In the end, Michael murdered one castaway - Ana-Lucia Cortez - to help Ben escape. He accidentally killed another - Libby. Then he led four other castaways - Jack Shephard (the leader), Sawyer aka James Ford, Kate Austen and Hurley Reyes - into a trap set 의해 the Others. As the Others had promised, he finally got Walt back and left the island on a 보트 given to them. In Season Four, Michael's character returned to the series at the end of (4.07) "Ji Yeon". The following episode, "Meet Kevin Johnson" told in flashbacks of Michael's experiences between the time he and Walt had returned to the United States and Michael's return to the island as a crew member of a freighter, whom some castaways see as their rescue from the island.
Two days after the episode aired, some reviewer 게시됨 her review of the episode. There is one particular passage that caught my attention:
"I am completely and totally down with what Sayid just did to Michael. Michael is still basically unlikeable and unsympathetic, a murderer and a traitor as well as weak and selfish. Even his obsession with Walt is also selfish at its base because it is less about Walt's welfare, and 더 많이 about Michael's. Especially if Michael actually burdened Walt with a confession about what Michael did to Ana Lucia and Libby. That Mama Cass song we heard twice in the episode absolutely haunted me, and not because Mama Cass is dead, like Patsy Cline is dead. I think it was a musical echo of Michael's double murder in the Hatch, because the first thing we heard in the Hatch at the beginning of season two was a Mama Cass song. (Not the same one, though.)"
I am going to be frank and state that those 코멘트 had really PISSED ME OFF. The reviewer had pissed me off. He 또는 she had a right to be upset over Michael's murder of Ana-Lucia and Libby. I certainly did not approve of his actions. What pissed me off was the claim of the possibility that Michael was 더 많이 concerned about his welfare than Walt's. I want to call the reviewer a name, but that would be childish.
However . . . I am beginning to wonder how much this person had been blinded 의해 his 또는 her feelings about Michael. What in the fuck did that person mean that Michael was 더 많이 concerned about himself than Walt? Everything he DID was for Walt's welfare. Had her memories of past episodes eluded her? Ever since mid-Season 1, Michael had been determined to get Walt off the island and to the relative safety of the States. That is why he built that damn raft. That is why he took every opportunity possible to find Walt after he, Sawyer and Jin returned to shore. That is why he ran off into the jungle in 검색 for Walt. And the latter was the reason why he betrayed the other Losties and killed Ana-Lucia in cold blood (Libby was an accident).
Michael is not the first to commit a crime in cold blood for the sake of another relative:
*Lostie Shannon Rutherford had tried to murder fellow castaway John Locke, because she held him responsible for stepbrother Boone Carlyle's death.
*Sawyer had murdered a man in Australia, whom he mistakenly believed was the con man who drove his father into an act of murder/suicide. When faced with the real con man - Anthony Cooper - he allowed his rage to get the best of him and murdered the guy in cold blood. Then he murdered a defenseless Tom Friendly without any remorse, because he wanted revenge for Walt Lloyd's kidnapping. He completely ignored the fact that Ben had orchestrated the kidnapping and dumped all of the blame on Tom. When he finally attacked Ben in early Season 4, Sawyer only did so because Ben had hinted Kate's preference for Jack over him.
*Charlie Pace had murdered one of the Others, Ethan Rom, for kidnapping Claire, a fellow castaway that he was in 사랑 with. And as I recall, Ethan had not been in a position to defend himself.
*Jack Shephard tried to murder Locke, because the latter had killed Naomi Dorrit - a woman from the freighter S.S. Kahana, now situated 80 miles off the coast of the island. Whether he called himself 연기 as judge, jury and executioner 또는 simply being pissed at Locke for nearly ruining a chance for rescue, Jack tried to commit cold-blooded murder.
*Ana-Lucia Cortez had deliberately allowed a convict named Jason to go free from the L.A. jails so that she could hunt him down and kill him in cold blood for shooting him and killing her unborn child. She also tried to assault Goodwin, one of the Others, and ended up killing him.
*Desmond Hume, a survivor from a 보트 shipwreck, had assaulted another island inhabitant named Kelvin Joe Inman out of anger and ended up killing the guy.
*Kate Austen is an enigma. Many 팬 claimed that she had murdered her father (whom she had originally believed to be her stepfather) to save her mother from spousal abuse. But she admitted in an soliloquy that she murdered Wayne because she could not endure the idea that he was her father. Then she went on to use his death to commit insurance fraud. Later, she illegally claimed Aaron Littleton as her own son, because she wanted to selfishly use the infant as an emotional crutch for all of the trauma she had endured, while leaving the island. For nearly three years, she kept Aaron for herself, knowing that his grandmother, Carole Littleton, was alive.
Considering the number of characters with blood and other crimes on their hands, why was that reviewer so determined to vent wrath upon Michael Dawson? In the rant, he/she called Michael a "traitor". As a matter of fact, I have come across the posts and 코멘트 of many 팬 who seemed to harbor the same view of Michael. In the eyes of many fans, Michael committed the ultimate crime of betraying Jack, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley to the Others in return for Walt. He betrayed "the Group". He went against "Society" for the sake of his son and his fears. And that is a big no-no in the eyes of many. I find it so hypocritical that Michael is condemned 더 많이 for betraying four castaways to the people they consider their enemies than for killing two women. The old "the needs of the many over the needs of the few" belief from "STAR TREK". This told me a lot about these 팬 and many other people in general.
Frankly, I never gave a rat's 나귀, 엉덩이 that Michael had betrayed those four castaways to the Others. Why should he be 더 많이 loyal to them than to his own son? Jack and the other Losties barely did a thing to get Walt back from the Others. Well, Sawyer had fought to prevent Walt from being kidnapped, while on the raft. But once he had recovered from a gunshot wound, he showed squat concern over Walt. It was not until Michael had returned to the Others' camp at the end of "S.O.S.", in late Season 2, that Jack even considered swapping Ben, who had become the Losties' prisoner, for Walt. Why in the fuck did it take him so long?
Many 팬 claimed that four days had passed between Walt's kidnapping and the return of Michael, Jin and Sawyer to the Losties' camp. In their view, it was too late to bother sending a search-and-rescue party after Walt. Yet, when Ana-Lucia, Sayid and Charlie went on an expedition to find evidence regarding the identity of the Others' leader, Ben Linus aka "Henry Gale", NO ONE HAD COMPLAINED 또는 pointed out the potential futility of this action. Hypocritical much?
At the beginning of "Meet Kevin Johnson", Sawyer had gone into full rant against Michael for killing Ana-Lucia and Libby. He especially commented that Michael did all of this to get off the island. I knew that Sawyer was guilty of a lot of things. But I never realized that hypocricy would turn out to be one of failings. This is a man who has committed three acts of cold-blooded murder. But considering his failure to realize that Michael had committed his crimes to get back Walt and get the latter off the island, I am beginning to wonder if another one of Sawyer's reasons for murdering Tom was good 구식 revenge . . . for the shooting he had endured in "Exodus, Part II" and for his incarceration as one of the Others' captives in early Season 3.
Many 팬 have condemned Michael because they viewed his victims - Ana-Lucia and Libby as "innocents". Yes, they were innocents . . . at least in regard to Walt. But does this mean I am supposed to excuse the other castaways' behavior because their victims were dubbed as "villains 의해 the fans? I do not think so. Murder is murder. Whether the victim is a protagonist 또는 "decent" sort 또는 a villain, he 또는 she is an innocent. Ana-Lucia and Libby were innocents. But so were Ana-Lucia's victims. Especially the convict she had murdered in revenge for her unborn child's death. The three men that Sawyer had killed - Tom included - were innocents. Sawyer had killed all three when they were not in a position to defend themselves. Ethan was an innocent. Locke was an innocent - at least when both Jack and Shannon tried to kill him. Wayne was an innocent. Kate murdered him while he was sleeping. Whatever intentions that Naomi Dorrit may have had, she became an innocent when Locke murdered her in cold blood. All of these people . . . these victims were innocents, because when they had been murdered 또는 nearly became a victim, when they were not in a position to defend themselves.
But many "LOST" 팬 seemed incapable of understanding this. They want to condemn Michael not only for the two women he had killed, but especially for betraying four castaways. And because of this, I can only come to the conclusion that they are nothing 더 많이 than hypocrites.
This hypocricy has also led me to speculate the real reason behind many of the fans' dislike of Michael. Do they dislike him for his crimes? 또는 do they dislike him for being a father? The jokes of his cry for Walt - "WAAALT!" had been going on since Season 2. Why did many 팬 make fun of Michael's anxious desire for Walt's return? A few years ago, someone had 게시됨 on the LOST-TV site that Claire Littleton will finally become an interesting character once she and her infant son are separated. Hmmm. Why was Claire only capable of being interesting without a child 의해 her side? Does being a parent rob a character of any glamour in their eyes? Is this a by-product of this society's desire for eternal youth?
Do I condone Michael for murdering Ana-Lucia and Libby? No. It was the wrong thing to do. He could have found another way to free Ben. Do I condone him for betraying Jack and the other Losties to the Others? Honestly? No . . . but I refuse to condemn him for this action, as well. I see no reason why he has to be 더 많이 loyal to the other Losties than his son. But I will say one 더 많이 thing . . . I find the views of many other "LOST" 팬 rather hypocritical when it comes to Michael. I find no reason to condemn Michael for his actions and make excuses for the actions of other characters. Either all have to be condemned . . . 또는 none. In my eyes, one of the worst things anyone can be is a hypocrite. And in the "LOST", I seemed to have come across a great deal of hypocrisy. Especially since late Season 2.
