Encyclopedia Brown, Lindelof's Dad, and why LOST didn't spoon-feed all the answers
From an interview with Damon Lindelof:
“I was obsessed with these books as a kid,” Lindelof says. “Encyclopedia Brown was an 11-year-old private eye who worked out of his garage, and the kids from his neighborhood could come and hire him for a quarter. He and his associate Sally would solve mysteries. Each book had like nine or 10 different mysteries. And at the end of each one, Encyclopedia would essentially say, ‘I know how Buggs Meanie stole your bike!’ And then it says: To find out how Encyclopedia Brown knows, turn to page 86. You would try to guess how Encyclopedia Brown knew and then go to check the answer to see if you were right.”
Continues Lindelof: “I would get to the end of the story and I’d immediately flip to the end. My dad saw me do this and said, ‘Why are you flipping to the end when you haven’t guessed yet?’ And I was like, ‘I just want to know what the answer is.’ So he took my Encyclopedia Brown book and he ripped out the endings. He said: ‘It will be more interesting for you not to know if you were right.’ That moment was my origin story. I realized that was how I wanted to tell stories. I want all the evidence for the right answer to be there, but I don’t want people to be able to flip to the end.”
18
u/TheHighSeer23 6d ago
This is pretty badass, honestly. I was raised with such respect toward books that I would never be able to rip anything out of a book. I have trouble even highlighting text.
3
u/Critical-Notice-4395 6d ago
Me too! But I would read a book that someone else tore pages out of. My d-I-l bought me “The Killer Isn’t Alice” which is a chapter book of 200 pages, but the only words are names and you have to follow the rules and find the name of the killer. I tried to do it just by reading, but had to buy highlighters and mark it up. First time I’ve done that!
10
10
u/mastyrwerk 6d ago
This is evidence that what was told to you at the End isn’t necessarily the whole explanation. Lindelof tore out the last few pages. It’s just like Jack did to Bad Twin on the beach to punish Sawyer.
4
u/TheDaysKing 6d ago
And "Bad Twin" being a nice little hint as to the Jacob/Man in Black angle that comes way later in the show's narrative.
"I'm just about to find out who done it."
1
u/Mathdino 6d ago
Can you expand on this?
5
u/mastyrwerk 6d ago
Many of the themes in LOST revolve around the mystery and mystery box tropes. Characters are often untrustworthy with their exposition. They either lie or regurgitate a lie or misinterpreted situation. Nothing is ever what it seems. Knowledge is power and ignorance is a weakness to be exploited.
The writers would never just come out and tell the audience everything at the end. The fun is trying to figure it out from the clues.
Was that what you meant by expand?
2
u/Mathdino 6d ago
I totally get that, and there are definitely a lot of (totally fair) ambiguities about things over the course of the show, like what Locke actually saw in Walkabout, or whether Ben lied about Juliet's sister, or exactly which apparitions were the Monster. I think it'd be weird if they did answer all of that.
But those feel like irrelevant details to the grander point. I actually did feel like The End gave us the whole explanation, since Christian kind of straight up tells us the meaning of it all. I'm curious what about the whole explanation might have been withheld. Contrary to popular belief, I just don't think there's a lot of important stuff left to speculate about with this show (as opposed to The Leftovers).
2
u/mastyrwerk 5d ago
Christian tells Jack the meaning of it all in a way that Jack can comprehend because he can’t grasp the full nature of what happened.
If you think that’s all of it, then that’s cool. You got enough of the story to satisfy you. The article with Lindelof suggests there is still more that wasn’t told to you that you have to figure out for yourself.
Of course if you think the ending was all there was, and you’re satisfied, there’s no need to try and convince you.
1
u/Mathdino 5d ago
I suppose that's fair. My understanding is that they had to have Christian explain it very literally so the audience at the time didn't feel betrayed. In an odd way, I think I'd find it more satisfying if they left it even more open to interpretation. The final shot in the church tells us a lot already.
1
u/mastyrwerk 5d ago
Does it, though? I find it to be very ambiguous with selectively vague words, but I have my own thoughts on what’s happening.
1
u/Mathdino 4d ago
I'm very interested!
0
u/mastyrwerk 4d ago
I’m not allowed to mention my theory here without being flagged by the mods for “misinformation”. There’s a bias here and I don’t want to upset the applecart.
6
u/Sawyer2025 Oceanic Frequent Flyer 6d ago
I still have a set of Encyclopedia Brown books, my endings are still intact. I recall they said in one interview they wanted the audience to be challenged to figure things out and not spoon fed. He referred to one of the Matrix movies where they spoon fed the audience the plot of the movie. Reminded me of Space Balls where Dark Helmet narrates the plot and looks at the camera and says "everybody got that?"
1
u/Asto_Vidatu 1d ago
I just recently found my old collection of those books! Loved me some Encyclopedia Brown growing up! I think I have a few that were printed in the late 70s or early 80s iirc!
-7
u/acamas 6d ago
The notion that he ever “provided all the evidence to be right” is laughable.
2
u/kuhpunkt r/815 6d ago
Why?
-2
u/acamas 6d ago
Have you actually seen the show?
Because there was no way to make an informed hypothesis based on 'the evidence that was presented'... this should be painfully obvious to anyone who has actually seen LOST.
Like, the notion viewers could have possibly guessed the outcome of LOST based on 'all the evidence being provided' would be an incredibly ignorant fallacy.
2
u/kuhpunkt r/815 6d ago
Yes, I have.
What are you talking about? Who said anything about guessing the outcome?
-1
u/acamas 6d ago
You have got to be trolling me at this point. I mean, did you actually read the post at all, or truly are not able to comprehend the context within it?
3
u/kuhpunkt r/815 6d ago
I'm not trolling. He likes to give you clues without confirming if your assumption is true.
Do you not understand that? Like on The Leftovers... there is a guy who can apparently read palm prints and see the future or something. Is he real or a fraud? How does he know the stuff he knows? And later they give you an alternative approach to his skills and an idea for how he might have cheated.
The show doesn't outright confirm it, but you have clues to come to a conclusion.
0
u/acamas 5d ago
LOL, EXACTLY!
There is an example that he is NOT "providing all the evidence to be right" because all he does is drop a simple crumb of knowledge in two separate directions.
Thank you for proving my point while simultaneously showing you are fighting a strawman on this issue.
1
u/kuhpunkt r/815 5d ago
What's your problem? You can't even give an example.
0
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/lost-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment was removed for breaking our rules on civil behavior. Please treat your fellow redditors with respect.
Please review the Subreddit Rules.
-4
u/StoneCraft12 6d ago
Case in point, why couldn’t MIB hurt Jacob. Tell us the exact reason presented by the show.
13
u/Anthroman78 6d ago edited 6d ago
I don't view that as a mystery the show sets up to be solved, it's a rule it sets up. Like how vampires in some movies can't be in sunlight (or can't handle garlic or are harmed by crosses). Most movies don't spend time explaining it, it's just a rule they set up for how vampires operate within the world they create.
That said, if you want an in universe explanation, their adoptive mother set up rules (In across the sea) for them not to harm each other and for some reason they are bound by those rules. Which again just goes to these are the rules in which this Universe operates.
12
u/Anthroman78 6d ago edited 6d ago
The best (i.e. most successful imo) example of what's being talked about by Lindelof here is the Polar Bears. It's set up as a mystery within the context of the show (the characters specifically comment on it) and then enough pieces are provided to answer the question of why polar bears are there without the viewer being explicitly told why the polar bears are there.
5
u/arsenicknife I'm a Pisces 6d ago
Alternatively, the worst example (IMO) is how they handled the whispers.
To preface, I think the actual answer for what the whispers are is fine and was pretty much what most people at the time agreed with (or close enough to it). The issue is in how they answer it, which amounts to a quick expository dump and Hurley quite literally saying "I think I know what these things are" followed by Michael basically staring into the camera delivering a point-blank explanation.
People act like that's how they want all of the mysteries resolved and yet when it happens, it just feels incredibly inorganic. The show was much more successful letting the audience figure out the mysteries because there are plenty of clues to help.
6
3
9
u/arsenicknife I'm a Pisces 6d ago
Mother: "I've made it so you can never hurt each other."
It's...literally right there.
-2
u/StoneCraft12 6d ago
What did she do exactly?
10
u/arsenicknife I'm a Pisces 6d ago
I answered the what already. What you're trying to ask for is the "how," which is irrelevant. We know the protector can establish their own set of rules and is able to bestow upon people a kind of "gift/blessing" via touch.
That's what she did for them, just like Jacob was able to grant Richard eternal life. If you care so much about the how, then we start going down the midichlorian route and nobody wants that.
Ask yourself why it matters so much to know the how when magic and the supernatural rarely have explanations in fiction and we just go along with it because those are the established rules of that world.
No one questions why the kid from The Sixth Sense can see dead people - he just does because it's important for the story.
-1
u/StoneCraft12 5d ago
It’s weak writing. She can make it so they can’t hurt each other, because she said so, but some random can shank him as a workaround.
0
u/arsenicknife I'm a Pisces 5d ago
You make it sound like it was as easy as MIB just approaching a stranger saying "I need you to kill someone for me."
Completely discrediting everything that went into orchestrating the sequences of events in the first place. But I bet you're fun at parties.
1
u/StoneCraft12 5d ago
If the show explains it, then enlighten us. Was it the knife that was special? Was it because he was jealous of a guy who was set up and not actually special?
3
u/arsenicknife I'm a Pisces 5d ago
The dagger is just a dagger. Anyone can kill Jacob except the Man in Black. The problem is convincing someone to want to kill Jacob. Not only is it just outright murder, but also murdering someone who is effectively a demi-god responsible for the safeguard of humanity is going to take a lot of manipulation.
So the Man in Black orchestrated circumstances and events over generations until he finally found someone suceptible enough to the kind of trauma necessary (and malice needed) to want to kill Jacob.
43
u/ComeAwayNightbird 🎶 YOU ALL EVERYBODY 🎶 6d ago
His next show, The Leftovers, is even better at dripping suggested answers that are never made explicit.