#kit123 don't read this there are spoilers LOL

[aroceu]

I know we know I am an apologist of the ending of Lost and a big fan of the show-

-but I really want to complain about the fact that so many people (who avid Lost fans like myself condescendingly refer to as "casuals", aka people who started watching the show when it aired, dropped it when they didn't like something about it, but tuned in for the ending) tend to call Lost a "bad show" because it didn't answer every question they had

Like first of all. Are these people stupid. I mean that genuinely. Do you need the show to tell you the answer to every question. Do you not want to exercise your brain muscles and a little bit of curiosity. Do you need things to be told you directly, like a child. Truly what a maddening "criticism." "Why did the others take the children" WHY DO YOU THINK!!!! The Losties were survivors with minimal resources and knowledge of the Island; the Others for better or worse were natives who had both the resources and the knowledge; they also valued people's lives. No it certainly wasn't the ethical thing to do. But the Others don't really care about ethics in that way. Does that not make sense if we think about it this way for a second

And I mean people have had a LOT of questions about the show after it ended that they argue that not directly answering one or any of them makes the show bad. It's just like. Maybe watch the show again. Have you people ever tried rewatching or rereading something. You know, so you can pick up on things that you missed the first time around. Yeah it's 120 episodes. But if you care so much to know more about this show, and you want to have an informed opinion, it might help to engage with it again, critically, like people with actual critical thinking skills tend to do?

But my main point is this:

You know what makes a good story? One that doesn't tell you everything, but gives you hints. One with Themes and Motifs. One that requires you to engage with it critically in order to understand not only the writer's intention with the story, or deeper meanings of the story that writers may not have even intended (though this does not make any perceived meaning less meaningful!!!!), but also requires you to learn something about yourself.

When you have feelings about a character, or a relationship, or a sequence of events, or the way a narrative is presented to you, you are not only experiencing something new and valuable, you are also learning something about yourself through your emotions and reaction and passion for the thing. Critical thinking and critical analysis and critical approach does not just come from a need to nitpick or find flaws or even in a more generous way with the desire to make things better. Being critical comes from caring. It comes from engaging with something from a deeply personal experience, and constantly trying to find an objective meaning through the emotions you have from that experience.

This post is getting away from me, but with the point of Lost: this tv show not directly answering any or even most questions one has does not make it a bad show. People can not like it or call it bad for whatever other reason they want to present; but the lack of "answers" is not one of them. Not a rational one, anyway. I posted about this on bsky but minor plot holes does not a bad story make. Because stories are not about fucking answers. They're about a sequence of significant events happening to people who are significant in that timeline - if we want to get that broad with it. And a lot of times, in that sequence of events, it is not natural - much less good storytelling or worthwhile execution - for the story to explicitly drop random "answers" to things that irrelevant to the characters or the story, even if the audience may be curious about those things. Where is the suspension of disbelief! Where is the understanding that storytelling is about necessity! Where is the respect towards writers who don't try to pander to all of their audience's whims! Where is the understanding that if a good storyteller knows where a story is going to start and end and it's evident in the execution of the narrative, then maybe whining about minor plot holes because you didn't get the question explicitly or deliberately answered within the realm of the story is a uncritical response

This is not to be a plot hole apologist. Yes I do believe that there are bad stories with plot holes - large plot holes. A lack of answers that make no sense within the linear passage of the story to the point that they are noticeable, memorable, and bothersome. Of course evaluating this is extremely subjective and I'm sure the sort of Lost watcher who NEEDS all of their questions answered would still argue that whatever "plot hole" they complain about is noticeable or memorable or bothersome to them. But that hypothetical aside, I think it's important to take the time to look at the broader scope of a story the same way we may look at the broader scope of our lives.

Because we won't get the answers to everything. We don't know why someone mistreated us in the past. Or even treated us well! We don't know everyone's inner life - or anyone's, except our own. We often don't get closure or apologies. We don't know what everyone is doing at any given moment; many things happen "off screen" in our lives because they're not our lives, and not as relevant to our personal journeys compared to what we are experiencing at any given moment. Life is like this. Life does not have answers for most things. Life is a goddamn mystery box

And yet we still try to make sense of our lives and our existences because they are our experiences; because everything that happens to us and the choices we've made in the past continue to affect how we make choices in the future, how the rest of our lives pan out, even if it's just tomorrow. Of course there's still absurdity and randomness and coincidences and unpredictability in the world. But we are still unique individuals at any given point too; not only that, but still made up of our past experiences and choices, still aware of our own existences, and still try to seek meaning both in the rational and in the nonsensical in our own lives.

So this is what I want taken away from this: try to seek some goddamn meaning from the show. Try to find your own answers. Try to interpret your own way. Whether or not people will agree with you, I think it's more healthy for your brain (as well as being actually and reasonably critical) to try to figure out the answers yourself instead of complaining that your questions didn't get answered in the way you want them, and that because of that, it makes a story bad. I know people have short as hell attention spans these days that they don't want to take the time to actually process and understand. I know people like to engage with stories to be entertained rather than to think. But I think that if you approach every story this way, especially one that pretty implicitly wants you to think, you are not being as critical as you think you are. You're just being dumb.