Great show. I'm totally invested in it. Haven't been this overwhelmed by a show since Twin Peaks. And therein lie my questions.

1) One thing that Twin Peaks did (at first) that was so cool was plant so SO many seeds of story ideas in the first few shows. However, on many of them, they never followed up on them. One in particular was the whole promise of a parallel TV show (that the Twin Peaks characters would watch) that would supposedly contain clues as to what was going on. They did that once, and it was really cool, but then we never saw it again. My question is-- Thus far, have you had to abandon or seriously change the course of any subplots you'd planted in some of the first few episodes? How hard is it to keep all these balls in the air at one time?

2) Second question is more about the genre of this show. JJA has said (paraphrasing) that everything in this show can be explained by science or pseudo-science. Blah blah blah. We'll see by the end of the season, I guess. But the question is, how would any of you define a show like Twin Peaks and/or The Prisoner, the two shows (in my estimation) that LOST most 'feel' like. (this is my ham-handed, sneaky way of trying to pin down what sorts of things we might hope to expect from this show over the long haul)

Thanks in advance!

Dark Piranha