20 years. Perhaps you're flashing back to the Danielle and Jin discussion...

None of us are certain how much ben will actually forget either.

it could be that he will just forget whatever creepy voodoo happens to him in the temple. Then he will wake up nice and snug in the barracks and think that juliet saved his life.

Richard's line is convenient because it can be used as a fake-out (to the audience, cause Ben might still end up remembering everything) or as a plot hole cover (if they want to go with Ben not remembering Sayid).

We just have to see what Ben does or does not remember as it is revealed to us.

For now Richard's line seems to hint Ben won't remember Sayid. However, when I look at an earlier part of the episode - Hurley and Miles great convo about time travel. At the end of that convo Miles seemed to be having a revelation that -- maybe older Ben DOES remember ALL of this.

So I think it can go either way. I lean towards Ben remembering a lot.

Is there any proof that he didn't remember Sayid?

"I demand an answer!"
"Here's your answer."
"Not good enough, that's a cop-out!"
.....

We dont know what Richard means by "he wont remember any of this"...he could just be referring to everything between when he is shot and when he wakes up in the temple...we can't say for sure until next week

And the loss of innocence thing doesnt mean he is just going to turn into some crazy evil kid...I think something will happen that will just make him more mature in some way, giving him some great sense and/or knowledge of the island that he wont even be able to fully comprehend/understand.

I mean we see him later with his dad right before the purge, so its not like his whole mind is going to be wiped..he should still remember at least Sawyer. Juliet, etc.

Next weeks episode should make all of this definitive

Not as bad as the series finale of "Life on Mars." It was all artificial memories from a malfunctioning computer

Is there any proof that he didn't remember Sayid?

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

People jump to so many conclusions sometimes that are so unwarranted... one of them being that Ben did *not* remember Sayid. There's no basis for people to be as sure as they are that Ben did not remember him

I seriously thought this was one of the best episodes of the year until the very end. Here is why... The writers gave us a great exchange between Hurley and Miles about time travel. Essentially, they took all the questions we ask here on the board and had the two characters answer them. It was fantastic and funny. Not to mention well done. They ask a very important question (asked here on the board many times)...How come Ben doesn't remember Sayid from his childhood? If whatever happened, happened them Ben should remember who Sayid is. Unfortunately, they used an easy way out by using Richard Alpert to explain how Ben will lose his innocence and have no memory of those events. This conveniently explains why Ben doesn't remember Sayid.
So what do you think happened between Hurley & Miles's discussion and then? One or both of them must've run to Richard Alpert before LaFleur & Kate got there, to tell him to make sure to work an amnesia angle into his explanation to them.

What else did you think Hurley & Miles were having that discussion for? They were looking for loopholes to patch.

Robert in the Bronx

Not as bad as the series finale of "Life on Mars."
Really? That's horrible. Glad I didn't get invested in that show.

I wish Ben remembers Sayid, please!!!! Is not need to use "amnsesia"

I also didn't like the amnesia explanation.

I kinda think he doesn't remember the specifics of all that happened and that it all gets sorta jumbled in his mind... that way he remembers faces but doesn't really know why. And then Richard has something on Ben which would be worthwhile to see play out...

Returning to the topic of the OP, I agree the bit with Richard seems like a cop out. I too am glad I didn't invest in Life on Mars if that's how it ended. But, if Lost ends up being explained away by little green men like IJ4 and Knowing, I'll puke.

Is there any proof that he didn't remember Sayid?

I was so disappointed when Richard said Ben would forget everything. I've been counting on the fact that Ben manipulated people based on his knowledge of future events culled from these guys.

I don't know why they had to go that route if that is indeed the route they're taking. If you go back to the episode where Sayid first meets Ben and tortures him it could still be totally played off like he recognized Sayid and was pretending not to. Especially with the amount of lies and manipulations we witness. Plus all the flashbacks with Ben using Sayid as a hitman and calling him a killer seemed to imply that he did remember.

I believe last night's episode made the larger pieces of the Lost puzzle a bit more decipherable.

If we had to distill this all to one of the "basic conflicts" from high school lit classes, I'm guessing that Lost is decidedly in the Man v. Nature camp. Then it becomes a struggle among dualities seeking redemption.

1. The Dharma Initiative, however billed, promoted, designed or delivered was an exercise in human psychological exploitation. One station monitoring the conduct of another[s]; reports being diligently pneumatically tubed into a very uninvolved wasteland; people frantically inputting a number series every 108 minutes [or else]; and members of even that crew deceiving eachother about what lay outside.

2. The Black Rock, a slaver and mining goods trader, mysteriously debarking in the direction opposite her normal course, and exploiting nature and humanity by the nature of her missions.

3. The Island itself, of geological age and Darwinian survival programs, is unique [so far, to me] in that it has a sentience of its own and a distinct role to play in its own survival. Some might call this anthropomorphizing; but this place is made to look & feel different from other places under stress, like Krakatoa.

4. Rousseau & Company, Flight 815, and Flight 316 types appear to have been deposited here by accident, with Fight 316 being deliberate in succeeding with the odds against it. Like the Black Rock, drug trafficking aircraft appears to have arrived by accident or natural disaster. The Island can accommodate accidental imports merely by scanning & evaluating them and sorting them out accordingly.

5. Everybody is an import, in geological time; but the natives, hostiles, others, seem to be in harmony with the Island [Nature] itself.


Force A: The Island: Darwinian morality, survival, justice, means and methods justifiable; atavistic; mystic and vatic; Spartan; collective; ruthless

Force B: The Imports: all human beings not specifically "others:" social, ethnic, national, religious, political. technical mores; exploitative and consuming; egotistical; self-centered; conniving

Force C: The Others: See Force A above.

Example: Ben, social creature raised in academic surroundings, will now pass from a state of passive initiation and into a primitive proactive and demanding initiation in the process of which he will use his childhood "innocence."

Weston LaBarre in The Ghost Dance: the Origins of Religion, addresses this anthropologically, by two separate entries on p. 103:

initiate into a harsh and demanding society, closer to Dawrinian virtues than to social ethics and etiquette.

The may well be a [B]Force D, the Specials, those "humans" who appear now other-worldly; but as fair as I'm concerned these are collective tools in the Island's bag of tricks.
"What is meant by gods ... if these men are not godlike. In fact the social humbleness of one man creates the heroic in another - ..."

I believe last night's episode made the larger pieces of the Lost puzzle a bit more decipherable.

If we had to distill this all to one of the "basic conflicts" from high school lit classes, I'm guessing that Lost is decidedly in the Man v. Nature camp. Then it becomes a struggle among dualities seeking redemption.

1. The Dharma Initiative, however billed, promoted, designed or delivered was an exercise in human psychological exploitation. One station monitoring the conduct of another[s]; reports being diligently pneumatically tubed into a very uninvolved wasteland; people frantically inputting a number series every 108 minutes [or else]; and members of even that crew deceiving eachother about what lay outside.

2. The Black Rock, a slaver and mining goods trader, mysteriously debarking in the direction opposite her normal course, and exploiting nature and humanity by the nature of her missions.

3. The Island itself, of geological age and Darwinian survival programs, is unique [so far, to me] in that it has a sentience of its own and a distinct role to play in its own survival. Some might call this anthropomorphizing; but this place is made to look & feel different from other places under stress, like Krakatoa.

4. Rousseau & Company, Flight 815, and Flight 316 types appear to have been deposited here by accident, with Fight 316 being deliberate in succeeding with the odds against it. Like the Black Rock, drug trafficking aircraft appears to have arrived by accident or natural disaster. The Island can accommodate accidental imports merely by scanning & evaluating them and sorting them out accordingly.

5. Everybody is an import, in geological time; but the natives, hostiles, others, seem to be in harmony with the Island [Nature] itself.


Force A: The Island: Darwinian morality, survival, justice, means and methods justifiable; atavistic; mystic and vatic; Spartan; collective; ruthless

Force B: The Imports: all human beings not specifically "others:" social, ethnic, national, religious, political. technical mores; exploitative and consuming; egotistical; self-centered; conniving

Force C: The Others: See Force A above.

Example: Ben, social creature raised in academic surroundings, will now pass from a state of passive initiation and into a primitive proactive and demanding initiation in the process of which he will use his childhood "innocence."

Weston LaBarre in The Ghost Dance: the Origins of Religion, addresses this anthropologically, by two separate entries on p. 103:

initiate into a harsh and demanding society, closer to Dawrinian virtues than to social ethics and etiquette.

The may well be a [B]Force D, the Specials, those "humans" who appear now other-worldly; but as fair as I'm concerned these are collective tools in the Island's bag of tricks.
"What is meant by gods ... if these men are not godlike. In fact the social humbleness of one man creates the heroic in another - ..."


Although interesting this analysis seems a little self-indulgently academic. Your proclivity towards the sesquipedalian obfuscates rather than elucidates. ;) That said the quotes from LaBarre seen quite categorical for an anthropological observation, I guess he missed the memo about dispassionate relativism. I'm sure history provides us with many examples of masculine males raised by single women.

Although interesting this analysis seems a little self-indulgently academic.

Academic question for you: If you intended to generalize, why did you find it necessary to copy my entire post? As I see it, this is a forum, where folks toss around ideas about Lost.
It's fun; and since we are not on the production staff or among the writers and others in TPTB family, ain't it all academic?

Your proclivity towards the sesquipedalian obfuscates rather than elucidates. ;)Congrats on receiving your new dictionary. I believe the biggest word I used was anthropomorphizing, which I didn't quite know how to express otherwise. I don't think this crowd needs icons, cartoons or Bugs Bunny references to understand that concept. The academic lingo is LaBarre's; and I don't see how I can quote him without using his own words.

That said the quotes from LaBarre seen quite categorical for an anthropological observation, I guess he missed the memo about dispassionate relativism. I'm sure history provides us with many examples of masculine males raised by single women.Hardly categorical as mere snippets from a 600+ page tome from a psychologist, psychiatrist and anthropologist. I doubt too many memos escaped him. Perhaps I have done the good doctor a disservice by seeing a possible link between his subject and the initiation rites facing young Ben Linus.

Oh, I believe I had inserted the prefatory disclaimer that the quoted passages were in a generalized observation of anthropologically perceived sexual roles in initiation rites.

As an academic pursuit, please fill us in a bit more on [I]dispassionate relativism.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

People jump to so many conclusions sometimes that are so unwarranted... one of them being that Ben did *not* remember Sayid. There's no basis for people to be as sure as they are that Ben did not remember him
Thank YOU for thanking him before I did!!! We don't know anything yet. I still suspect that Ben DOES remember them when he meets them in 2004. He couldn't tell them. Things have to play out as they always did. Ben has done nothing but lie since we met him. Why would he be honest about knowing these people? His knowing them, and them being unaware of that fact, gives him the upper hand. Ben is all about being one step ahead.

Lets just wait and see how it plays out before assuming things that have not been proven.

There's the added possibilty that Richard Alpert was being totally honest in saying that Ben would not remember "any of this;" if he meant Ben would not remember the Dharma-Losties bringing Ben to the Others to save his life.

Ben may well remember being attacked and by whom, without being able to grasp what it was that brought him to the Others or to fathom what the Losties-Dharmas' [through Juliet]
perception was of whatever special powers the Others seemed to possess that they themselves lacked. [Man, that's a twisted sentence].

It's not convenient writing. It's brilliant writing. It's driving y'all crazy.

The key word is "this." Not "Sayid," not "being shot," not "anything" -- "THIS."

I don't think any of us can presume to know what "this" is, so IMO y'all are just agonizing over zip.

It's not convenient writing. It's brilliant writing. It's driving y'all crazy.

The key word is "this." Not "Sayid," not "being shot," not "anything" -- "THIS."

I don't think any of us can presume to know what "this" is, so IMO y'all are just agonizing over zip.

AGREED!
Every week so many people complain about the smallest details that later get proven to be correct after all. You know how the show works by now, right? So let it keep working.

I don't really care, honestly. It may have been convenient, but so is a lot of other stuff on the show. If it neatly sews up a potential plot hole and moves the story forward, I'm willing to go with it.

agreed.

Speaking of convenient writing. Wasn't it totally lame when the island had to be moved and then they found a wheel that could move it and then they turned it and then moved it? So convenient it makes me sick :)

If we are going to use the "jump the shark" reference it would be now. Of all the "suspension of belief" moments on this show, I would say this one is a little too forced to cover up the writers tracks. This would explain why he thinks he was born on the island. Now that Little Ben does not remember his past, will he not remember how bad his dad treated him?

Im not sure if hes going to forget everything. I think what Richard meant was he will forget the incident of him getting shot at. It will not make sense if his whole memory was wiped.

I'm hoping he only forgets whatever Richard is going to do to him.

Academic question for you: If you intended to generalize, why did you find it necessary to copy my entire post? As I see it, this is a forum, where folks toss around ideas about Lost.
It's fun; and since we are not on the production staff or among the writers and others in TPTB family, ain't it all academic?

Congrats on receiving your new dictionary. I believe the biggest word I used was anthropomorphizing, which I didn't quite know how to express otherwise. I don't think this crowd needs icons, cartoons or Bugs Bunny references to understand that concept. The academic lingo is LaBarre's; and I don't see how I can quote him without using his own words.

Hardly categorical as mere snippets from a 600+ page tome from a psychologist, psychiatrist and anthropologist. I doubt too many memos escaped him. Perhaps I have done the good doctor a disservice by seeing a possible link between his subject and the initiation rites facing young Ben Linus.

Oh, I believe I had inserted the prefatory disclaimer that the quoted passages were in a generalized observation of anthropologically perceived sexual roles in initiation rites.

As an academic pursuit, please fill us in a bit more on [I]dispassionate relativism.


The winky face was meant to show that I was kidding, I wasn't trying to flame you. I've been waiting to use sesquipedalian in a sentence for a while now, so I thought I'd drop it on someone who might know what it meant. My critisism of LaBarre (not you) was that he seems to be stating categorically that a woman can't raise a boy into manhood, meaning he doesn't allow for any execeptions to that rule. This seems a little unreasonable for an Anthropologist who is supposed to observe without judging, which is what I meant by dispassionate relativism. I was basically asking you to "dumb it down a little" in an unnecessarily verbose way, hoping you would appreciate the irony. Overall I meant it as a slap on the back not the face, I apologize for the confusion.

Returning to the topic at hand , I don't think TPTB needed to explain Ben's not remembering Sayid shooting him because we don't know that he didn't. Ben could simply have been hiding the fact that he recognized Sayid and the others because he wanted to use that knowledge to his advantage.

It's not convenient writing. It's brilliant writing. It's driving y'all crazy.

The key word is "this." Not "Sayid," not "being shot," not "anything" -- "THIS."

I don't think any of us can presume to know what "this" is, so IMO y'all are just agonizing over zip.
Yep! Exactly what I was thinking. I don't understand why people are so ready to ASSUME that it's a cop out. In my opinion, alot of the people need to go back and watch One of Them again and check out that funny little look that Ben gives Sayid (http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-957-604.html) after Jack pulls Sayid off of him after the first interogation.

At this point we all know that Big Ben is a Jedi Master at the art of lying and manipulation. Let's assume that he does remember Sayid shooting him (for a change). Wouldn't it seem like a cop out if Ben had just come out with, "You're the guy that shot me when I was 14". Why would he say that? And if you were the writers, would you want him dropping a bomb like that in season 2?

IMO Richard just meant the whole temple experience in regards to what Ben wouldn't remember.

Hey, aside from the fact that I did include this disclaimer in my original post, no harm - no foul.

[In all fairness to LaBarre, he is speaking in the context of observed & generalized "anthropologies."

But so as to attempt to keep the thought, LaBarre's book is, in every way, a very scholarly tome that explains how generalizations are derived [anthropologically], while he is just as meticulous in explaining the human psychology and circumstances behind what are often just skin-deep stereotypes.

I was trying to lay out the forces that seem to be driving Lost toward the promised war.

The thing that intrigues me most is the possibility that we will be hit with a dilemma: where does right & wrong enter the conflict? Nature & Darwinian survival; or Societal, Sophisticated Proprieties?

It reminds me of Minerva in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil:

"You want ahnsus, boy? They ain't no ahnsus!"

Him not remembering THIS is the same as the writers using Desmond as a silver bullet to fix things. I do not mind it, I think it is a cop out just like anything Desmond has done that involves Daniel, but what can I do? I love the show, I just have to deal with THIS.

It also occurred to me last night that Ben did research on the survivors and had files for all of them before he pulled his Henry Gale ruse. He knew all of their histories before he "met" them in 2004.

Thus either way, they were not strangers to him.

It's not convenient writing. It's brilliant writing. It's driving y'all crazy.

The key word is "this." Not "Sayid," not "being shot," not "anything" -- "THIS."

I don't think any of us can presume to know what "this" is, so IMO y'all are just agonizing over zip.

I agree! People have begun to panic a little too early me thinks, turning Richard's line "He'll forget this ever happened" into full blown amnesia. We don't know what THIS means - the handing over of Ben to Richard? The event that is about to happen in the Temple? Being shot? Let's not forget Ben is out cold at this point so obviously he won't remember any of this anyway.

I think the more interesting line from Richard is "He will always be one of us." and then the look he gives Sawyer and Kate and their look back to him. What exactly is Richard?

I don't know why they couldn't have just went with the "Ben knew exactly who Sayid was,but kept it to himself" angle.

It would hardly be out of character,and makes more sense than Ben forgetting he was shot.

I have always thought this. Just because Ben didn't say "Oh hey Sayid. I remember getting shot by you on this island back in 1977", didn't necessarily mean he didn't remember Sayid or the other 815ers. Ben plays every hand very close to his chest and always has a plan. IMO there shouldn't be such a huge controversy. They just chose to explain it their way instead of how I thought it went down.

Yes, I agree. It was a little too convenient. I am disappointed about this.

I think that the writer's are letting us feel this way and then they are going to pull the rug out from under us when they finally explain what that means. I've seem all sorts of crazy theories about what it means to be templelized and I'm sure there are a bunch more that I haven't read. I'm just saying (as I turned to my wife and said) "we need to give them some time to pay off on that before I pass judgment on it."