More in a bit, after I fill out my application at Octagon Global Recruiting.

Had to deal with some home stuff, which gave me a few minutes for tonight's "Lost" to sink in. I still have questions, of course. For one, does the island have some kind of zone of reanimation, so Jack's father is alive there because his body landed in the water within the zone? And if so, did the zone extend to the ship, so Michael and Jin might actually have life on the island? Or is the back-from-the-dead thing a function of blood ties, and that's why Claire was able to appear at Aaron's bedside? (I'm not buying for a second that it was a dream.)

Locke in the coffin wasn't that big a surprise by the time we got to it. There was the Jeremy Bentham/John Locke clue that's been floating on the Internet for some time. And when Kate, in the extension of the flash forward that ended the second season, complained that Bentham had told Jack a bunch of crazy things, it sounded like what Locke has done from the beginning. But in the faith vs. fact argument that Carlton Cuse has pointed to as a core issue of "Lost," what had earlier appeared to be a tilt toward faith was twisted away from that in Locke/Bentham's death and what he had apparently told Jack before dying.

Good stuff: The Octagon commercial, Ben telling Locke to watch the time-travel video, Ben's reaction after he killed the merc, Penny on the boat, Penny on the boat, Penny on the boat. Sorry, I just liked that someone got what appeared to be a happy ending.

And I probably liked that even more because it came in the context of Jack becoming the great tragic figure of "Lost." Sure, he's been Sorrowful Jones for longer than I can remember. But the events in tonight's show gave his sorrow the added weight that comes with clarity. We now know what he did and saw before leaving the island, and why it took such a toll on him.

So did anyone watch the retooled and added-info version of the previous episode in the first hour tonight? (One of the great things about "Lost" wrapping up after the regular TV season ended: no major new competition, and therefore no reason not to spend three hours with the show.) Interesting to hear the extra embroidery in the survival myth, especially the names of the people who supposedly survived the crash but didn't make it to the rescue.

And I have to wait until freakin' January for more? Crud. Sure, there are flaws; I'm not sure I buy into the remaking of Sun as Alexis Carrington of late. But we're finally getting somewhere, even if somewhere lies in a gigantic time warp. I was thinking before tonight's show that next season would be devoted to getting Jack back to the island (with glimpses of what is happening there) and the final season to what happens once Jack gets back. Still feels like a good idea, although obviously a more crowded one.

Bits of this and that, after the jump. …

Yesterday started earlier than most Saturdays, with a trip to Cleveland for a morning screening of "Speed Racer." I will be posting a review sometime next week. But I can say that the Wachowski brothers are great visual stylists but not nearly the deep thinkers they consider themselves to be. In fact, a lot of their big ideas in "Speed Racer" are from "Rollerball" (the good, James Caan version).

Today I finished reading "Two Weeks of Life: A Memoir of Love, Death and Politics," Eleanor Clift's meditation on the death of her husband, Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Tom Brazaitis, and its intersection with the debate over Terri Schiavo. Clift is coming to town later this month, and I may be interviewing her, but I probably would have gotten to the book anyway.

Still, for some reason, I have been on a streak of books over recent weeks that are about two things, usually in some parallel fashion. Before "Two Weeks of Life," there was "The Man Time Forgot," Isaiah Wilner's biography of Briton Hadden, a major figure in the creation and development of Time magazine, whose role was long diminished when his early death let Henry Luce place himself in the foreground; the book is about young Luce as much as it is about Hadden. And before that was "Sound and Fury," Dave Kindred's book about Muhammad Ali and Howard Cosell.

There's more to be said about each book, of course. One of the things that struck me about Wilner's was the way the early Time magazine reflected issues that still beset journalism, from the audience's longing for news in easily digestible bites to a sometimes snarky tone that predated modern magazines — and bloggers. And I'm not convinced that the stories of Cosell and Ali fit together as well as Kindred has tried to make them. And I will have plenty to talk to Clift about. But right now, that's some of what is bouncing in my head.

I promised some thoughts on "Grey's" and "Lost." I really like what "Lost" is doing right now because, well, it makes sense. I know, it doesn't make enough sense, but there are two seasons to go after this one, so I'm not pretending that I will get all the answers. But I liked the kind of gothic tone of Thursday's show, and the way we got to fit a puzzle piece into the Jack/Kate story. I was disappointed that the smoke monster left a surprisingly number of mercs intact, although maybe it did more damage than I realize, since I don't remember how many people were in the unit before Smokey went a-huntin'.

I am still having trouble getting back into "Grey's Anatomy." I liked some of the elements of Addison's return, especially when people had to catch her up on all the things she had missed, and Bailey's resistance to catching Addison up, since she would just be leaving again. Liked the Chief's inviting Addison back in a scene that was framed much like the one where she said she was leaving, and I loved the elevator scene near the end. But beyond that … I'm just not excited. Maybe it will come later.

Also this weekend: some house cleanup, shopping, family dinner out, church, groceries, and a couple of HeldenFiles columns. We're pushing on.

Notes on "Lost," "Reaper" and "Jericho," after the jump …

This was the last of "Lost" before the writers strike, and now we wait until late April a new episode. And I have to think that the then-looming strike affected this episode. Two specific ways:

– The incredibly long Michael flashback, without benefit of cuts back to the present. It was if the show knew it had to fit in a whole bunch of exposition and explanation, if this proved to be the last telecast of the season. When the flashback was done, we had been in the past for so long, I wanted Sayid to declare, "I thought I told you to talk quickly" — or "What a long explanation that was!"
Of course, the explanation skipped over some key events, especially how exactly Walt and Michael got from the island back to the U.S. And even some of the explanation was deliberately ambiguous. Do we believe everything Zeke told Michael? I don't. And I still think it's possible that Ben has the resources to fake a plane crash. (I have been thinking that Walt and Michael went from their little boat to a freighter controlled by Ben, which took them stateside. And that the present freighter could therefore be Ben's. Not that I'm too paranoid.)
Then there was Ben's declaration that he "I will not kill innocent people" when at war. Are we supposed to forget that his murdering of masses on the island? Then there's my other problem with last night's show.

– The somewhat flat cliffhanger at the end of the episode. The shooting was somewhat interesting but it wasn't a big "Whoaaa" moment. I was expecting someone amazing to step out of the bushes, or some kind of big event that would have us all dying to see the post-strike episode. This didn't cut it.

On to other shows:

After a strong telecast a week ago, "Jericho" was not as good this week. This episode was more about pushing the plot forward, and it did not do that all that well. The post-chase stuff with Hawkins on his cell phone, walking and declaiming, just wasn't effective. On the other hand, there were good bits about the nature of freedom and oppression; it's easy to see the citizens of Jericho as the people of Iraq dealing with their U.S. invaders.
Still, I've begun feeling pessimistic about next week's season finale (possibly series finale). As you know, the show made two endings — one to use if it gets a third season, another to use if it doesn't. The indications seem to be that it won't get a third season, and I can't imagine a final episode that wraps things up in a dramatically satisfying way. Anything I could imagine would have to be implausibly tidy. But I hope I'm surprised.

Then there's "Reaper." Pretty good episode this week. Liked the use of the paintballs to spot the invisible soul. Really enjoyed the stuff with the apartment neighbors, even if we could all see they Are Not What They Seem. (That continues into next week, too.) The Sam-and-the-devil's-daughter stuff has really fizzled, though.

This is one of those nights when I think I am just too stupid for this show. …

I am probably going to sleep on this, since nothing is making sense to me right now. I mean, I think I understand that while we had a flash-forward on Sun, we had a flashback of Jin. But why? And since it appeared from Jin's tombstone that he died in 2004, does that mean he died on the island or just after — and if after, is he in fact one of the Oceanic Six? That would apparently complete the Six as Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Sun and Jin. But that math doesn't feel right. How was Aaron factored in? Did NO ONE else get off the island? We know Ben did, but how?

As for the Michael reveal, every "Lost" fan I talked to a week ago was sure that Michael was on the ship. So it seemed to be an unnecessarily long wait for his appearance.

But I am so confused. ….

Morning after notes: Now I am not so much confused as ticked off. The Michael anticlimax is one reason. But another is the Jin flashback. There was no discernible point to it other than to mess with our heads, and "Lost" has plenty of head-messing going on without resorting to that parlor trick. I do like Sun and Jin. And they deserve their own episodes. But this felt like an obligatory, hey-we-haven't-done-something-with-Sun-and-Jin kind of story instead of a real blending of them into the overall narrative. Nice to see Bernard, too, although I think he's wise enough to have spotted tension between Sun and Jin well before he asked if he could go fishing. But the last couple of weeks have been a drop-off from earlier in the season, and I am tired of the promos promising gunplay and death.

Couple of good scenes, but not my favorite episode …

I did very much like the way the opening played with our heads. We've gotten so used to flash-forwards lately, that it was reasonable to think that Juliet was in some future-therapy session — and that raised all sorts of questions about whether she was one of the Oceanic 6 or not. But then it became clear we were in a flashback, albeit a not very entertaining one.

Field conditions: It may be because I watched the episode this morning instead of last night, and that I was thinking as much about the possibly horrible snowstorm coming our way as I was about "Lost" while watching. But the episode felt slow to me, draggy, marking time. Of course, part of the problem may also be that I don't believe anything Ben says to anyone, so I'm just waiting for him to pull the football away from Charlie Brown, I mean Locke.

The best line in the episode may indeed have Ben's sticking Locke about Locke's not having a plan. Ben always seems to know people's soft spots, and he sure has Locke's. But aren't we all getting a little tired of seeing how terrible a leader Locke really is, and how manipulable he can be?

And does anyone want to argue about whether Michael is Ben's guy on the ship? That was the consensus at my office, at least.

But still not a wowser, especially compared to the last couple of weeks. True, just as I enjoyed the opening, I liked the bits at the end with Jack and Juliet, and with Hurley and Sawyer's reactions to Ben being out and about. But I don't want to enjoy little bits right now. I want a big ole heap of plot developments.

One of those episodes that will have me plowing back through DVDs of the previous seasons. Spoilers after the jump …

Couple of probably obvious things;

– The ledger Penny's father bid for has to be something that affects "Lost." Ship on the way to Siam that disappears? I sense the original time anomaly on/around the island where the "Lost" group now is. (Update: I have since been told by people with better "Idol" memories that the ledger is from the ship on the island. Missed that line. But it will be interesting to see what sort of clues are in the ledger. I've been thinking more about the range of the time anomaly, since it clearly extends beyond the island itself into the water around it.)

– Did anyone else think that Faraday's drawing of circles and time lines (yes, I froze the image) looked weirdly like a pattern for the Dharma pods on the island?

As for the overall plot, the one thing I want to go back and look at are the previous episodes with Desmond/Penny elements, to see if they're playing fair in terms of what has apparently been their lack of contact for eight years.

I say this in part because this felt like one of those "X-Files" where we're told that everything we have thought up to now is wrong, because the show (that is, "X-Files") had painted itself into a corner; and because this was one of those episodes which suggested that, when "Lost" started, they had no idea where they were going — and are only now figuring out where they ultimately want to go.

But I was still thoroughly taken into it, and felt a tug of emotion when Penny and Desmond shared that 2004 telephone call. Only now the questions are sinking in, and not only the two I mentioned at the top.

The big one is regarding flashbacks (and maybe even the flash-forwards): Could those in some way be the other characters dipping through time because of the island's effect — but they're not so strongly affected because of simple physical differences or because they, probably unknowingly, have a stabilizing person who keeps them from feeling the most brutal of the time-shifting effect?

Are there different sequences of events in different times (hence the need to stay precisely on course)? So the plane on the beach and the plane in the water both exist, just in separate time lines from Faraday's chart. (Another update: I know the producers said in the Entertainment Weekly interview that they're against alternative realities. I'm not sure I believe them entirely.)

Does that then mean the people exist simultaneously in parallel times?

Were the people on the island then chosen in some way to assess the impact of the time shift on different physical/mental/emotional types? Is this what Dharma was all about? And is Penny's father the Great and Powerful Oz, the man behind the curtain of Dharma?

It makes me dizzy. But I liked that the time-travel is basically mental (as we saw with the rat test). And, as I said, I was drawn in, as long as I don't get overwhelmed by my attempts at understanding the new logic.

I knew the show had roped me in again when, this morning, I was replaying scenes to make sure I had caught some details. …

The scene I re-examined the most was Jack's courtroom testimony, especially the description of the plane-crash survivors. Now, obviously, we know there was a cover-up, since he says only eight people survived — two of those, it appears although Jack didn't finish his sentence, didn't make it.

Does that finally mean that the Oceanic 6 are all the known survivors — and the six include Hurley and Sayid (who have identified themselves as such) as well as Kate and Jack (who, as far as I can remember, have never identified themselves as part of the Oceanic 6)? But what about — in the best twist of the night — baby Aaron? Is he one of the six, or a peripheral figure — a baby presumably born on the island but presented to the public as Kate's? And why, then, wouldn't she let her mother see the baby? And was Kate really not pregnant when she told Sawyer that, or was it a test of Sawyer's devotion to their possible baby? (She was pretty ticked when he expressed relief over her being non-pregnant.)

And I haven't even gotten to the whole time-warp issue. Or how powerful and dangerous Ben is to the outside world; we know he had outside connections from earlier episodes, but what are those connections? Is he the Napoleon of Crime?

One disappointment: Hurley blabbing. As we saw when he played decoy last week, he is more cunning than is often believed, and I hoped he was faking out Kate. But no. Sometimes it seems that the show uses Hurley too much as a convenience instead of as a consistent character.

But overall, I loved it. The narrative is rolling, the characters are engrossing and the integration of the flash-forwards with the island doings is top-notch.

Some thoughts after the jump, with spoilers …

"I have two stories to write on deadline," one of my co-workers said this morning after I got to the office, "but first I want to talk."

The subject was "Lost," which once again on Thursday demonstrated that it is well back on its game even if that means it is confusing us, throwing new information at us, moving us around in time, making us question every character. Because it is still great fun doing it.

Good showcase for Naveen Andrews as Sayid, now revealed as one of the Oceanic Six, and as a post-island hit man working on a vendetta for Ben. Also, perhaps, for himself. The look of fear in the eyes of his first victim at the mention of "Oceanic Six" suggests that there are troubles tied to the "rescue" that we've only begun to see. And while we knew Sayid was working the girl, it was a dandy twist to see that she was working him, too. (Very "Mission: Impossible" in its way, also. As I noted with the photo array last week, I wonder if we're getting a series of "M:I" homages.)

The stuff on the island was also entertaining if not all surprising. Hurley as Judas goat, for instance, should have been a suspicion for any viewer. This, after all, is the real "trust no one" series.

But when did Ben start sounding a lot like Kevin Spacey?

A few words, with spoilers. after the jump …

I watched this episode about a week ago, before I wrote my review of the beginning of the new season. And found myself watching some it again tonight. What fun.

What "Lost" fan would not get a shiver of delight at the polar bear in the desert — with a Dharma collar to boot?

How could you not enjoy the Ben revelations at the end? "I have a man on their boat," indeed.

And the scene where Locke's group meets one of the rescue Gang of Four was lovely in the air of suspicion — and in having Hurley seem the most suspicious of all. I know this struck me because I had watched "Survivor" earlier tonight, but they were looking at their supposed rescuer the way the "Survivor" faves looked at Jonny Fairplay.

And did anyone else look at the photos of the rescue team and think it was a little nod to "Mission: Impossible"?

I won't pretend to understand anything that is going on on "Lost." In fact, I have an array of contradictory theories and cannot resolve them all. But I am enjoying the contemplation and discussion of them.*

And, as I think I have said before, the show MOVES now — and not in an obviously circular direction. Plus, even though we are dealing with new characters in the Four, they are integrated into the stories of the main cast members instead of set apart — a huge storytelling improvement. Good times.

*Since my Sawyer nickname is Chairman Mao, I should add: let a hundred episodes blossom, and a hundred schools of thought contend.

In case you missed it in the print Beacon Journal or on Ohio.com, it's here. I would have liked to say more, but neither do I want to get in the spoiler game. Still, it was a really good start for the season, and I am sure we will have plenty to talk about once the episodes air.

This came from ABC today:

Now fans can discover elements from the hit series “Lost” in Marvel Comics. ABC marketing has strategically placed images and references from the show in various comic books, including Uncanny X-Men, Incredible Hercules, Thunderbolts and Wolverine Origins on sale now. Examples of “Lost” references include a “Lost” poster, the number 6, and the slogan “Find Yourself” in the latest editions of numerous Marvel comics throughout the month. Expect more “Lost” placements to pop up in comic books on stands January 23 and January 30.

Product placement in comics. Is nothing sacred?

This is from Sci Fi:

SCI FI Channel has acquired off-network cable rights to the fan favorite drama series Jericho from CBS Television Distribution. The deal provides SCI FI the rights to seasons one and two of the series. Jericho will make its debut on SCI FI with a four-episode marathon on Monday, February 11, 2008 from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET. Jericho will begin airing in its regular time slot on Mondays at 10 p.m. ET on February 18. SCI FI will simulcast Jericho in HD on SCI FI HD.

“Jericho is a gripping science fiction series that SCI FI Channel is excited to add to our schedule,” said Thomas Vitale, Senior Vice President of Programming and Original Movies. “Thanks to the passion and persistence of its loyal viewers who saved this program from being canceled, new viewers can now experience this show for the first time on the SCI FI Channel while CBS continues the story in its second season run starting this February."

The second season starts Feb. 12 on CBS, the day after the Sci Fi marathon. I have seen three new episodes and am anxious for more. I promise to say more before the show returns.

For "Lost," it's Jan. 31, a Thursday night. More stuff after the jump.
I'm trying to see some optimism in this move — that ABC is hoping that the strike will be over in time for it to make more "Lost" episodes, instead of just stopping with the eight it reportedly has finished. That maybe there will be a deal by the end of January?
On the other hand, moving "Lost" into the "Grey's Anatomy" slot suggests pessimism — that they're not going to get that show up and running again any time soon, so they might as well fill the time slot with fresh product.
Either way, the winter keeps looking rocky.

The announcement:

ABC will premiere four new series, “Cashmere Mafia,” “Dance War: Bruno vs. Carrie Ann,” “Eli Stone” and “Oprah’s Big Give,” in addition to the premiere of the much anticipated fourth season of “Lost” on Thursday, January 31 at 9:00 p.m.

SUNDAY (MAR) 7:00 p.m. “America’s Funniest Home Videos”
8:00 p.m. “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”
9:00 p.m. “Oprah’s Big Give”
10:00 p.m. “Desperate Housewives”

For some reason, I keep thinking "Don't raise the bridge. Lower the river." …

Another thing occurred to me while watching the show for the second time: Maybe Kate IS pregnant on the island, and the person she has to get back to in the future is not a companion but her child. Thoughts?
And now back to what I filed earlier…

Yes, I enjoyed the episode enormously. "Good Vibrations." Charlie's sacrifice. Not Penny's boat. Hurley saves the day with the van. Any time we get much of Bernard and Rose. The return of Walt.

But:

– ABC screwed the pooch in the promos, which showed Sayid, Bernard and Jin tied up — a scene that had not aired at the time Ben et al. faked shooting them. Bad loss of suspense there.

– The shifting into flash-forwards, to tell us that Jack and Kate (and possibly a third person) got off the island, seemed to change the terms of discussion about the show, especially in Jack's wish to get back.

Maybe that's a good thing, since there are three seasons totaling 48 episodes to go — and 48 episodes is a lot of story, even if you allow for a modicum of vamping.

At the same time, though, it feels somewhat like one of those "X-Files" situations where, having painted itself in an impossible corner, the show would simply declare that everything we knew was wrong and try to start from scratch.

"Lost" did not go that far. But, after spending years in keeping us guessing about the island, we're now being shifted into considering things way beyond the island. And does this mean the end of flashbacks, or simply a back-and-forth between, uh, flashback and flash-forward?

Still, here's the good thing about last night's show: I am really interested again. I may be snarling two or three weeks into next season, but right now I want to think about "Lost" and not just poke holes in it.

In which I think of Lucy and the football, after the jump …

As touching as last night's "Lost" sometimes was, I did feel a growing sense of resentment as the show went along. Charlie got a long goodbye while Locke was given a quick tumble in a ditch. (Then again, I still refuse to believe Locke is dead.)

But that resentment was magnified by the end, when Charlie's episode-long march to noble sacrifice was, at the very least, delayed. Yes, "Lost" is supposed to be about surprises. Yes, it's perfectly logical for the underwater station to be guarded — whether as a matter of routine, or as part of a larger ambush set by the Others.

Still, it ticked me off. It was Lucy setting the football for Charlie Brown, then pulling it away at the last minute. It was a nasty little trick.

OK, Reality Check. Discussion after the jump …

Before I say anything else, I want to review a couple of axioms about the show. First of all, as they say on "House," everyone lies. Well, maybe not Hurley. But everyone else. And death is a tricky thing on the island, so I'm not concluding that Locke is done yet.

In fact, I can imagine a season finale where the Others (whom we now know are actually the much-anticipated Other Others) and Our Heroes are engaged in a brutal battle when Locke arrives — perhaps even descending from the heavens — to stop the conflict and promise peace and wisdom. For next season, of course.

I'd also like to bring up once again one of my crackbrained previous "Lost" theories, posted in the blog in January 2006. The key passage:

How could you not look at the Others in this context and not think eventually of Native Americans confronting unwanted settlers? The scene illuminated last week's — and this week's — increasing focus on the survivors' camp as a town, making it even more a colonial outpost, or a miners' settlement in the farthest reaches of the Wild West. It made "Lost" a companion to "Deadwood," only while "Deadwood" is so often about the lack of civilization and law on society's fringe, "Lost" is about building that civilization and finding law. And, even though I keep harping on it, that nation-building also suggests strongly that the people of "Lost" are involved in a social experiment, perhaps one set up as part of the Dharma Initiative.

I got the equation wrong, but we sure were slammed with that Native Americans/Settlers notion again in last night's show — specifically by Ben's referring to the Other Others as the original people on the island.

Of course, Ben lies. Of course, everyone lies. And not everyone dies, I insist, clinging to the notion that Locke — the "faith" half of "Lost's" "faith vs. fact" argument — is not done yet.

And so to last night's episode. Was Ben crazy? Was the incident in the cabin all just some kind of electronic trickery? Is there, in fact, a man behind the curtain?

Did anyone else think there was a lot of "Carnivale" in that scene?

Wary as ever of what passes for explanation on "Lost," I will at least admit that last night kept me watching closely for the hour. No drifting, no urge to channel-hop, no fast-forwarding the DVR. And it did seem as if we were learning things — and once again being taken toward an explanation that has a practical, human underpinning. Still, I am not sure what we really learned.

We do not, for example, know who was behind the Dharma Initiative. Or where the Other Others came from, since their appearance suggested they hadn't been on the island all that long. There's the whole no-aging question with Nestor Carbonell.

And wouldn't you have expected the survivors to act with just a bit more urgency when the possibility of rescue has landed on the island?

ABC has renewed "Lost" through 2009-10 but declared that's the end of it. So the guys have 48 episodes to explain everything. Fortunately for the writers — and unfortunately for us — those 48 episodes are spread across three seasons. So they have more time to figure out what they're talking about, and we have to wait longer for resolution.

The formal announcement is after the jump.

Starting with the 2007-08 season, ABC will begin airing the 48 remaining original episodes of the hit drama “Lost,” it was announced today by Stephen McPherson, president, ABC Entertainment. The episodes will air uninterrupted over three seasons (16 episodes each season), with the series concluding in 2009-10 with a highly anticipated and shocking finale.

“Lost” has garnered numerous awards, including six Emmy Awards, a Golden Globe, a Screen Actors Guild Award, a Writers Guild of America Award, a Producers Guild Award, an NAACP Image Award, a Prism Award and two ALMA Awards, just to name a few.

A little Dylan in consideration of last night's "Lost," after the jump …

To quote Mr. Dylan (as near as memory allows):
God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son,"
Abe said, "Man, you must be putting me on."
God said, "No."
Abe said, "What?"
God said, "Do what you want, Abe, but ..
"The next time you see me coming, you better run."
Abe said, "Where you want this killing done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61."

I have no idea if this has anything to do with last night's "Lost," but it was echoing in my head while watching. That, and a little of "Hotel California" ("This could be heaven or this could be hell").
I'm not crazy about the heaven/hell/purgatory notion coming to the fore (although Kevin Tighe made such a splendid Satan, right down to having many names, that I regretted them killing him off — until I remembered that it's not easy to stay dead on "Lost."). I hope the show has something more clever underlying that notion, and I'd much prefer to deal with the good and evil that people do instead of a battle of Good and Evil.

Although I can spin that notion all sorts of ways. Let's assume, for instance, that Locke's father is indeed Satan. Does that mean that Ben is God? After all, it's Ben who wants Locke to commit patricide (reversing the command to Abraham) — and Locke's failure is that he does not obey Ben.

Or, if we come back to the notion of purgatory, is all this killing a test of what people are capable of? If Locke had killed his father, would that have meant he should in fact go to hell for committing such a horrible crime? And has Sawyer/Ford doomed himself by killing?

On a more mundane point, what is that Jack-Juliet look all about?

But here's my problem with "Lost." I watched it about an hour ago, and I had a reasonably good time doing so — if only because I never believe any explanations the show offers, and start thinking about how it's going to twist what we think we know. But as time goes by, it feels sillier and sillier — and I start thinking that my focus on the turns is just foolish.

I'm pretty well convinced now that the best way to watch "Lost" is about once a month …

I'll add some notes later about tonight's telecast, because I am finally in position to watch again in real time.(Alas, it's Thursday morning and I haven't gotten to it yet. Maybe tonight.) I spent part of my day off today watching episodes that had been stockpiled on the DVR, so I'm up to speed on plot twists and all that.

At least one of those episodes might have annoyed me if I had had to wait a week until another one. You know which. Yup, the one with the two passengers we had hardly seen. Although I mildly enjoyed the jab at "Alias" and a conclusion that felt straight out of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents," and could giggle at the way Locke and Hurley are both "Expose" viewers, it was still a place-holding episode where nothing much happened in terms of the total narrative.

But I didn't mind that nearly as much when I was seeing it in a sequence with other pieces, so that the story moved on quickly. And, having seen a bunch of shows back to back, I'm ready to see where it goes tonight.

Knowing, of course, that I may be thoroughly ticked off at the end of tonight's show.

As for what I've seen, the connection of Locke to spiritualism has sure gotten blatant: Ben's wooing him with the magic box made me think of the devil tempting Jesus in the desert.

Having seen the promos for this week, I already feel bad for Sawyer. He actually seemed to like being the leader. Yes, we could have reasonably suspected that Hurley was scamming him. But I didn't see the reason coming, and liked what it was.

A few notes about tonight's "Lost," with possible spoilers, after the jump …

For a long time, "Lost" had no need to send preview episodes about to TV critics. The audience was large and loyal, and there was no sense in risking spoilers getting out from blabbermouth recipients of previews. But these are not the good old days of "Lost." Many viewers have become disenchanted, and it's clear the show is struggling to get them back. And to get them, "Lost" has become far more willing to send out preview discs, including one of tonight's telecast.

And it's a good one. Not only are we back with the original core of survivors, the episode focuses on Hurley, a favorite of many viewers, including me. Without getting into too much detail, the flashbacks provide us a little more insight into Hurley's life and attitiudes, and the stuff on the island reminds us of his importance to the community as a whole — that Hurley is, above all else, the morale officer.

The episode is not without flaws. (When you watch, think what the jungle damp would have done to a set of tires.) But after weeks of crying and moaning and the Others, it was a great comfort to see "Lost" back where it belonged. (Good grief, I sound like an "American Idol" judge.) Tonight's show reminds us how engaging and touching the characters can be, and how we don't need a big mystery to keep watching them.

How nutty was that? after the jump …

In the worst days of "The X-Files," Chris Carter would paint himself so thoroughly into a corner that the only way to get out was to declare that everything you knew up to that point was wrong. The carefully constructed conspiracy was in fact a cog in another, bigger, double-secret conspiracy that would take still longer to explain — as long, that is, as Fox was willing to keep paying for the show.

And so it felt on last night's "Lost" as Desmond seemed to travel back through time, to pick up fragments of the future and yet to go through all of it as if he was just plain cuckoo — brain-damaged in some way by the turning of the key. And yet — since there is almost never only one "and yet" with — he does appear to be seeing the future (or at least Charlie's future). And yet — see, there's another one — couldn't that be part of Desmond's delusion, too?

I might have been a little less annoyed if this had not come in the same week as "Studio 60's" mind game. But "Lost" on its own is playing around in a way that makes very little sense. "Back to the Future," cited above and getting heavy airplay on HDNet's movie channel lately, had more internal logic than "Lost" is indicating.

Next week we're supposed to get answers to some big questions; I suspect many of us will not like those answers.

"Lost" fatigue, some possible spoilers from last night's telecasts and proof that I am a sentimental fool, after the jump …

I watched tonight's hey-we're-back episode of "Lost" a week or so ago. It was OK. Some questions are answered, and even intriguingly. The overall story puts at least a comma on the saga of Jack, Sawyer and Kate on the small Island of Dr. Moreau, or whatever it is, so that in a week we can get back to seeing more of the core characters back on the big Pleasure Island, or whatever it is.

But here's the thing: I don't want "Lost" to be just OK. I want that feeling where I could talk for an entire week, from the end of one episode to the beginning of the next, about what is going on. I want to feel as if I'm getting closer to something; even when "Lost" gives me info now, I know that it is holding back far more than it is giving. Lately, it's been more like a very long book that I am determined to finish even if it's not that much fun to read.

Still, I watched it. It was OK. Just keep your expectations low.

As for the sentimental fool thing, both "Gilmore Girls" and "Veronica Mars" choked me up.

Loved the "Veronica" line about "Footloose" — and overall I liked the way "VM" was absolutely respectful of its TV-evangelist character; in a way, it was a continuation of last week's don't-misjudge-the-prostitute story. The ending was very nicely done (although, were I Veronica, I probably still would have cubed Madison's car), but even better was the scene with Veronica and the preacher in his office. Tissues, please.

Not so thrilled with the deterioration of Logan, even if he carried off the cell-phone monologue. You pretty well knew Veronica wasn't going to listen past the insults. Interesting, though, that both "VM" and "Gilmore Girls" built key scenes around cell-phone monologues. Anyway, I just wish they would settle this whole Veronica-Logan thing once and for all. It's just toxic for the storytelling to keep dragging it out. And even as we're moving closer to resolution of the dean-murder story, I am tending to forget it's there. Right now the self-contained stories are much stronger.

"Gilmore," then. Big sweepsy thing with Richard's heart attack. Hard to believe Christopher would be AWOL so long, except that — as I was saying to someone after last week's show — leaving is basically something Christopher does, much the way Luke's thing is showing up. The rhythms of Lorelai's jokiness felt off in the early going. And still …

Kelly Bishop as Emily Gilmore was a marvel, from her grand entrance through her gift-shop meltdown. She did not hit a wrong note, and in the last hospital scene with her and Richard you saw a couple who really had figured out a loving partnership. And do not for a moment forget that it is loving. Superbly done, at least to this old fool.

"House" was fine enough, and one where the medical case hardly mattered. But here's one example of why I like the show: When "House" has to negotiate the wheelchair from the observation area down to surgery, I thought sure he would realize that he had to end the bet. After all, being in the wheelchair cost him precious time when someone's life was at stake. But that sort of caring epiphany would not be "House." Even when he briefly abandoned the wheelchair, it was not so much about saving the patient as about proving he was right. And after that, he still thought he could win the bet. House is that kind of rat, after all — and a rat worth watching just about every week.

Colts. Bears. Talking lions. K-Fed. Katie. Dave and Oprah. Rainy night in Florida (and on CBS camera lenses). Prince rules. More after the jump ...