Four Things About Lost 1.22, "Born to Run"

[kate_nepveu]

Possibly I only have room to follow one TV series at a time? Ever since I started watching Firefly, I've been very "enh" about Lost. On the other hand, I wasn't crazy about the first Sayid episode either, and tonight was a Kate episode, which is nearly all I need to say . . .

1. Where was the "previously on Lost"? I thought we had the wrong channel for a moment.
2. I note that we still don't know why Kate was originally wanted, since she was hiding from the cops even before the bank robbery. And, that was "the man I killed"? So lame.
3. People telling each other secrets! And then immediately backsliding. Pfui. But at least Michael kept his cool.
4. Is Vincent going on the raft?

Comments

[kate_nepveu]

You might be, but it's entirely consistent with what we saw.

Am I a bad person if I also think this is boring? The flashes of criminal!Kate are so much more interesting than victim!Kate.

[montoya.livejournal.com]

What is the function of the exclamation mark in that construction?

[kate_nepveu]

It's a fanfic-writing fandom expansion of the !Peeve style construction, to denote a variant defined by the word before the ! (such as an age, medium (canon v. fanon, movie v. book), or characteristic).

[orzelc.livejournal.com]

It's a fanfic-writing fandom expansion of the !Peeve style construction

The "!" in "!Peeve" is a negation ("not-peeve"), so "victim!Kate" reads (to me, anyway) as "victim not-Kate."

Which is actually sort of appropriate, but not really what you're aiming for...

(I think it's probably not an extension of the "!Peeve" convention, as an adaptation of some old addressing standard, which used exclamation makrs more or less the way the current standard uses periods...)

[kate_nepveu]

I don't really know the source. I've seen it explained as a variant on the negation, which makes a certain amount of sense to me in a very Telephone-game kind of way, but I doubt anyone could say definitively at this point.