'Lost', Chuck Klosterman, and why I hate spoilers: Part 1
Throughout the course of "Lost" certain books have appeared onscreen that contribute significantly in terms of both giving context to the onscreen action as well as deepening the show's various mysteries. While there isn't usually a direct one-to-one connection between the literature and the action, these tomes are nevertheless put in front of the camera for a reason. These books make the audience think deeper about the show, pushing the already frenzied discussion into new realms.
While having never appeared onscreen itself, I propose we add a new book to any "Lost" fans's Must Read list: Chuck Klosterman's "Eating the Dinosaur." For those that don't know Klosterman's work, he's a journalist specializing in all things pop culture. "Dinosaur" is a collection of essays with topics ranging from the connection between Kurt Cobain and David Koresh, the political underpinnings of pro football, and the reason for the long-standing legacy of ABBA, among other things.
He's clearly a "Lost" fan, as well. In the Cobain/Koresh chapter, he explains exactly why Jack Shephard is listening to Nirvana in "Through the Looking Glass." Another chapter is devoted to time travel, in which he explicitly references the show again. A "Dharma initiative" references appears in yet another chapter. Plus, c'mon: look at his name: Chuck Klosterman. Klosterman. A coincidence? I think not! (OK, probably a total and complete coincidence. Sorry. I got excited. It happens.)
But the chapter I want to look at today is called "Through a Glass, Blindly." It mainly deals with Hitchcock, reality television, and voyeurism, but has a ton of applicability to "Lost." Not only is the title a nice way to rewrite the aforementioned 3rd season finale's title, but has one of the most succinct explanations of why I hate spoilers about the show with such passion. In looking at Jimmy Stewart's obsession with Kim Novak's character in "Vertigo," Klosterman writes (emphasis his):
"Some might argue that Novak becomes interesting because the watcher can project whatever he desires onto her form, but that's not really what happens; what happens is that she becomes interesting simply because it's interesting not to know things."Let's apply this to "Lost." In doing so, we have to look at this from the viewer's perspective gazing at the mysterious object in question. In other words, we're Jimmy Stewart here, and "Lost" is Kim Novak. Popular thought would dictate that what makes "Lost" so successful is that its vagaries allow the individual audience member to project onto the show whatever they want the show to be. If you want the show to be about destiny and fate, it can be that show. If you want the show to be about self-determination, it can be that show as well simultaneously. After all, the show contains characters espousing both sides of that argument with equal aplomb.
But that's not why the show is actually interesting, according to Klosterman. It's not what we can project upon it that makes the show so addictive, it's what we cannot know about it that keeps us talking about it and thinking about it so much. What cannot be filled in, what cannot be known, what cannot be explained: that's what fires us up. As Klosterman writes just a few sentences after the quote above: "Observing someone without context amplifies the experience. The more we know, the less we're able to feel."
To be clear: Klosterman's not advocating an anti-intellectual approach to "Lost" or life here. He's simply delineating the schism between head and heart at the center of the conflicting struggle to somehow know the unknown. "Thinking" and "feeling" are apples and oranges, two circles that rarely intersect if plotted in a Venn diagram. But they do produce different responses, even if we're not always equipped to understand the subtleties between them. Klosterman asserts in this essay that ignorance somehow feels better physically, if not psychologically. It makes us alert. It fires off endorphins. We might be psychologically stressed out, but physiologically we're in peak form.
And for me, that's where the whole spoilers thing comes into play. To me, looking up spoilers is the attempt to make the psyche feel as good as the physical form. We're seeking to correct the inherent imbalance. But balancing the two sides out completely destroys our ability to feel anything more about that which we have just discovered. To wit: let's look at "Through the Looking Glass" again. You could have watched that episode, knowing full well the twist at the end by reading online spoilers, and still appreciate its structure and inherent quality. But in no way could you have gotten the same visceral reaction when Kate pulled up outside LAX in the show's final moments.
It's one thing to, say, go back and rewatch old episodes in order to glean insight based on current knowledge. Lord knows I know all about doing that. But it's another to actively seek out information prior to an episode's initial airdate. To me, that defeats the entire purpose of why I enjoy the show so much: to use Klosterman's words, it makes the show less interesting and makes me feel less about what I'm about to watch. The simple fact that the mystery of "Lost" is still so seemingly impenetrable at this point isn't a bug; it's a feature. At this stage of the game, it's paramount as to why those still watching still watch.
Next time around, I'll look at why this is so paramount, why spoilers are the enemy to this type of enjoyment, and the differentiation between things that are "interesting" versus "satisfactory."
In the meantime, do YOU think it's interesting not to know things about "Lost"? Or is it simply frustrating? Leave your thoughts below!
Ryan invites you to join the hundreds already in Zap2It's Guide to Lost Facebook group.
I love Chuck K. and I really enjoyed your post. But I've got to say that if Lost were like any other TV show on the air, I would probably agree with you 100%. But if you're a true Lost fan (like probably anyone reading your blog) I think it's important to consider how long we've waited in between seasons, and how much we've analyzed each episode, theme, idea, theory, character, etc. So when it comes time for "spoiler season" it's incredibly difficult to resist. Much like a junkie, we need our fix, no matter how small it might be. If I see a spoiler post online, I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame and damn the consequences. In my mind, I justify it by saying to myself, "Even though I'm reading this information, I can't possibly put together ALL of the pieces, and even if I think I can, it will all be turned on its ear as the season progresses." It works for me, but I can totally see your point. The fun is in the not knowing, sure, but are you really getting THAT much from spoilers, when all is said and done?
hmmm...maybe we are all observers in the Pearl, madly recording our thoughts and observations on the show, which are consequently shot out into the jungle to be read by no one. kinda depressing, and might be the greatest "up yours" to viewers and fans EVER. but i think Klosterman would get a kick out of it.
That's what makes the program Lost so compelling is looking for subtle clues which may lead to more answers explaining the show! Hopefully when Lost comes to it's sad end, we are not dissapointed...
The adage "absence makes the heart grow fonder" could apply here, as the knowledge of what's-to-come is what is missing and that is what makes us crave it and ultimately, what makes the payoff so damn good.
this article rings so true. I want nothing to do with spoilers now, it just ruins the whole experience.
Spoilers take away the goosebumps. And the goosebumps are the best part.
I really, REALLY, enjoyed this post and, like Recessionista, I enjoy Chuck K's cultural insights. I've been thinking about the interdependent relationship - since all binaries are intimately related - between the known and the unknown. I'm very happy and excited to see someone address this deeply philosophical relationship as it pertains to LOST itself and discussions about LOST. Like Recessionista, I do not have a problem with spoilers since they behave more like clues than answers. To me, what's more important is the psychological (or metaphysical) role of the "unknown." That said, I would like to piggyback what you and Klosterman have noted concerning the unknown and to hopefully provide some answers to the questions at the end of your post.
First, I would like to say that if you like Klosterman's ideas in "Through a Glass, Darkly," then I would suggest reading Slajov Zizek. Klosterman's insights in this case are nothing new precisely because Zizek articulated these views already (particularly, how Hitchcock uses the "unknown" in his work). But Zizek utilizes many ideas proposed by the French psychoanalyst Jaqcues Lacan concerning the "known" and the "unknown;" the virtual and the Real. Lacan argued that we are psychologically driven to the unknown, it is what makes life not only interesting but it is the catalyst of human curiosity. Positively speaking, it is why there are such people as daredevils, scientists, private investigators, jealous lovers, and LOST viewers. On the negative side of the unknown, it is why we have Christian and Islamic fundamentalists (or fundamentalists of any kind), managers, politicians, insurance salesmen, and LOST haters. It is a matter of adventuring into the unknown vs. securing oneself from the unknown. In addition to this, the problem – the one that you mentioned in your post - is that "knowing" effectively destroys that which provides meaning; the unknown. Thus, "knowing" is counter-intuitive to meaning; knowing does not carry with it any existentially meaningful content. The only way knowledge has any existential meaning is when it is "known" within the context of the "unknown." Zizek makes this point clear when he explains Lacan's paradoxicality of "known unknowns"; there are thing that we know that we cannot know. It is at this point where LOST spoilers come into play. The spoilers do not provide us with "knowing" LOST, since LOST itself is always nestled within the context of "the unknown". Although LOST is finite, there will always be this "unknown" quality because no matter how many spoilers there are, they can never surmise the totality of the whole. No matter how many pieces we have, the "unknown quality" is how the pieces are put together. And this brings us to my next point.
I think this "unknown quality" will always remain even if all the pieces are put together since they will never be narratively complete (Cuse and Lindeloff have told us as much) and there is always a future. I know that sounds a bit strange but let me explain further. While investigating how the unknown provides – and is responsible for – meaning, I came across a paper by Jack Reynolds from the University of Tasmania on "Derrida and Deleuze on Time, the Future, and Politics." To me, this paper was not only interesting from an academic point of view, but it provided some interesting correlations to what is happening on LOST.
In sum, this paper talks about how the future always implies the "unknown." Jacques Derrida argues that our notion of time is always mediated by the present including our notion of the future. That is, we have a tendency to "construct" the future according to events in the present in order to feel that our future is secured and that we are secure. In other words, we try to construct the "known" out of the "unknown" prior to the future's arrival. We plan, we theorize, we construct expectations, and so on. But, to Derrida, this is a drastic mistake. To him, the future is wholly other, it is the unknown. Thus, any construction of the future mediated by the present is doomed since the future will always and forever be out of our reach. The present will never reach the future although the future will reach the present. Thus, the future is always "to come." To put it another way, the unknown (i.e. future) will pass into the known (i.e. present) but the known (i.e. present) will never "know" the unknown (i.e. future). (Argh, this hurts!) Therefore, from the standpoint of the present, the future is always "to come" no matter what we do, try to do, or what we think. Any present position must be composed of a genuine and untainted openness to the future. And this is precisely the point you and Klosterman are making! We shouldn't make speculations about a future that can never be known; rather, we should remain open to a future "to come" without tainting its possibilities as it passes into the present. So, at least you have Derrida on your side!
But, typical of Derrida, there's always another side to this point. If we can never "know" the future, then what's the harm in exploring the present articulations about the future? If the future is wholly other and the present can never reach it, then any LOST spoilers (in the present) about the future of the show will never reveal the "to come" of the LOST narrative. Thus, we are safe from ever really spoiling the show since, using Derrida's deconstructive logic, spoilers are not spoilers. (i.e. the unknown can never be known, or, there are no such things as spoilers). It is only when the future passes into the present is where we find spoilers. But, by that time, they are not spoilers, they are only narrative components made present from an unknown future. Therefore, Derrida would defend Recessionista's point of view if and only if Recessionista does not make any disingenuous decisive judgments about, or does not construct a future based upon, the spoilers (that don't really exist since, according to Derrida, they are about a future that never arrives).
So, in the end, what does all this bullshit mean? First of all, what it means is that spoilers are neither good nor bad in-themselves. Therefore, spoilers are both good and bad depending upon how we use them and what we do with them. Secondly, spoilers don't really exist since they are ultimately "in the middle" between two opposing impossibilities. On the one hand, we shouldn't use spoilers because they corrupt the openness of the future. However, they can never "spoil" the future because the present (where spoilers take place) can never capture the future. The future is always "other" than the present. On the other hand, we can use spoilers if and only if we refrain from constructing a possible LOST future. To do so would violate our openness to the future (which never really turns out the way we want it to anyway). However, they can never violate our openness to the future because the present (where spoilers take place) can never capture a narrative future that hasn't arrived. Spoilers never spoil because the present can never reach the "unknown quality" that is unique to the future. All that spoilers contribute to is our undying curiosity about the unknown that will never become known. Therefore, spoilers, in-themselves, don't really do (or mean) anything at all except reinforce the meaningfulness of the unknown in much the same way as avoiding spoilers does. Either way, the unknown (not knowing) always and already remains whether we spoil or not.
Excellent points! Agree completely with Ryan, Jason, Tee, and Other Sean.
As a writing teacher I had once said, what's more involving for an audience:
"2 + 3 = 5"
or
"2 + x = 5"?
"...it's interesting not to know things... Observing someone without context amplifies the experience. The more we know, the less we're able to feel."
As I've mentioned previously, my main hope regarding the ending is that what we learn will not spoil the magic of the first several seasons of episodes -- which currently remain as emotional and powerful as when first aired.
(P.S. I'm having trouble following Muir's comment -- I'll try reading it again tomorrow -- but in the meantime let me just to each his/her own, but as for me I want to stay spoiler free!)
I totally agree with you and love your example with Through the Looking Glass. This is exactly why I avoid spoilers to the point of refusing to even watch previews for episodes. Too often I have had things ruined because I wanted to know too much. Moments like Kate at LAX, Alex being shot, Michael shooting Ana-Lucia and Libby, and a lot of others are so memorable because I didn't see them coming.
Ghost and Mr. Muir,
I enjoyed your comments on Derrida's theory of the unknown, and agree that the spoilers, "are only narrative components made present from an unknown future", it is this "present" spoiler that affects us not only on how we react to the future (unknown) airing but more importantly how we react to the spoiler (which is in the present and known) in our present.
Episode LA X is in our future but isn't it really in the past since its scenes and narrative have already been filmed? Wouldn't a "present" day spoiler like knowing which star shot a scene at a certain location wearing a certain outfit affect how we feel today about a future viewing of a past event?
Yes our world could end tomorrow or the next day because we can't predict the future, but until that happens, Mathematics will always show that 2 + 2 = 4, we will always be dictated by time and space, 2 Hydrogens and 1 Oxygen will make water, planets will rotate and Ryan will explain his "Light vs. Dark Meat Theory" over his Thanksgiving Turkey.