Chun-tzu said:
That I can understand, but watching someone drown, and getting up from a plane crash are both life-or-death situations. Isn't it common sense to get away from a plane crash (or car crash) before something bad happens to you? I'd find it much more realistic if we saw some of the others doing something, anything, besides standing around like sheep while someone's life is in danger.
Yes, but watching someone drown isn't
your life or death situation. I'm sure there were other folks who could swim, but as satori01 mentions, untrained rescue of a drowning person is dangerous...that's why lifeguards have to be trained for the task. Rescuing someone from drowing several hundred feet out in the surf? Intimidating. (and remember, the drowning person was a scuba diver, so she wasn't inexperienced..although I doubt many knew this).
However, in these situations, many folks also just freeze up. The very famous case of Kitty Genovese (although exaggerated) is the perfect illustration of "bystander effect". Once Jack and the stuck-up guy went to try an save her, no one else felt the need to do anything, especially since there were other folks there. The psychological effect is that, in a crowd, people are less likely to help, as they expect someone else will do it.
As for not doing anything after a plane crash...well, there's a reason flight attendants get training for it. Even then, most survivors need serious counseling to deal with survivor guilt and other issues. Here's a quote from an article from a psych journal that compares the similarities and differences of crash survivors and Vietnam War veterans:
"In general, flight attendants reported that their emergency preparedness training as safety professionals served them well, so that they were able to focus on carrying out tasks that contributed to the safety of passengers and their fellow crew members rather than being overwhelmed by fear and shock. After the crash or hijacking was over and they found that they had survived, however, they felt a strong need to process the thoughts and feelings that occurred both during and after the event."
So, last night several things gelled, for me.
1) Jack has accepted his role as leader.
2) Locke DID see the creature
3) A romance is starting between Charlie and Claire (or becoming more concrete, anyways...the hints have been there for some time).
Was it a Ghost? What did Jack do?
My theories: No, it was a hallucination, possibly from Jack's subconscious. The sneakers part still bothers me, though. I suspect that Jack's dad was addicted to pain-killers and/or alcohol, and Jack learned or KNEW that his father performed surgery while under the influence...and possibly was killing people due to it. Note the relevance of the memory: he tells Jack (and really, I think,
himself) that he doesn't have what it takes, and mentions that a boy died while he was operating on him...while he downs a scotch. Given the more recent flashbacks, that leads me to believe he was not unlike William Macy's character on ER, just far less empathetic.
Locke: in his element. His advice certainly shows that he was ready for walkabout, don't it?
Boone and Sawyer proved to be the most odd to me, this episode. What the hell is up with Boone, anyhow? He's irritating in the extreme, now...every bit as much as his sister. Sawyer is just an enigma. He's an ass, but I don't think he's as bad as he first appears. He's certainly in a lot of pain, and has no way to properly express it. I don't like him, but he's an intriguing character...and that's a mark of good writing.
I know Hurley technically isn't a 'main' character...but I love the guy. He's just so much damned fun, and it's nice to see an actor on a show who's not a fashion model and also isn't pure comedy relief. They've managed to make him amusing, without seeming to be the butt of lots of jokes. Of course, he also presents a challenge, of sorts...if he survives the forty days of season one, he should be loosing considerable weight. How the actor is going to deal with that, I don't know.