He tied him up and injured him to stop him telling Shannon - or at least that's arguably what happened.

I'd assumed he'd tied him up to cure him of the fixation that meant he needed to tell Shannon.

---

Maybe ita, but what about motive? Do you think Locke did so for Boone's own good, or anyone's good (other than Locke's own), or do you think he did it, because Boone wasn't sufficiently bowing to his will? Boone had protested staring at the block-of-marble/metal-hatch, and then he wanted to let Shannon in on what he was doing.

My own take is Locke didn't do anything to help Boone. He did it to control Boone. If it helps in the process, whatever, I don't think Locke's intent has to do with either harming or hurting Boone, outside of wanting to control and manipulate him (and the others).

---

So Sayid and whoever he's told would be the only ones who know anything about a black rock?

---

I am not sure Locke knows he's as into control as he is. I'm sure he really believed it was for Boone's benefit.

---

I think if Jack could have worked out a way to get everyone to go to the caves, he'd have used it. Because he thinks they'd be better off that way.

Much like Locke is convinced that Charlie and Boone are better off now than they were before. Un-addicted to anyone/thing except what will up their chances of survival.

Fuck, Sawyer's even better off for having been tortured at Locke's suggestion, but that's a bit gnarlier to untangle.

Do you think Locke's intent wrt Charlie was similarly devoid of any concern for Charlie?

---

I am not sure Locke knows he's as into control as he is. I'm sure he really believed it was for Boone's benefit.

To me, it came off purely as, "He's not going to do what I want him to do." Now of course, Locke no doubt thinks his way is the right way.

Do you think Locke's intent wrt Charlie was similarly devoid of any concern for Charlie?

That's one of the episodes I didn't see, so I don't know.

---

cereal...

But...that said, I would guess yes. This touches on what I meant by yesterday's comment about Locke not just surviving, but playing it (in all seriousness, not in any way where play=lightly). I don't mean to put forth he'd want to let Charlie go unhelped, but it seems to me from the little I've seen, Locke is looking to get his hooks in folks.

---

If Locke's only motivation is making people dependent on him, then why save Jack? He didn't just save him, he made him able to be a leader. Was he creating his own nemesis?

---

I don't get the feeling that Locke is out for power, per se, but rather, that he's coming into his own. When he talks, people listen now. He is able to provide for them, rather than be provided for. He can hunt, he can track, he can freaking walk.

For him, that kind of transformation is exciting. If he thinks that the island has contributed to his healing, maybe he wants to share that with the others. Help them 'achieve their potential'.

It's like the Tony Robbins of land masses.

t /Devils Advocate.

---

I don't dependency is his only motive, it may not even be a motive of itself. I think he wants to control the situation. Handpicking a leader gives him a different sort of control than if he were leader himself, in some ways. He doesn't have the people looking to him as the leader, which frees him up to do his own stuff. He was able to make sure the people gravitated toward someone competent and fair. And if/when he doesn't want Jack in charge any longer? Well since it is likely people, being what they are, will rebel, it's now set so that they'll do so against Jack. Meanwhile, Locke is sitting pretty as exotic survivalist, who comes through in a pinch, feeds them, etc.

---