Writing time-travel narratives...
Any storyteller will tell you that if you're going to have a story where characters jump around in time, you'd better have a thorough set of rules for how it's going to work. Only a novice would begin telling a story with time travel without establishing clearly what the rules will be and making sure all plot turns abide by those rules. Since such rules are required for a good story, time-travel narratives often give the audience a unique opportunity to predict where the narrative is going to go. If you know the rules and you're given enough of the plot so far, you can logically narrow down what possible courses the plot may take in the future.
For all of these reasons, it might be helpful to figure out just what time-travel rules the writers of LOST have actually established. This list is definitely subject to debate.
1. The universe does not normally allow time-space paradoxes. That is, it's a linear universe with a distinct past and future and it cannot normally be changed.
This is a very handy rule to start out with. For one, it prevents the storyteller from succumbing to the temptation to employ worn-out time paradox narratives of the "Back to the Future" ilk.
2. Time travel is allowed.
At first blush, this rule would seem to contradict the first rule, since it's obvious that any time travel is going to cause a paradox. Any foray into the past or future is going to place a person within a time-frame wherein they do not belong. Even if she/he is there for a split second, she/he can cause a change that by way of "the butterfly effect" will alter the course of history. (If the person pops into the forbidden time-frame and only has time to exhale before popping back into her/his own time, the disturbed air currents could trigger a chaotic cascade that might bring about a hurricane in the far global hemisphere that would not have formed otherwise.) However, we're not done with our rules.
2a. The universe has ways to correct for the perturbations of time travelers.
2ai. The universe can prevent changes to the timeline through extraordinary events (such as guns jamming up at just the right moment or unusually good or bad luck or perhaps even "resurrection").
2aii. The universe can prevent changes to the timeline through irony (the thing done to avert the event only presents an alternative method of causing it).
2aiii. The universe can render changes temporary (saving a man from falling bricks won't save him from getting hit by a bus moments later).
2aiiii. The universe can cause all memories and other records of time travelers to be wiped, so that it's truly as if the traveler never visited the forbidden time.
A handy thing about these corollaries is that we can have characters interact in the past before the island without recognizing each other on the island. Also, we can have all kinds of time-travel events take place between Sept. 22, 2004 and 108 days later without worrying about the fact that when the episodes were actually shot there was no evidence of these events (there's no way for us to spot Sawyer in the original episode where Claire had her baby, for example).
3. Time travel is dangerous for time travelers, because the time paradox created in their own minds often leads to death.
3a. Time travelers can overcome the danger by having an object or person be a constant that will pull them out of paradox, but memories are sacrificed in the process.
The rule 2a corollaries and rule 3 render time travel treacherous and ineffective. Once again, we have a natural inhibitor against the temptation to have time travelers jumping all over the place creating paradoxes that will make our narrative messy and difficult to follow.
4. Through certain very difficult processes, the universe can be made to take a different course.
What this rule is saying is that all the other rules don't make changing the timeline impossible, only supremely difficult. Like rule number 2, this rule need only allow paradoxes temporarily until the universe can correct, but maybe the cumulative corrections can be pushed to an outcome that is actually different from where the universe had been going before. For example, corollary 2aiii above allows us to save Charlie over and over again, but with each "course correction" the timeline does become a little different than it was before... and perhaps if we save Charlie often enough the universe will gradually be nudged into a place where Charlie's death is no longer part of the overall scheme of the universe. No paradoxes or time loops of any kind are created here. The universe is actually changed. Synchronicity allows this kind of "nudge" cheating... we saw Desmond employ it without the aid of time travel.
4a. This process usually involves the creation/emergence of a person with special powers.
5. There is a known future global catastrophe that all interested parties would like to avert.
5a. Averting this catastrophe is of such importance that time travel should be used only to avert it and never used again if it's averted.
This final corollary gives us yet one more inhibitor to "Back to the Future" style storytelling.
I propose that these are the basic rules. And if they are, then if we see anything appearing to break them, especially in a dramatic way (such as time travelers killing people in the past who never seem to come back to life) then we must find some logical explanation... and that explanation may reveal where the plot is going (saving Amy in 1974 causes her to have a baby in 1977 who should never have been born, meaning there was no timeline wherein she did die, suggesting that in all timelines the two Others were working for Horace to get rid of Paul... perhaps we'll learn later that Horace had snipers hidden near the scene who simply allowed Sawyer and Juliette to do their job for them).
But, as I said... these rules are subject to debate. But I assure you the writers do have rules and they're sticking to them... and if we figure them out we'll have an important key to this season's slight-of-hand plot.And a combination of 2ai and 2aiiii
The incident... an extraordinary event... will erase some of the time-paradox effects. One thing that all of these rules suggests is this: If you end up in a time where you don't belong and the universe appears to be allowing it, you'd better worry, because it likely means that some cataclysm is going to render your presence there moot. Furthermore, the longer your presence is tolerated there, the bigger the cataclysm will be to correct/erase it.
So, yes... I agree, jaz... Rule 2 corollaries are going to be at work here, in particular 2aii. The question will be left in the air as to whether Jack and company actually caused the incident or they just failed to change it. Of course, the actual answer won't even really matter in terms of the arch of the entire show.
Note that this means when the season is over the show may be able to head in a different direction. That is, the time-paradox stuff will end up being just like the freighter stuff and the Hydra stuff and the hatch stuff... just one more gimmick in a long line to give us something to think about while we don't get many answers.
Although... we will finally know precisely what the incident was. But I think that one's been fairly obvious for a while now.Stuck in a loop
Prof, is it possible that Jack and crew could get stuck in the past and never escape? I think of King's Dark Tower ending and how it started all over again.
For a show like Lost to end in a rationale manner seems contrary to its very nature.
re: Stuck in a loop
"how it started all over again"--maybe not LOST but heh, look to the randomness to your left...
I don't think they're getting stuck in the past, Stip. I believe Alpert when he says he saw them all die--think that's how S5 (at least the part in the 70s) is going to end.
Nothin' up mah sleeve...
Time & Consciousness
Somehow I feel that we're still off track in our thinking about time this season. I don't have an approach to suggest except to somewhat randomly point to some ways that we might nudge our thinking into a more out-of-the-box approach. Generally though, I'd say that I was rereading the threads on Non-linear Time=Non-linear Self, and the discussion on episode 4.11 and there seemed a lot there that could be helpful.
One thing Prof was saying on the NLT=NLS post was "We couldn't have a concept of self without a concept of time. But if time is completely relative and LINEAR time is merely a subjective experience, then "self" is also fluid and non-linear in spite of how we experience it."
So are we getting off track a bit in thinking of time as objectively linear?
Subjective experience of time/Linear time as a quality of Consciousness:
As I observe events around me, I think of them all as happening in my present. They are present in relation to my subjectivity. But the further away something is from me, the longer light takes to reach me--so even though I think of myself, the car I can see down the block, the clouds, the Sun--as all "now" they are, relative to me, at different moments in my past. So even on a subjective level there are two kinds of time going on--my sense of it all being "now" and relative to me (so still subjective) the fact that I'm looking into the past (and not one but many past moments).
So let's say I'm looking up at the sky at a distance such that the moment I'm looking at is in 1977. I exist now (2009) and am looking at things in 2009; I am at the same time looking at 1977 (another time that I existed)--does this create the same kind of paradox we are concerned with when we think of the 2008 version of Sayid by which I mean Sayid as whatever age he is in 2008) existing on the island at the same time there was a 1977 version of Sayid somewhere else?
Does the paradox only come about because on the show Sayid is causing things to happen in 1977? But when 2009 me looks into the sky at the moment in 1977--am I causing no change at all, or is my very observation causing change? (These are all genuine questions by the way--not rhetorical--I'm throwing out ideas about stuff that I don't know that much about.) Does the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle enter in here?
Causation--I'm sure Hume might be useful here as doesn't he suggest that our very notion of causation can't really be proved (the problem with induction).
And something that's causing difficulty is the idea that the show might be changing the past. And how can one change the past since the past forms who the person is (the person who is coming back to the past)--the Grandfather paradox. However, we have no problem with the idea that we are changing our futures.
I don't know how this would work on the show--but the fact that we have some people who are living from 1976 to 1977, and then others who are living from 2008 to 1977--I think you've already got alternative timelines going because time=consciousness so the consciousness of the person going from 1976 to 1977 (that person's experience) is a different time than the person experiencing 2008 to 1977.
Imaginary time: I know the Minkowski diagram refers to imaginary time--and that causation is not supposed to apply (because it isn't linear?). We talked a bit about the diagram here--primarily in thinking about how it might describe what's happening as far as whether one travels by air or by sea to the island.
I think imaginary time is proposed as actually a more objective view of time--one that is not linear--and proposed as a way not to have the Big Bang be a singularity. The universe has no beginning. Maybe another way of thinking about that would have to do with the notion of "God's speed" that I mentioned somewhere in relation to Horace's last name. That is, if you think of time as momentum when trying to measure particles, and space as location--it is only when we measure speed (our subjective experience) that we eliminate the probability wave and pin it down to one defined speed (time). But for God--all time is at once. Or another way to think of using the record analogy--God is looking at the record from above. So while jaz is travelling along her groovy groove thinking she's in 2009--from the position above--all instances of jaz are at the same time.
Observation & Constancy: Using the Heisenberg idea, I think we were talking about the possibility that none of these events become "real" until observed (real here being our subjective reality). So the Losties who are back in the 70s--are their observations/interactions somehow more privileged in some way in determining what is?
My other thought about that has to do with the relationship to one's constant. Does constancy mean that no matter what the linear time seems to be my "now" and my constant's "now" is always the same? That would seem to me to explain why Des remembers meeting Dan--they are both in the same "now" moment regardless of the date.
I don't mind...
the concept of time travel or skipping around in time. To me, its a challenge to put the puzzle pieces together without the benefit of the box cover that allows me to cheat.
Prof, your dismantling of the rules is brilliantly meticulous and concise. Well done, as usual. I suspect something similar exists on a dry-marker board in Carlton Cuse's office.
The issue I always suspected the show would tempt is the grandfather test. I felt it when Faraday ventured to plant the seed in Desmond's memory to take the O6 to see Eloise Hawking. I interpreted that event as not so much changing the past- although I loved your analogy of breathing causing a natural disaster elsewhere in the world - but adding to someone's past. Subtle and you could argue it still falls into the category of change, but there it is.
I think that is a fun concept and makes for engaging entertainment. Now if young Ben is really dead, which I highly doubt, it is a real world test to the grandfather law for how can he instigate the purge?
Asimov's "The Red Queen's Race"
DaBot posted a link to that story a while ago--and that really helped me see things in the way I am now. And with the TTLG and racing allusions in Lost--it's quite possible the writers have read this story as well. I'm going to post the Wiki summary below, but I'll put it in very light coloring so it won't give anything away if you want to read the original story.
I can't immediately find a link to the entire story--if I get a chance I'll go back and see if DB originally linked it.
Here's the summary:
"The events of the story revolve around an investigation into an atomic power plant completely drained of power and the death of a research physicist, Elmer Tywood. As the investigation progresses, it is revealed that Tywood had developed a means to send objects back in time and that his plan was to improve the world by giving Hellenic Greece advanced knowledge in the form of chemistry.
- "'Imagine, then, if somehow the ancient Greeks had learned just a hint of modern chemistry and physics. Imagine if the growth of the [Roman] Empire had been accompanied by the growth of science, technology and industry. Imagine an Empire in which machinery replaced slaves, in which all men had a decent share of the world's goods, in which the legion became the armored column against which no barbarians could stand. Imagine an Empire which would therefore spread all over the world, without religious or national prejudices.'"
The government agents investigating the case gradually realize that the changes introduced into history might, through the butterfly effect, cause the deletion from existence of every human being alive.
The trail eventually leads to the doorstep of Mycroft James Boulder, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, who had been hired by Tywood to translate a textbook of chemistry into Attic Greek. He states that he had figured out Tywood's plan and translated only enough to coincide with historical accounts.
- "'. . .There were Greek philosophers once, named LeucippusDemocritus, who evolved an atomic theory . . . That theory was not the result of experimentation or observation. It came into being, somehow, full-grown . . . Tywood may have thought he was creating a new world, but it was I who prepared the translations, and I took care that only such passages as would account for the queer scraps of knowledge the ancients apparently got from nowhere were included. and
- "'And my only intention, for all my racing, was to stay in the same place.'"
- End of Summary
No link
Sorry for addressing this one so late, but I'm not really following the comments anymore... I know, shame on me...
Well I just wanted to say I didn't find a link to the entire story, but I can email it to any of you if you want to --in fact, I already did that for some of you guys.
If you want to read that, just holler.
Cheers,
DB
PS: I'm not sure The "Red Queen's Race" applies to Lost anymore... although Miles' explanation to Hurley somehow fits with the story.
Red Queen's Race
My interpretation of the rules
I think I mostly agree with the rules, but have a different interpretation of them. Before looking at the rules though, I want to throw something out to everyone as a kind of question or way of looking at this in a somewhat different way. I know that the time travel narrative has always been somewhat problematic--but it seems to be causing many more questions, particularly in regard to whether the writers are allowing changes to the timeline, in this season. And I think the reason for this is that we have seen characters go back into the past (the past relative to the characters themselves). So we think of the past as having already happened in relation to these characters--1974 is before 2004. So if someone from 2004 goes back to 1974 aren't they changing the past. The question of changing the timeline hasn't been raised at all (so far as I can see) about the characters who have travelled into the future (Ben and Locke). Is that equally problematic--or do we think of it differently because they are moving into a future in relation to the timeline of their own life--so it doesn't seem as if it's happened yet so change is allowed? I think it doesn't 'cause us as viewers as many problems because we don't think of it as history being altered. Whereas with Sawyer being in 1974, we think things already happened one way, and now by people going back something else is happening.
I don't think we can take the perspective of the characters--so we can't say that the timeline is changing because someone is moving into the past in relation to themselves, whereas they aren't if they move into the future. In fact Dan specifically says that you can't change the future. And all the course correction we have seen so far is when someone does try to change the future--if someone with redshoes is meant to die then they will die. What happens happens and always in the same way.
Rule One & Rule Two
There is both a linear timeline and time travel. Combine those two and this is the linear time line that has been shown to us so far:
1. The farthest period back--the four toed statue existed. The well did not. Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, Dan, Jin and Charlotte's Body were in this period of time very briefly. As was Locke, I think, underground. Locke moved the wheel at this period? So that makes the donkey wheel this old. It also means that he went from there to 2008 while Sawyer et al went to 1974. Interesting difference. And makes Locke the person who's travelled the farthest at one go.
2. 1954 Richard and the Others--including Charles Widmore and Ellie (who we assume is Mrs. Hawking?) are on the island. Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, Dan, Locke, Charlotte and probably Jin (though floating off the coast) briefly appear.
3. 1974 Dharma Iniative and a group of Others are living on the island. Sawyer, et al appear and save Amy's life. Paul is killed. Miles is probably existing on the island at the same time as his baby self. Richard remembers the encounter from 1954.
4. 1977 Amy and Horace have a child. Jack, Kate, Hurley (and maybe Sayid and Sun?) arrive on the island from 2008.
5. 1988 (do I have that date right?) Rousseau and her team crash on the island and rescue the floating Jin. Rousseau's team is infected. Jin disappears and reappears two months later. Note--Rousseau has not forgotten him.
6. 2004 Crash of 815--November 2, 2004--Locke, Juliet, Sawyer are all on the island in two locations at the same time (Walt-bilocation).
7. December 31, 2004--the O6 leave the island, Ben goes ahead in time by about 10 months.
(That's probably enough of a sketch of the line.)
So though there has been travel--the line, the events on the line have never changed--they are always already just like this. So I disagree that any foray of a time traveller will alter the course of history. The course is set, the events are set. There never was a timeline in which Sawyer didn't save Amy, or in which Amy and Horace didn't have a child. Or in which Ben didn't arrive 10 months into his own future and wind up recruiting Sayid to become a hitman and to take the life of the Economist's agent. That death, just like the death of the Other that Locke knifed were always meant to be. If something prevented Locke from time travelling and being there to kill that man--then you'd need a course correction--just as you would if you tried to prevent the death of the man in the red shoes.
Course Correction: The universe will course correct any attempt to change the timeline. This could include if a timetraveller attempted to change what was supposed to happen at that moment in time. It could also include if someone who was not a timetraveller attempted to change what was supposed to happen. It could include someone trying to prevent timetravel that was supposed to happen in order that the timetraveller be at a particular moment in time in order to do something they were meant to do. Course correction keeps the time line from changing--it is not about preventing the perturbations of timetravllers. The actions of those travellers are part of the timeline itself--prevent them and you may have in fact altered the timeline.
Memory Loss: Rousseau does not forget Jin in that two month period. As far as I know--she doesn't see him in 2008 so the problem of whether she would remember him or not is not addressed. Widmore does not forget Locke. Richard does not forget Locke. Charlotte may have forgotten Dan for a while--but she also forgot being on the island--the forgetting does not seem connected to his time travel.
The only forgetting that I can think of is primarily around Desmond. Dan and he forget meeting at Oxford. Jack and he--do they remember meeting at the stadium?
So is the forgetting about the fact that he travels in time--or that he is the only one capable of changing things?
Time Sickness: I don't know what the illness is--but why is Theresa Spencer still alive? Just as Charlotte did, she seems to drift back to childhood. But that killed Charlotte and quickly.
Time travel
Amy, the two Others and Sawyer scene - I hope the writers don't try to use Amy's baby as a tool to explain that "it always happened that way". It doesn't matter if the baby turns out to be someone we've met - whether it's Goodwin or Ethan or Desmond, it would not explain how that event originally happened. But I have a feeling that is as close to an explanation we'll get.
But this is my beef...
If the rules are indeed set in stone to never be changed, then this would imply...
That John meeting Richard in 1954 (and being saved from the paradox because he doesn't remember it until it happened in his own timeline) is fundamentally the same as when Sawyer saves Amy and kills the two Others (as long as those two Others were always killed and Amy was always saved, but in a different way).
But this is where I stop trying to make sense of things because they are still intrinsically different scenarios. We know that John meeting Richard had always happened (by evidence of Richard's appearance at the hospital when John was born) but if the rules are still in place when Sawyer saves Amy, then Sawyer didn't originally save her and it in fact isn't the way it had always happened.
Or I could just not understand all of it, but I'm really not fond of the time travel presented so far.
Ethan
Time Travel
Kat, I don't quite understand the connection you were making between the fact that we know that John met Richard--it always happened that they met in 1954--and thus Richard shows up at the hospital in 1956. But why does that mean that Sawyer didn't originally save Amy?
"how that event originally happened"--I don't know if what I posted above has a bearing on what you're saying there--but why do you think there is an original event that is now different?
The Variable: Rule 2aii
I think the end of season 5 will essentially be an example of rule 2aii. They will 'cause the very thing that they are trying to change. And yet the fact that Eloise Hawking sends her son to his death (killing him twice) I think points to the fact that she hopes that things will change--just not in the way that Daniel thinks they will (or that the Losties will now try to implement). To me the signficant events in this episode were:
Dan saying that he had tried it on himself before trying it on Therese.
Being reminded of Dan crying about the 815 crash.
Mrs. Hawking saying that for the first time she doesn't know what is going to happen.
The first point means that Dan mind travelled. The second seems to imply that his mind travel might have revealed his own death at the hands of his mother. The last point means that something does happen to put things off the course that Mrs. Hawking can follow.
While S5 is going to be about the ironic attempt to change "whatever happened happened" going wrong, I think S6 will bring back mind travel and Dan and Des's connection and it will be in that connection that they'll find the right formula (putting together the variable and the constant).