![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stefanie_beanThere's a kind of contrast being made here, too, between R&B as a couple, and Sawyer and Juliet.
While Rose does lie to Bernard after meeting Isaac the healer (she tells him that she is cured, when actually she isn't - because she wants to spare him and have peace in the time they have together), in general their relationship is *not* based on falsehood. But for S&J their life together *is* based on yet another one of Sawyer's "cons" - his ability to hide who they are, and blend in somehow with the Dharma folks.
The theme of "living a lie" comes up again & again in LOST.
Their life also raises the question of destiny vs. free will. The "$64,000 question" which has been on my mind ever since first watching Season One is: Did it have to work out so badly for the castaways, or could they have *chosen* to live as Rose and Bernard do?
Personally, I believe that this kind of life has always been a true possibility from the very start. It seems that the Losties themselves have been dodging this question from the beginning (which gets articulated in the Season Two episode "S.O.S," where Bernard tries to bully or cajole the Beach Camp into helping construct a big SOS sign.)
Are the Losties meant to stay on the Island? For Rose, the Australian healer Isaac (also in "S.O.S") tells her that he cannot heal her in Australia because it's not "the right place." As I see the whole over-arching LOST story, *each one* of the characters whom we've met in flashback are "broken" in some way or another, some quite seriously. *ALL* need what The Island has to provide - but many have met with suffering and death, not healing or peace.
It may be that this difference comes down to free will; that seems to be where the story is going, but I am keeping an open mind, as it's not over yet by a long shot.
While Rose does lie to Bernard after meeting Isaac the healer (she tells him that she is cured, when actually she isn't - because she wants to spare him and have peace in the time they have together), in general their relationship is *not* based on falsehood. But for S&J their life together *is* based on yet another one of Sawyer's "cons" - his ability to hide who they are, and blend in somehow with the Dharma folks.
The theme of "living a lie" comes up again & again in LOST.
Their life also raises the question of destiny vs. free will. The "$64,000 question" which has been on my mind ever since first watching Season One is: Did it have to work out so badly for the castaways, or could they have *chosen* to live as Rose and Bernard do?
Personally, I believe that this kind of life has always been a true possibility from the very start. It seems that the Losties themselves have been dodging this question from the beginning (which gets articulated in the Season Two episode "S.O.S," where Bernard tries to bully or cajole the Beach Camp into helping construct a big SOS sign.)
Are the Losties meant to stay on the Island? For Rose, the Australian healer Isaac (also in "S.O.S") tells her that he cannot heal her in Australia because it's not "the right place." As I see the whole over-arching LOST story, *each one* of the characters whom we've met in flashback are "broken" in some way or another, some quite seriously. *ALL* need what The Island has to provide - but many have met with suffering and death, not healing or peace.
It may be that this difference comes down to free will; that seems to be where the story is going, but I am keeping an open mind, as it's not over yet by a long shot.