I actually switched the channels and watched 60 minutes during the flashbacks. I guess that means I thought they were boring.

Anyway, the shooting didn't bother me so much as you all, I think, because I was not getting the backstory.

I fast-forwarded through most of the flashbacks. Too cringe-pants for my liking. They seemed too shoe-horned in. I know it's the structure of the show and all, but I think it would have been a stronger episode without any at all.

I wasn't particularly surprised at Charlie shooting Ethan, though I had the issues with an English guy being able to handle a gun. I'm perfectly willing to handwave it though. Keeping Ethan alive would have presented a whole heap of problems for the writers, even if they had him keeping quiet.

Put me in the Charlie making a decision for the good of the group camp. With a side-order of revenge.

Put me in the Charlie making a decision for the good of the group camp.

I'll agree that Charlie accidentally did what was probably the best thing for them in the long run. I don't think at the time it actually had jack to do with anything but Ethan making him feel like a useless fuck-up.

I don't think at the time it actually had jack to do with anything but Ethan making him feel like a useless fuck-up.

Yes, this and the whole Ethan trying to kill him earlier thing. While I can imagine Charlie justified it to himself with the whole protecting Claire thing, I'm inclined to think the hanging by the neck until nearly dead bit affected Charlie's choices.

I'm inclined to think the hanging by the neck until nearly dead bit affected Charlie's choices.

And if it didn't, he's a formidably detached man.

It's possible that "I did it to protect Claire" sounded like a more noble purpose to him than "the thought of Ethan alive, nearby, and under watch by Boone would have me wetting myself with terror." Though I'm afraid the flashbacks demonstrate that the former really did play a large part in his motivation.

I don't see there even being a clear, choice-making train of thought, such as "Oh, look at this gun. Well, Ethan did hang me by the neck, and I would like to prove I can take care of a lady. We probably won't get any info from him- mayhap I'll shoot him."

It was more of an adrenaline based "You're gonna die for what you did to me and Claire and I will take care of her and BANG BANG BANG BANG".

I'm with brenda--Charlie definitely wasn't thinking of the good of the camp. If JJ and the writers take some time in either this season or next to explore exactly what the consequences of Charlie's actions are, I'll be very happy.

Someone upthread said that Charlie was possibly one of the more dangerous people on the island, just because he's looking at everything from an emotional standpoint. He makes alliances not with a strategy in mind, but from whatever feels right to him at that time. He follows leaders with a puppydog mentality of wanting to be useful. Well, if the others start taking him for granted or, even worse, neglect him, he has the potential to turn on them, as he showed last week.

I don't think at the time it actually had jack to do with anything but Ethan making him feel like a useless fuck-up.

I thought the point of the episode was to show that Charlie had changed; he's all growed up. Admittedly, they did it in kind of a ham-fisted fashion, but it's not the first time a Charlie storyline has had a whiff of the anvil about it.

Plus I tend to give Charlie a lot of leeway. He's just so darned cute.

I thought the point of the episode was to show that Charlie had changed; he's all growed up.

Huh -- I thought exactly the opposite. In both cases, his intentions were to protect and take care of the girl he liked (neither of whom had indicated in any way that they needed or wanted to be taken care of). In the first case, he failed spectacularly, and in the second, he succeeded by accident. Where's the maturity?