Ahem.

At the risk of having this thread sound like something Jeannie and I laughed a LOT about last summer for some reason the striking similiarity of that cat in Sayid's flashback, and the cat in Sayid's "reality" has launched me on this theory.

How reliable is our flashback perception?
How much of the flashback is fueled/distorted by the present reality of the current flashback narrator?

Think about it. We get a cat named Nadia, Nadia! That cat looks a hell of a lot like the woman who thinks she tortured him's cat.

If this is true, if this is happening, then we must ask ourselves, what part of the flashbacks are not really the past for the character reliving it? And if this is true, is there any clue or significance to the show?

Makes my head spin.

I, for one, was always at polar opposites of Lack-of-Air's theory of the unreliable narrator. Flashbacks are suppose to actual occurances, from the particular persons point of view, but factual in every way. Nadia the cat could trigger memories of a simular looking cat. Especially if the situation of said memory was being currently replayed.

Ralf I think I am in agreement with you, i'm referring more to the picture in the flashback, not so much the storyline. Does that make sense?

I find it interesting that perception of the factual events could be viewed slightly different from the true reality based on what is currently being experienced by the narrator. With that cat, Nadia the cat's presence may have had Sayid recall a cat that looked more like Nadia the cat, when that cat actually may have been a white persian. That is the point I am trying to make about the perception influence.

Good questions Pen. I think I agree though, that they are factual.

I wonder how much of the flashbacks are actually things the characters are remembering at that point in time, or if it`s just us seeing things that happened in the past to understand the character`s actions/thoughts in the present?
I mean, if it was in the character`s memory - wouldn`t Hurley had recognized Libby for example, when he "remembered" her in the institution?

I hate to say it Rain but that's an example of good old Lacey's "unreliable narrator" -- the flashbacks are only supposed to show POV of the person in them, unless there's something important that the story needs to reveal (i.e., Libby in Santa Rosa).  At least from what I understand of the flashbacks and interviews I've read with TPTB.

ETA: not saying I totally agree with or even understand for that matter the unreliable narrator theory, just mentioning that this falls outside the boundary of normal centric-POV behavior.  

--Last edited by oceanic_lisa on 2007-03-09 12:52:32 --

I disagreed with the unreliable narrator until this cat was shown. It really has me believing that some of what we see "visually" in the flashbacks are likely influenced on what is being perceived at that moment of rememberance.

Rain - this would explain your question about Hurley. We "saw" his rememberances of his time in the mental institution only when she was around on the island and interacting in some degree with him. To some extent, she may have subconsciously triggered those recollections, she may have subconsciously caused him to see "Dave" again.

I have to admit I haven`t read up on the "un-reliable narrator"

At least it isn`t the same cat - they do look alike though. Maybe they only had one cat and added some grey on it for the flashback shots

Well I was gonna start a new thread for my flashbacks theory, but since this one is already here...

What if the FB's are actually the perception of Smokey?  There was evidence of this the first time Eko saw Smokey.  Smokey scanned him and we saw images from his FB.  So what if Smokey pulls memories from our losties and that is what we are seeing, what he sees.  And think about it, before every FB there is that strange sound that sounds oddly like the sounds we've heard Smokey make.  I need to do some more research on this, but off the top of my head...
Sayid's FB had a cat, Nadia the cat was Smokey viewing those memories.  Kate's horse epi. She just happens to see a black horse just like the one from her FB.  No, we already know its Smokey, but how does Smokey know about the horse unless he's seen the FB.

So I will go research this more, but I really believe this to be the case.  

Just trying to follow here AJ.  Are you saying that smokey has scanned all the Losties and then presents them with things (people, animals or whatever) from their pasts in the present on the island?

I'm not gonna re-iterate the unreliable narrator theory, but the Sun/Jin flashback of the same sequence of events from both points of view certainly suggested it was a possibility.

WOC - I feel that Jin/Sun's flashbacks proved the reliable narrator. Niether saw the whole story so their conclusions were drawn only from what they had seen, but both were factual, just the characters both came to wrong conclusions because they didn't have all the facts. The story never lied, it was never unreliable, it was true to history.

I agree Ralf. It was the proof that the narration is telling the truth about the past.

AJ - I'm still having some trouble here wrapping my brain around this. So, if I understand you, we are seeing the flashbacks through Smokey? Then that would make me assume he is "present" during the real time portion of each show. I'd be willing to buy into that cat being Smokey as I firmly believe its a shapeshifter, but do we have a vessel in every flashback episode to add more credence to this?

In Jack's most recent episode, what was Smokey??

Quote :

rottenralf wrote : WOC - I feel that Jin/Sun's flashbacks proved the reliable narrator. Niether saw the whole story so their conclusions were drawn only from what they had seen, but both were factual, just the characters both came to wrong conclusions because they didn't have all the facts. The story never lied, it was never unreliable, it was true to history.

I have to agree with Ralf. I never liked the "unreliable narrator" theory, and I think what Ralf pointed out is a very good example that our narrator is indeed reliable.  

Still researching my theory.  I'm outta town working so I will look more into my theory when I get home

AJ - Keep reasearching it. I never looked at that way before so it is an interesting approach. I'm not calling my broker to invest in it yet, but I'd like to read the prospectus.

Definitely do not call your broker.  I'm probably way off course.

No, you are Agrillo...WOC is way off course

Cornball again, eh my dear Tape?

LOL REAR

Quote :

ILovedEko wrote : Cornball again, eh my dear Tape?

Always  

Take my theory and toss... no hurl it out the window.