Talk:John Locke (Lost)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Locke (Lost) article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Similarity to Colonel Kurtz
- 2 "No, Luke. I am your father."
- 3 Questions about Helen
- 4 The line between "Improving the article and floating silly theories"
- 5 Excessive story-retelling in article
- 6 The Colonel
- 7 Fan Reaction
- 8 Sawyer or Boone
- 9 Fate of the Swan
- 10 Guaranteed Survival
- 11 Last flashback appearance
- 12 Age
- 13 Toys R' Us, not a department store
- 14 Missing Information: Locke met Nadia (Sayid's childhood friend)
- 15 John Locke the Philospher
- 16 Jonathan
- 17 FA
- 18 John Locke is dead?
- 19 Chess Game citations "needed"
- 20 Social Contract
- 21 "Fictional Character Biography"
- 22 Locke and Stations
- 23 Leader of the Others.
- 24 Rewriting the Arc section
- 25 Rewriting Death Part
- 26 Back on the Island
- 27 'Themes' and 'Reception' sections
- 28 Denied in alt timeline?
- 29 'Flocke' as main picture
- 30 Quality/size main infobox image
- 31 John Locke A Coward?
- 32 Origin of John Locke character name ?
Similarity to Colonel Kurtz
I wonder if anyone also notices the striking similarity between John Locke and Colonel Kurtz. How he looks and the Jungle.
Just do a google search for Colonel Kurtz
"No, Luke. I am your father."
Wild and baseless speculation of the week: Given the show's thematic obsession with fatherhood, the tendency of main characters to be interconnected in surprising ways and the fact that Locke is the oldest protagonist on the show, I have a hunch that the island's spiritual leader will be revealed to be somebody's daddy. Most likely candidate to play the role of Anakin's love child: Claire. Runner-up: Boone. Thoughts? 126.96.36.199 14:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, nor is it a chat room. Please use article Talk pages for discussion of how to improve the article, not to float silly theories. —LeFlyman 17:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ha! So I was right...it is a wild and baseless speculation! (Go ahead and delete this section. I just wanted to document my silly theory so that, in the unlikely event I'm proven correct, I can dig through the history of this page and prove I said it first. Except I'm an anonymous user and it won't prove anything. C'est la vie.) 188.8.131.52 13:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Damn! I thought that might be the case, I should have put that theory in. User:FreemDeem I heard that his father was called Andy Miller, it was a hidden clue in Season 1, episode 13...
Questions about Helen
Did Helen and Locke actually have a relationship? From the episode "Walkabout" I assumed that Helen was just a woman who worked for a company who Locke called a lot because he was lonely. (I haven't seen any of the second season episodes, I've only read about them here.)
- In the second season episode "Orientation", we see Locke in an actual relationship with a woman named Helen; however, it's not clear whether it's the same person he was on the phone with in "Walkabout". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's clear that the "Helen" from Walkabout is not the same Helen as introduced later in Orientation. The phone worker stated that they had never met, and had only been taking for a short while. Remember, also, that when Locke bought the tickets to Australia, he had already been a paraplegic for several years:
HELEN: (from phone) John, we've talked about this. I like you.
JOHN LOCKE: (to phone) Yeah. I know.
HELEN: (from phone) And I've enjoyed talking with you these past few months.
JOHN LOCKE: (to phone) So have I. Eight months.
HELEN: (from phone) I'm not allowed to meet customers.
- Likewise, as mentioned before, the telephone "Helen" was never identified as a operator; she may have been a psychic phone service (albeit the more salacious version is the standard cliche.) —LeFlyman 18:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the Helen in Walkabout wasn't really named Helen, but he told her to call herself that.--184.108.40.206 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The line between "Improving the article and floating silly theories"
General Question: I've found that many of the personality traits of the character John Locke (Seemingly superhuman skills in the art of hunting and tracking in the wild, his near endless knowledge and experiences of everything, highly sympathetic "nice guy" tendencies etc.) could be enough to stamp him as a "Gary Stu"-character (For more information please refer to the Mary Sue-article, look under the Gary Stu-section). Now, would this question be contributing to "improving the article", or am I just "floating a silly theory"? (220.127.116.11)
- Definition of Mary Sue/Gary Stu from Wikipedia: "Mary Sue, sometimes shortened simply to Sue, is a pejorative term used to describe a fictional character who plays a major role in the plot and is particularly characterized by overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as wish-fulfillment fantasies for their authors. Perhaps the single underlying feature of all characters described as "Mary Sues" is that they are too ostentatious for the audience's taste, or that the author seems to favor the character too highly. The author may seem to push how exceptional and wonderful the "Mary Sue" character is on his or her audience, sometimes leading the audience to dislike or even resent the character fairly quickly; such a character could be described as an "author's pet". "Mary Sues" can be either male or female, but male characters are often dubbed "Marty Stu", "Gary Stu", or similar names." Now, please explain how is the fact that Locke has read a lot and that he knows to hunt and track, make him a "Gary Stu"? He isn't great in everything and doesn't possess such an unlikely wide range of skills as Jack, and more importantly, this is a man who was what we call a "loser" for most of his life, who has a dark side and quite a few flaws (such as his anger issues, fanaticism, obsessiveness, and exaggerated need for his father's love/some kind of purpose in his life) and who is likely to appear to other characters in the show as weird, selfish or insane... Yes, I think you are floating a silly theory. Nightandday (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC).
Okay thanks! But hey, if it weren't for at least a little "Original Research" from time to time, we would still be living in huts!
Ha ha ha Leflymann you've told him off for speculating yet in the topic immeadiately above you yourself speculate about the Helen Locke was talking to on the telephone!
Instead of just saying her profession wasn't defined and leaving it at that you've gone on to speculate. How do you spell hypocrisy again? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) March 14, 2006
- Um, let's be respectful here (and it would help if you'd sign your remarks, by the way). Leflyman did his speculating here on the Talk page, not in the article. There's no need to throw around words like hypocrisy. --PKtm 17:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Excessive story-retelling in article
As a fictional biographic article, this does not need to be a complete retelling of every event that the character has been involved with. Thus, I'm reducing the content to the essentials and removing the material that is already covered in the Episode Summaries.—LeFlyman 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there has been no mention of Locke's nickname from the Pilot and the First Season flashbacks: "The Colonel." Kaijan 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's because it was used jokingly in reference to the war game he played with his co-worker, and it was used derisively by "Randy." There's no indication nor suggestion that Locke ever was in the military. --LeFlyman 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of course not. I never suggested he was in the military -- hence the use of the term "nickname". Kaijan 10:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he was in military. In "The Man from Tallahassee" episode he claims this, when saying Ben: " I was a commander in the navy"
- He says "maybe I was a commander in the navy" in reference to Ben saying he couldn't pilot the submarine on his own. Paulbrock (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps some mention of Locke's popularity amongst the fan base of LOST shoud be mentioned. His board on the Fuselage is easily the largest.IndieJones 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sawyer or Boone
The article starts out by saying Locke recounts to Sawyer about his childhood. I don't have the episode on hand (late year 1) but I remember this story being told to Boone. In fact, there's never really been a bonding talk between Locke and Sawyer. Can someone with the episode handy (or a better memory) either verify or correct this bit? Thanks. Spookyadler 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Locke recounted his childhood (or, at least, part of it) in 'Outlaws', when Sawyer woke up to find the boar had ravaged his belongings and Locke turned up. SergeantBolt 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Fate of the Swan
I think that the fate of the Swan shouldn't be put so decisively as "Desmond destroyed the hatch." when in truth we have no idea what did happen to the hatch when Desmond turned the key.
He definetly survived the destruction of the hatch because:
a) They're not going to kill off Locke (but that's considered speculation, so ignore that), and
b) In the podcast, the producers stated that the reason why Locke was in a wheelchair will be found out in season 3 - so he's going to have a flashback (unless he's prominent in someone else's, but nevermind that).
Last flashback appearance
He appeared in Desmonds flashback in "live together, die alone"
Where did we get Locke's age as being "58" (which is 42 and 16 combined)? He just said he was over forty. Did someone take Terry O'Quinn's age as the age for Locke?- JustPhil 15:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The documentation for the Guns in 'Further Instruction' Shows his d.o.b. to be 11/15/46
- Yet his drivers license in the same episode shows it as 5/30/56. How'd the cop not catch that? -- DocNox 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- However, the DOB shown for Locke's mother in Deus Ex Machina (in the flashback with the private investigator) says she was born October 15th 1940, so Locke couldnt have been born in 46. If he was born in 56, it would also give an explanation as to why he was put into care. Durnar 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Random User (not fixing the problem): Good Point!! LOL i was confused too. --[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 02:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
In a recent show it was confirmed Locke was born in 1956 (The Buddy Holly record being played was a blooper by the writers, and a bit of a lazy one at that) as he tells Richard in 1954 he is born in two years time. As, in the show, time is skipping, the best way to display his age would be in relation to the real day. Thus I will change his age from 48 to 52, assuming the drivers license birthday of 30/05/56 (i'm English) is correct. Mankytoes (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Toys R' Us, not a department store
Upon closer inspection of "Deus Ex Machina" it appears that Locke doesn't work at a department store but more of a toy store. In fact the layout of the store resembles a Toys R' Us and also Locke wears a smock like Toys R' Us employees wear.
Missing Information: Locke met Nadia (Sayid's childhood friend)
I think in season 1 or two, locke's other job (not the toy store one) he met Nadia which was Sayid's childhood friend. Someone please mention in the article that Locke had seen Nadia but doesn't know that he was actually meeting a friend's old friend. There should be some mention of that in the article. --[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
John Locke the Philospher
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why John Locke is named after the Victorian philopher of the same name? 22.214.171.124 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Smartpants March 24, 2007
--> This talk post is admittedly a bit old, but as the entry for the character Rousseau sites Jean-Jacques Rousseau as her namesake, it seems fairly obvious that Locke is taken from John Locke. I suggest that on the first paragraph of the Locke entry, John Locke is sited as the namesake to look consistent with the other articles for the show. (Tekiclutch 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
>There's so many vague references it's uncanny! I should add Desmond Hume to the list, being reminiscent of David Hume. Is there a page for all of the name similarities? I know you can go to individual character biographies for this information, but I've yet to see a comprehensive list (although such references are speculative which might not comply with some Wiki Rule). Neutralitybias (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
> I've found a website with name references at http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Philosophy but does one exist with all references (such as a current physicist sharing a name with a real life physicist..sorry, that's a bit sketchy)? Please edit the link if posting it is a violation. Thanks. 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why/where/how I got the idea that "John Locke" is not Locke's real name, but rather one he chose for himself. I came here looking to see if anyone knew his "real" name. I guess not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danu6403 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
> Has any producer or writer of Lost actually stated that John Locke's name was taken from the philosopher? You can't forget that there is an American naturalist named John Locke. Perhaps he was named after both, he is somewhat of naturalist himself, as well as a philosopher. Mattkickbox (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
> In "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" in season 5, when Charles Widmore assigns Locke the new identity of Jeremy Bentham, he makes the comment that his parents had a sense of humor in naming him, so why shouldn't he? This seems to be confirmation from the show that the writers understand Locke's name to be a reference to the English philosopher. Currently there's a "needs citation" after the statement that he was named after him - is this reference in the "Jeremy Bentham" episode enough to count as a citation for this?
Hi im Afrox from spanish wikipedia, in some easter eggs i found on a blog with screenshots of this week's episode, it said "Jonathan Locke" and some other data, please check. http://lostph.blogspot.com/2007/03/gracias-dark-ufo-por-estos-huevos-de.html http://bp3.blogger.com/_2KIJWGCLnzM/RgUf3S3LfoI/AAAAAAAAAr4/r2XIF1WyHak/s1600-h/fffff.jpg --126.96.36.199 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- At about eight minutes and thirty seconds into the episode Further Instructions, his full name is revealed on a legal piece of paper to be "Jonathan Locke" (with that spelling); also, he has no middle name or even initial. Wolfdog (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't somebody nominate this article for featured article status? John Locke is one of the biggest and well- known TV show characters of late. The article is well written and researched, and by far the longest of any LOST character. The material inside is interesting and as Locke is undoubtedly the most intriguing LOST character, the article will be of benefit to the casual reader. --Pinknoise 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take it in small steps - you can self-nominate, but I'd recommend going for GA first. MelicansMatkin 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- FA's aren't supposed to be really long plot summaries. They should talk about his impact on the real world, as well. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. See Andrew Van de Kamp for how this can become an FA. I have worked lots on Paulo (Lost) and am nominating it for FA tomorrow. --thedemonhog talk contributions 07:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
John Locke is dead?
Has his death been confirmed? For all we know, he could just be wounded... --Nat.tang 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Status should be "possibly deceased." He may or may not be ready to go in the cart. I think he's dead, IMHO, but that's just me.--Aresef 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the phrase "John Locke was a fictional character" to "John Locke is a fictional character". His death has so far not been confirmed, and everywhere else in the article where it is mentioned (the infobox and in season three), it is said that he is possibly deceased. Therefore I changed for continuity, and lack of confirmation. MelicansMatkin 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dead or not, he's still fictional. Saying that he "was" fictional makes it sound like he's real now. - LeonWhite 04:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the word dead to serverly injured - hope thats ok.
- And, as we all know, injuries don't last long on the Island. -- 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, with tonights episode, that puts a lot of things in doubt.......
The "body" that was found on the plane could well be some sort of VERY well done forgery, at Ben Linus's request, knowing that Locke would come back to life and needed some way to undermine him, this would be before the flight....don't know. there are ways around this, but it will not be easy. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Whippletheduck, the last time someone commented on this was in 2007. I believe this is the time that Ben shot Locke at the DHARMA mass grave. I don't think they're talking about the recent developments. :P --Exer 505 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Chess Game citations "needed"
I think these citation needed markings should be removed. They are observations of fact, regardless if they appeared in a primary source or not... (right?). clapre
Hi there. I've found a clip of the sequence at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQBDrP8YMSE which verifies the not-checkmate issue - white (computer) can escape using either bishop or knight to f1. However, checkmate would inevitably follow with John's following moves: rook takes either bishop or knight on f1, white recaptures, and black takes again with the queen for checkmate.
As to the Brisbane Bombshell game reference, a citation is needed I'd say - even if the game positions used are similar the Bombshell game, a citation to indicate that this was in fact an intentional reference would be appropriate (or you could just say that the end-game positions were the same/similar as in the Brisbane Bombshell game).MattnW 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone actually look up when the Social Contract was written? I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1979 as it is presented in the article
Edit 9.3.08: Locke never wrote something called "the Social Contract." His contract account is in the Second Treatise, which is difficult to date but is generally thought to be written sometime in the 1680's. Rousseau did write something called "On the Social Contract."
Also on the subject of contract, the article's claim that David Hume was a contract theorist is simply mistaken; Hume was, in fact, contract theory's greatest critic and did more than anyone else to bury the theory until it was revived in the mid-20th-century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"Fictional Character Biography"
The first subsection was titled "fictional character biography", which I felt was superfluous... I've changed this back from a revert to simply "Biography" because the article is pretty clear that "John Locke... is a fictional character"; even the title "John Locke(Lost)" indicates that this article is about "Lost", a fictional television series. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Locke and Stations
- Locke discovered The Swan with Boone in "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues"
- Locke first visited The Swan with Kate in "Man of Science, Man of Faith".
- Locke discovered The Pearl with Eko in "?". However it was later revealed that 815 survivors Nikki and Paulo found it first, but did not tell anyone else.
- Locke discovered The Flame with Kate and Sayid in "Enter 77".
- Locke has caused the destruction of two Stations; The Swan by destroying its computer and making the Station implode, and The Flame when he entered "77" into its computer which caused the Station to self destruct.
- Locke destroyed The Others' submarine with explosives taken from The Flame in "The Man from Tallahassee".
- Locke was taken to the Orchid by Ben, in order to move the Island in "There's No Place Like Home"
Leader of the Others.
I haven't watched the last episode in a little while, but I don't specifically remember him being appointed the "leader" of the Others. All I remember was Ben saying Richard and the Others would be waiting for him. I may be wrong, but if there's no confirmation, it should be removed from the article. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Rewriting the Arc section
Problems associated with an in-universe perspective includes ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published". This is exactly how Arc section is written. The story has to be shortened and rearranged as it is actually presented to the audience. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Rewriting Death Part
Back on the Island
I suspect this will lead to much editing warring...but we basically have to retcon the "back on the island" section of the article, considering that we now know that was never Locke. The only drawback is we can't really assume who it is, so where to put that content is currently unknown. -- TRTX T / C 14:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore Terry O'Quinn confirmed in an interview that the real Locke is dead and that he will be playing an other character in season 6.Benjil (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
'Themes' and 'Reception' sections
The "Themes" section is pure original research. The only way to make a "themes" section legit is to cite recognized critics who have published articles on themes from the show. One's surmising of the themes is not acceptable. I'm tempted to simply delete the section, but I figured that some people who are invested in this article may want to take a stab at revising it. So, please, I encourage anyone who is interested to revise the theme section and source it properly.
The "Reception" section is problematic as well. It contains a criticism from a IGN reviewer. But why is that the only criticism included? Why is it singled out? Well, singling it out is POV. Criticism sections aren't supposed to be outlets for 1 or 2 particular, specific critiques. That's POV "by omission." Further, after the critique, there is a comment by co-creator Damon Lindelof. However, that Lindelof comment isn't a response to the IGN comment. Therefore, this is a case of a Wiki editor placing the 2 comments side-by-side in order to make it seem like they're connected. At best, it all amounts to creative personal writing. But it's quite unencyclopedic.
Bottom line: both sections are highly problematic. I know these sections aren't all that different from similar sections on other character pages. But, frankly, the other character pages are also in violation of guidelines, or are, at the very least, extremely misleading.
- None of it is OR - it is simply unsourced information taken from the show's episodes. If need be sources can be added, but at best they would only redirect to a detailed episode synopsis or more likely a text reference to the specific episode. Also in the reception section, the IGN reviewer is notable because IGN is a major network for television reviews. They've also praised the character in question in the past, but it was the writing for his character in one specific episode that is mentioned. It's not POV - at all. If you would like to improve the article by adding to it, by all means do. --Iron Chef (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Denied in alt timeline?
From what I know, there is no evidence that he was denied to go on the walkabout in the alternate timleine; however, he was in Australia for the period of the conference, wasn't at the conference, and had signed up for a walkabout. It's possible the walkabout was at a different date, as many things are different in the alternate timeline. I think this evidence points towards him going on the walkabout, so I'm going to change it. Ratburntro44 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Locke directly said to Helen he was rejected from it, so no he was not allowed on the Walkabout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
'Flocke' as main picture
This is probably going to sound silly/nerdy, but I don't think the current picture should be of the "evil" Flocke from Season 6 as opposed to the traditional "good" Locke from Seasons 1-5, considering that this article is largely based on the original one and not the impostor. So I reverted the main image to the previous upload and modified the image caption. Does anyone else agree with me?--CyberGhostface (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Quality/size main infobox image
I've replaced the main PNG image with a JPG. This edit was reverted as an "unneccessary loss of quality", but I stand by my edit as a quite necessary (or at least, eminently sensible) reduction of bandwidth.
It may not bother people with superfast broadband connections much, but 170k takes more than a second on my connection, which is excessively wasteful. The JPG is perceptually almost no different to the PNG (although Wikipedia's scaling makes it a little sharper) and it is, after all, a photograph, not a graphic. Discuss. David (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer the 19K pic than the 150k+ for the reasons stated above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have no problem with a .jpg, but this one is off very poor quality and suffers from severe compression artifacts. The .jpg looks noticeably worse than the .png file. I've exported the .png image so that it keeps the same quality of the image but with a smaller filesize, about 30% smaller. Xeworlebi (t•c) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was the Wikipedia server side scaling that was the main cause of the low quality - it seems to oversharpen. I've replaced the jpg with a 250px wide one to match the article size, and also increased the quality - resulting file is 27k. By the way, replacing the fullsize PNG didn't reduce the filesize of the scaled version displayed with the article. David (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
John Locke A Coward?
The "Man-in-Black", "The Smoke Monster", of "Smokey" insist that John Locke was a coward, which was why he gave reason that Locke Killed himself. Of course, I'm of the opinion that none of what's said by the monster is true, primarily because, like, he's a M-O-N-S-T-E-R, y'all!!!
But more than that, besides knowing that the evil entity is a mass-murdering and manipulative liar who ungratefully uses Locke's image, the legacy of the character John Locke-hapless as its been-was of course heroic. It does take a brave soul to not only confront his demons, but even as the monster attests, John was willing to explore a whole new aspect(actually a new lease on life,) of opportunity given to someone who should have given-up hope. I would think someone who expected to die in a mid-air plane crash, survive, and literally within hours miraculously has his spine healed and is able to walk again to change his perspective. The new lease is that Locke really had nothing at all to return to after his outback adventure (which seems to have given him some confidence. Actually, I couldn't see how a paraplegic can keep-up with other outdoors-men in a wheel-chair, much less capture and skin boars in such a condition.
Locke is right there with Sheppard, Kate, Jarrah, and Michael in trying to find a way off the island by exploring its interior. Also, Locke is somewhat-dare I make such an uh, unmanly statement-a sympathetic and loving person as he gives comfort and ease to Walt, Kate, and The Junkie.
When Locke has a lapse of "faith" and miscalculates the outcome of not pushing the button, he resolves to clean-up his mess by meditating in a sweat-teepee I think it's called. (I reserve judgement as to whether either of the two tricksters, Jacob or "Smokey" spoke to him while he was "sweatin' out" his resolve. He then takes the most daring plight to rescue Eko from the "Dharma Bears" who have become man-eaters!!! (I personally would have demured and elected to have thrown bad-asses Kate, Sayid and Sawyer at'em, since all three are hard wired for a fight at a blink!) Oh yes, I forgot. He initiates and ventures forth before all the scaredy-cat survivors(and that includes Kate and Shepard,) and brings first kill to the object of their prime terrors: A very clever wild boar. Coward? *pfttth*!!!
And lastly, I do think it is a good sign of one's character when they decline a tempting invitation by a contentious 'prince of lies' to kill the one person who has defined grief and misery in their life from birth. Again Sawyer is elected by John to kill the object of both their ruin because like Kate, John Ford has "murder-in-his-heart". (It would have been interesting if Locke, instead of being head of the "Others", could have been selected to to head the "Temple" instead of that weepy, constipated Jap: John would have proven more wily and resourceful in dealing with both "Smokey" and the inept decision to revive the dead Jarrah. Plus, Locke had "faith" and "kung-Fu Fooey" didn't!!!
Lastly, Locke makes the two ultimate, selfless sacrifices. Of course setting the "atlas" wheel back on its axis, knowing it would transport him away from the island, the one thing he never wanted to do-leave that is. And then tricked by Jacob in believing his death would somehow save the island and his left comrades(now that's having just TOO MUCH FAITH,)commits suicide! Except Ben Linus intervenes and murders him.(I'll get to that matter in a appropriate discussion section.)
You wanna see someone who never had faith in himself or anything\anyone, and a true coward? Why,that obvious would be Desmond (Dizzy) Hume, with Rose Nadler running a close second!!!
So, of course "Smokey" just lies to everyone, since his interim goal is to kill everyone on the island, and that includes Claire Littleton!!! What does puzzle me is that when "MIB" tells Ford and Kate that Locke was eliminated as a candidate because he was "weak"(not a murderer, I suppose,) why didn't they counter his assertion? "SmokeY" took Locke's form because he was one of the few ppl. most would readily trust!!!
One last thing: Why weren't Rose and Bernard Nadler considered "candidates"? They were arguably the only survivors and the last to remain on the island, while the others "escaped" or died? and they proved that they could weather the privations and dangers of the island with just each other, the two most unlikeliest of the survivor!!! And the monster was right there all along and could have manipulated them "three ways from Sunday". For that matter, why couldn't the dog have been selected? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)--22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)--126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Veryverser
Origin of John Locke character name ?
There is no mention of this in the article, so I thought I'd discuss the topic here.
Out of childhood nostalgia I recently watched an episode of NBC's Land of the Lost, specifically from season 3. In the end credits, when listing the actors' names, I did a double-take when I saw: "Featuring: JON LOCKE - as the Sleestak leader". Also of interest, the leader of the protagonist group is a character name "Jack".
Apart from the similar title and (loosely) plot themes, were the writers of Lost inspired or paying tribute when they came up with the character names for John Locke and Jack Shephard? Or is it just a coincidence? --Apple2gs (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)