Were those tidbits we got from Locke tonight new? Foster mother? Killed sister?

Perhaps not like to hang out with, but they may be interesting. Sayid became a lot less of an annoying character when it became clear that when he blows his top, you better get the hell out of the way. (And when, consequently, he freaked over his own propensity to violence.)

Same again, Boone. Random guy? Boring. Random guy with a serious complex? Interesting. Actually wanting to be stuck on an island with him? Nuh and uh.

I don't think Locke has ever mentioned family before. I don't believe anything he said was true though.

I think Locke's hint is the madwoman's comment about people who had been taken over by the island. That's Locke.

It'd be more of a hint if there were ways for an island to take a person over using no magical handwavey methods. As is, I can only call it a tease. Of course, along with copping to not having the paths set in stone, they could cop to having mystical/sci-fi solutions.

I wouldn't hate JJ for it. Despite his Rambaldi meanderings.

I like characters who hold my attention, which often means characters who act in ways I couldn't bear in real life. I like Andy Sipowicz as a character, even though he is a racist and has a streak of cruelty I would not be able to stomach in an actual person. I am very fond of many of Shakespeare's villains, even though they are horrible, murderous people.

I have very different standards for real people I interact with than for fictional people, and I hope you do too.

You like people that murder innocents? In preference to people who don't?

Don't rewrite my posts -- I said characters. Not people. There's a difference.

It's kind of the same to me; I tend to judge characters much the same as I do people.

As a viewer, yes, I prefer characters who murder innocents to characters who almost-but-not-quite covered up malpractice, characters who almost-but-not-quite die, and so on.

See, I find bad boys boring. To me, evil is easy. Doing good is hard, so characters trying to do good despite their own damage are far far more interesting to me.

Well, define evil. Especially in relation to "surviving damage". Sawyer's pretty obviously damaged. That he is also a con man and a twerp -- is that evil in him, or weakness, or a symptom of the damage? Or just habit?

Sawyer is malicious, Boone (except towards his sister) is not. They're both floundering in the disasters of their own lives, however. I find them both interesting, although in different ways, and I would ferociously vote both of them offa the island in real life.

It's kind of the same to me; I tend to judge characters much the same as I do people.

"Judge" is not the same as "enjoy". As Scrappy says, Macbeth is a lousy human being but absolutely riveting to watch.

I enjoy stories with villains all the more for the villains in them, and a well-written villain is a delight.

eta: Not that I think Sawyer is a villain -- I think they're just going for damaged

My take on it is that I like, or perhaps more correctly enjoy, Angelus as a character much more than Angel, despite the first version being essentially irredeemable and the second morally complex and striving for improvement. But were I sharing their frame of reference I'd never want to be within sight range of the one, and probably wouldn't want to spend any time around the other either.