I don't know about the rest of you, but I highly enjoyed the scenes between these three. I loved John's knowledge about babies, and then his hesitance in actually holding Aaron. And now he's probably very disappointed in Charlie now that he knows about the statue. I LOVED how he made that biting remark about Charlie being an addict. And now we know that Claire is kind of getting fed up with Charlie acting almost like they're a married couple. I hope this storyline gets more attention in the upcoming episodes. I think Damon and Carlton have said that it will be one of the most prominent stories near the middle of the season. Can't wait! I'm eagerly awaiting more stuff having to do with the characters' personal emotions like last season.

I hope Locke slaps Charlie for taking the drugs. He needs a beating! Haha

I agree with Danay, I loved those scenes too. I didn't really read it so much as Claire getting fed up so much as reaching a crossroads and trying to decide where the relationship is going. I also liked the way Locke confronted Charlie. It was like he was subtly letting Charlie know that he knows about the heroin.

I did like the fact that Locke took the low blow "heroin addict" route. He knew he had some ammo just in case Charlie started getting too big-headed about his "recovery". I also like the fact that Charlie simply said "Recovering" and Locke never mentioned the statue. It seems as if Locke really hates to intervene to the point where hes physically making someone do something. He simply reminds them of certain aspects, even though he can easily call them out on some things, so they'll figure it out themselves.

Not to go on a Locke rant. but I enjoyed that scene.

I, too, thought that this was the standout story in a an otherwise good (but not great) episode. I must admit, though, I find it a little hard to believe that Locke would know anything about babies- even something as simple as swaddling isn't exactly instictual know how. Where on earth would he learn it? He never had any children. Somehow I buy his amazing knowledge of things like foreign currancy and clothing decomposition to be more believable than the idea that he knows how to swaddle a baby.

Locke's rebuke to Charlie (who needs to look in a mirror before he starts attacking Claire's lack of responsiblity) was very much a high point in the episode. I think the writers are, for the moment, making Charlie a little on the unlikable side for a reason (like Ana Lucia on a small scale), and I personally want to see where they're going with it.

I think the writers are, for the moment, making Charlie a little on the unlikable side for a reason (like Ana Lucia on a small scale), and I personally want to see where they're going with it.

You're absolutely right...let's see.
in MOSMOF, Charlie was ranting on about the french woman being a nutter, and yelled at Shannon for believing in the "others".
In Adrift, Claire found the statue, and Charlie kept the fact that it was full of heroin away from her.
In EHH, he was very quick to get mad at Hurley, even though Hurley was just doing his job to keep track of the food.
Now with Abandoned, he lectures Claire on responsibility, and is developing a dislike for Locke that he previously did not have.

I think Charlie's story will be very interesting this season. Will he or won't he snort the brown sugar??? And when will he finally try to kiss Claire? Personally, I'm hoping she'll turn her head when he closes in. Just cuz I think Charlie should be punished for his actions so far this season. Muwahahahaha! That would be so great.

Oh no, I'm turning into such an mean girl.:blushing:

I think this dynamic was probably the best of the episode. Personally I think Charlie and Locke need to go back to the plane and torch it all. Burn the sucker and rid himself of the temptation.

Of course.. we all know where Charlie is sneakin' off to. Some remote part of the cave where he and Kate can be "alone". ;)

I loved this part of the show, too. I find Locke such an interesting character, more so than most of the others.
Swaddling? Well, I heard of it before I was a mom, so maybe others have too. I mean, if Locke had a sister or brother who had a child, he could've learned it from them.
It's not really an obscure way to make babies stop crying--people use it all the time.

Edited to correct unclear statement.

I love Locke! :)

I love watching Locke too!
P.S... 4EvrLOST, I find your icon/avatar/whatever it's called
very distracting. I never miss Nip/Tuck!

Locke knew about the swaddling because of the simple fact that he's THE MAN. He made me so happy in this episode. I loved how Charlie got so jealous. That kid is getting to be like the high schoolers' I despised when I was there. Locke really needs to knock some sense into him.

I really like the fact that Locke doesn't come right out and tell Charlie or Claire what to do, he just gives them tools to use in making their own choices. He could have confronted Charlie directly about the heroin statue but he didn't. He was being quite paternal wasn't he?

I really like the fact that Locke doesn't come right out and tell Charlie or Claire what to do, he just gives them tools to use in making their own choices. He could have confronted Charlie directly about the heroin statue but he didn't. He was being quite paternal wasn't he?

I love the way people can see the same scene and have 2 totally different takes on it.
I didn't see Locke as being paternal at all. I think he actually seemed a little snarky to Charlie - hence the heroin addict comment. Their backgammon game seemed more like a battle of wills than a friendly game. I thought it was all the more interesting since we haven't really seen that side of Locke since he has been on the island - he is always so *friendly and helpful* (on the surface anyway), with the exception of with Jack.
I think there is some odd dynamic going on here between those 3 (and Aaron) that we have only just seen the beginning of.

Also - Not sure what to make of the 'recovering' response that Charlie gave him. Is he using again or not?

**Edit: Rewatching the episode I had forgotten about Charlie telling Locke Claire wanted to give Aaron up for adoption. As if he wanted to make Locke see Claire in a bad light. Hmmm. Charlie is getting almost as interesting as Locke.

I'm sure that Charlie is battling his own demons with the heroin stash. Maybe he has the statue as a reminder? Maybe that's too Pollyanna.... he will probably get a scene where he decides to either use it or destroy it. And there's plenty more where that statue came from... although I have no idea how long it would last.

And Claire - she's probably doing what all new moms do: feeling her way as a mom and establishing her new identity. She didn't want to keep the baby but here she is with her son and she has to reconcile her new reality with her expectations from when she boarded the plane. I'm sure she appreciates Charlie's help but probably wants to set some boundaries since he's not the daddy.

Swaddling? Well, I heard of it before I was a mom, so maybe others have too. I mean, if Locke had a sister or brother who had a child, he could've learned it from them.
It's not really an obscure way to make babies stop crying--people use it all the time.


You know, I'll bet that's it. Little foster brothers and sisters.
I'd heard of swaddling too, I didn't mean that it was obscure or anything. What I meant was, if you take a person who is inexperienced with babies, most of them are fully clueless about how to deal with them, I don't care how smart they are. It's one thing to say, "if a baby cries, feed it, check it's dipar, then swaddle it," but it's something else entirely to be presented with a crying infant and asked, "What do you think I should do?" "Um, I dunno, have you tried jiggling it?":)
But then, that's Locke. He comes at every situation with a kind of cool detatchment, so he wouldn't be your average paniker, would he? All I know is, every time he hangs out with Claire, he becomes sort of adorable.:kiss:

Can't wait to see more of this threesome (foursome, if you count Aaron).

It will be fun to see more interaction with this foursome as you put it. I just wish I knew for sure what Locke's motives are.

If you all knew what was going on inside Charlie's head you would have a LOT more compassion for him.

He quit his drugs cold turkey and had no Betty Ford center, no rehab, no 12 step program, no sponser. He is doing it completely and totally ALONE. He's free of the drugs physically but NOT mentally and emotionally. Locke is helping some but Locke isn't there full time because there has been a lot of other stuff going on lately.

He doesn't know how to stand on his own without a 'crutch' in his life. Enter the vulnerable Claire and Aaron. His taking care of them is filling that 'void' in his life. They are his methadone, his distraction. His mind is going 'Aaron, Heroin. Claire. Heroin. Others..heroin. The Hatch..heroin'. That is how an addicts mind works.

He does 'care' but he is also using them. The thing is..he doesn't realize what he is doing..and neither does anyone else. Claire is feeling defensive because its her baby and she doesn't know how to take care of the most basic common sense things. (not her fault..she was going to give it away and she thought that would be someone else's responsibility) so I think she is feeling threatened by Charlie's over attention because she doesn't know why he is doing it either.

And just like Claire needs help in learning how to take care of her baby..Charlie needs help to stand on his own and face his demons without running to something else to mask his real feelings.

And without the extra help recovering addicts are the most whiney self centered bossy unlikeable people around. Why I don't know...they just are. I think the LOST team must have a professional therapist on their team because they have the charcter of Charlie 'spot on' as the Brits say.

Charlie is going to be irritating and annoying and people are going to want the monster to eat him before its over but I believe he'll come through to the other side and we will start to like him again..(well..those of us who actually DID like him to begin with ;)

Well said elfdream. I think the writers and Dom are doing a good job of portraying a realistic picture of the struggle faced by the recovering addict.

I very much enjoyed this part of the episode. And Locke's pointing out Charlie's hypocrisy, that was one heck of a burn! But the mother of all Locke-burns has got to be the "With all do respect Jack, but since when do I report to you?" from season one. Sweet Jesus, that was powerful!

Also, I thought it was rather classy of Locke not to tell Claire about Charlie's addiction.

Classy? More like devious. Locke has a reason for everything, including withholding information. He wanted to consider how best to use it. He works his way into relationships very deliberately, always coming off looking like the good guy. Remember when he quietly found Vincent and then allowed Michael to give the dog to Walt? He's manipulative and not to be trusted in my humble opinion. This is the same reason why he made a subtle comment to Charlie reminding him of his addiction, but did not tell him he knew about the statue. He's just biding his time.

I very much enjoyed this part of the episode. And Locke's pointing out Charlie's hypocrisy, that was one heck of a burn! But the mother of all Locke-burns has got to be the "With all do respect Jack, but since when do I report to you?" from season one. Sweet Jesus, that was powerful!

Also, I thought it was rather classy of Locke not to tell Claire about Charlie's addiction.

People always seem to forget Jack's even more burning answer.."With all due respect Locke..but you LIED'. That stuck in my head and I thought 'Smack down..you are so right!

But I am NOT anti-Locke. I'm just a little bit more pro-Jack.:biggrin:

I'm not sure what Locke is doing about Charlie's addiction. I don't know if he is going to use it to his own advantage or is just trying to figure out how best to deal with it. I believe for right now he's just thinking it over.

I really like the fact that Locke doesn't come right out and tell Charlie or Claire what to do, he just gives them tools to use in making their own choices. He could have confronted Charlie directly about the heroin statue but he didn't. He was being quite paternal wasn't he?

I agree completely! Locke is kind of acting like a father to Claire . . and a father-in-law to Charlie! He resembled a father grilling the guy his daughter is dating . . or living with . . or taking care of a baby with.

By the way, Claire doesn't remember marrying Charlie because she obviously did it while she was kidnapped by Ethan. Charlie was there too for a while, wasn't he? That's it! Ethan, a part-time minister and general ruckus raiser, married Claire and Charlie in a beautiful ceremony, complete with a peanut butter cake afterwards.

:cool:

I agree completely! Locke is kind of acting like a father to Claire . . and a father-in-law to Charlie! He resembled a father grilling the guy his daughter is dating . . or living with . . or taking care of a baby with.

By the way, Claire doesn't remember marrying Charlie because she obviously did it while she was kidnapped by Ethan. Charlie was there too for a while, wasn't he? That's it! Ethan, a part-time minister and general ruckus raiser, married Claire and Charlie in a beautiful ceremony, complete with a peanut butter cake afterwards.

:cool: That is funny eve. Was the hanging part of the wedding reception?:biggrin:

Is it possible the whole claire has to raise the baby herself thing has anything to do with this? That psychic seemed pretty addament that claire be the only one to raise the baby.

I wonder if Claire will think so. Do you think that hints that Charlie may be evil?

I wonder if Claire will think so. Do you think that hints that Charlie may be evil?

Wow, now that's a plot twist I could get behind! The writers need to do something with Charlie that doesn't involve heroin/being nice to Claire. I believe that the psychic did say that there could be no father in the baby's life- so where does that leave Charlie?

Wow, now that's a plot twist I could get behind! The writers need to do something with Charlie that doesn't involve heroin/being nice to Claire. I believe that the psychic did say that there could be no father in the baby's life- so where does that leave Charlie?
I agree; do something with Charlie, and maybe try to not make me despise him so much. Also, I think what the psychic said was that "The child's father will play no role in its life," which leads me to believe that Thomas won't have anything to do with Aaron, not a father-surrogate.

I'm not sure what Locke is doing about Charlie's addiction. I don't know if he is going to use it to his own advantage or is just trying to figure out how best to deal with it. I believe for right now he's just thinking it over.

Gosh! It seems to be really hard to tell the difference between a nice guy and a sinister, conniving SOB these days. I wonder what 'advantage' Locke would gain by not ruining Charlie's relationship with Claire? Jack knows Charlie's 'secret' too and he hasn't told Claire either. Is he doing that for his own advantage? By Jiminy, it so hard to tell about people nowadays... :confused:

Gosh! It seems to be really hard to tell the difference between a nice guy and a sinister, conniving SOB these days. I wonder what 'advantage' Locke would gain by not ruining Charlie's relationship with Claire? Jack knows Charlie's 'secret' too and he hasn't told Claire either. Is he doing that for his own advantage? By Jiminy, it so hard to tell about people nowadays... :confused:

Oh come on now! Locke doesn't exactly have the same island record that Jack does. Locke has been known to manipulate people for his own gain- a prime example being Hearts and Minds, where he knocked Boone unconcious, drugged him, tied him up, and left him alone in a jungle full of wild animals. Things like that make me wonder if Locke is even capable of simply doing something nice for someone- obviously he didn't give a second thought to Boone's safety, why should he give a second thought to Aaron's or Claire's or Charlie's?

Is it possible the whole claire has to raise the baby herself thing has anything to do with this? That psychic seemed pretty addament that claire be the only one to raise the baby.

I've never read this thought before. Brilliant. Like most things Lost, you must be patient for the answers, but I really think you might be onto something here.

I love Charlie, but he is a recovering addict and will definately do some stupid things this season, because of his addiction, and it would probably be a good idea for Claire and Aaron to steer clear of him, till he gets things under control.

I so hope Charlie doesn't inadvertantly cause Aaron harm.

Oh come on now! Locke doesn't exactly have the same island record that Jack does. Locke has been known to manipulate people for his own gain- a prime example being Hearts and Minds, where he knocked Boone unconcious, drugged him, tied him up, and left him alone in a jungle full of wild animals. Things like that make me wonder if Locke is even capable of simply doing something nice for someone- obviously he didn't give a second thought to Boone's safety, why should he give a second thought to Aaron's or Claire's or Charlie's?

Hmmm... I seem to remember that the 'vision' helped Boone get over his sister-obsession, didn't it? What was Locke's personal gain there, again? Must have been ego, unlike Jack, the Savior. Sorry, let's not go down this well-worn path - it's just what the writers want us to do, the devils...:biggrin:

Classy? More like devious. Locke has a reason for everything, including withholding information. He wanted to consider how best to use it. He works his way into relationships very deliberately, always coming off looking like the good guy. Remember when he quietly found Vincent and then allowed Michael to give the dog to Walt? He's manipulative and not to be trusted in my humble opinion. This is the same reason why he made a subtle comment to Charlie reminding him of his addiction, but did not tell him he knew about the statue. He's just biding his time.

I guess you could interpret his actions as such, if you're establishing your interpretations on the presumption that Locke is a bad guy who uses other people for his own gain. But on what grounds do you make such a presumption?

Sure, Locke is a tad fanatic when it comes to the whole island and hatch thing, but all in all, so far he's done nothing but help and aid the Lostaways. But I guess if you're suspiscious of Locke, even the most unassuming action can be a study in nefariousness.

For example, was the making of the cradle a simple gesture of kindness, or was it a means for him to further endear himself to his prey so he can exploit her in the future? I for one think that the former one is the more conceivable.

P.S I'm aware of Jack's reply, but in all frankness, that was nothing but a feeble poke that perished in comparison with Locke's rebuke. The burn had already been wonderfully dealt by Burnmaster Locke.

Hmmm... I seem to remember that the 'vision' helped Boone get over his sister-obsession, didn't it? What was Locke's personal gain there, again? Must have been ego, unlike Jack, the Savior. Sorry, let's not go down this well-worn path - it's just what the writers want us to do, the devils...:biggrin:

Yeah, it helped Boone get over his sister obsession- at the great risk of his safety and without his personal consent. As for Locke's personal gain, Boone became his own little minion. Locke had a nice strong guy to help him dig up the hatch, build a trebuchet (like Boone, I cannot spell it), and that he could send up into the trees whenever he needed. Locke gained a lot! And short of a little crying spell, he didn't seem to be so horribly concerned about Boone's death. An island sacrifice my @ss!

Jack has some serious ego, I'll agree with you there. On the other hand, he does seem to be at least fairly concerned with the safety of others, unlike Locke, who moves people around like pieces on a chessboard.

Don't get me wrong- I love Locke. LOVE him. He's easily my favorite character. Just look at the threads I post in- almost all Locke threads. But surely you can see that he's far from perfect, and even a bit of a sociopath at times.

I guess you could interpret his actions as such, if you're establishing your interpretations on the presumption that Locke is a bad guy who uses other people for his own gain. But on what grounds do you make such a presumption?

Sure, Locke is a tad fanatic when it comes to the whole island and hatch thing, but all in all, so far he's done nothing but help and aid the Lostaways. But I guess if you're suspiscious of Locke, even the most unassuming action can be a study in nefariousness.



See above. Even the writers on the commentary said that the moment he hit Boone over the head was a turning point for Locke's character. Whether or not all turned out well in the end, it was the kind of action you would expect from a sociopath.

P.S I'm aware of Jack's reply, but in all frankness, that was nothing but a feeble poke that perished in comparison with Locke's rebuke. The burn had already been wonderfully dealt by Burnmaster Locke.


But I repeat I am not anti-Locke. I like him but just like Locke called Charlie an addict (which is as it should be) Jack had to call Locke on what he was doing. He did lie.

I think right here..right now Locke is trying to figure out a way to show Charlie some 'tough love'. ;)

See above. Even the writers on the commentary said that the moment he hit Boone over the head was a turning point for Locke's character. Whether or not all turned out well in the end, it was the kind of action you would expect from a sociopath.

You didn't answer my original question. What is the personal gain for Locke in not ruining Claire and Charlies relationship by telling Claire about the heroin?

See above. Even the writers on the commentary said that the moment he hit Boone over the head was a turning point for Locke's character. Whether or not all turned out well in the end, it was the kind of action you would expect from a sociopath.

Locke did a few things even before Boone that spelled it out for me. The first was hit Sayid over the head and destroy the transceiver. Then he compounded that act by letting Sayid think Sawyer had done it and handing him a knife. That's the act of a sociopath.

You didn't answer my original question. What is the personal gain for Locke in not ruining Claire and Charlies relationship by telling Claire about the heroin?

Well, I can't be certain yet. I don't even know for sure that he does have an alterior motive. But when Locke helped Charlie with his drug habit, Charlie became so grateful as to basically tell Jack that he would rather follow Locke than him. For all I know, Locke may be looking for a new minion in the form of Charlie or Claire.

Well, I can't be certain yet. I don't even know for sure that he does have an alterior motive. But when Locke helped Charlie with his drug habit, Charlie became so grateful as to basically tell Jack that he would rather follow Locke than him. For all I know, Locke may be looking for a new minion in the form of Charlie or Claire.

You know what I was thinking when Charlie said that to Jack? I was wondering whether Jack would be a little offended like, "you know I saved your life, too. You'd be dead if it wasn't for me brotha", being that the hanging was the more recent peril than the drugs. I was surprised that Charlie put so much trust in Locke just because he took his drugs away.

On the other hand, it clearly puts Charlie in the Faith column where Jack is in the Science column. He even said "absolute faith" when referring to his trust in Locke to save them all. All the losties seem to clearly fall into either the faith or science side of things, which is likely where the group will split.

Well, I can't be certain yet. I don't even know for sure that he does have an alterior motive. But when Locke helped Charlie with his drug habit, Charlie became so grateful as to basically tell Jack that he would rather follow Locke than him. For all I know, Locke may be looking for a new minion in the form of Charlie or Claire.

Well, I find that to be an interesting point-of-view. If I'm understanding you correctly, you think that Locke only helps, or does something nice, for someone so he can get something for it, i.e. a 'minion'.
But, that doesn't apply to Jack, does it? When he does something to help someone it's because he's a good guy. He couldn't possibly be a control-freak that can't stand anyone questioning his judgement...
I guess it's all in the way you look at things...

Well, I find that to be an interesting point-of-view. If I'm understanding you correctly, you think that Locke only helps, or does something nice, for someone so he can get something for it, i.e. a 'minion'.
But, that doesn't apply to Jack, does it? When he does something to help someone it's because he's a good guy. He couldn't possibly be a control-freak that can't stand anyone questioning his judgement...
I guess it's all in the way you look at things...

Of course it is. That is what the boards are for.

Have to weigh in on this subject. I don't believe Locke's motives are evil or selfishly based, and I don't see him as a sociopath. Locke is a shaman, with all that that entails, and so his behavior WILL seem extreme and strange... like the manhood ritual/vision quest Locke sent Boone on.

Shamans act as a catalyst almost... they tend to speed along processes that are already in motion; like encouraging Sun to quit looking so she would find her ring. She'd have quit looking eventually, but by quitting when she did, she ended up talking to Kate, and taking her to the buried message bottle (where she found her ring). Charlie would have given up drugs eventually, Locke helped make it Charlie's choice.

For my "essay" on Locke as Shaman (and an encyclopedic definition of Shaman) see these threads:
http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showpost.php?p=583909&postcount=225
http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showpost.php?p=583916&postcount=226
http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showpost.php?p=583960&postcount=227

All of Locke's peculiarities are explainable within the context of shamanism. Unfortunately, knowing what he is doesn't help predict how he will behave in the future, but it does give a deeper spiritual meaning to his meddling in others' lives.

Have to weigh in on this subject. I don't believe Locke's motives are evil or selfishly based, and I don't see him as a sociopath. Locke is a shaman, with all that that entails, and so his behavior WILL seem extreme and strange... like the manhood ritual/vision quest Locke sent Boone on.

Shamans act as a catalyst almost... they tend to speed along processes that are already in motion; like encouraging Sun to quit looking so she would find her ring. She'd have quit looking eventually, but by quitting when she did, she ended up talking to Kate, and taking her to the buried message bottle (where she found her ring). Charlie would have given up drugs eventually, Locke helped make it Charlie's choice.

For my "essay" on Locke as Shaman (and an encyclopedic definition of Shaman) see these threads:
http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showpost.php?p=583909&postcount=225
http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showpost.php?p=583916&postcount=226
http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showpost.php?p=583960&postcount=227

All of Locke's peculiarities are explainable within the context of shamanism. Unfortunately, knowing what he is doesn't help predict how he will behave in the future, but it does give a deeper spiritual meaning to his meddling in others' lives.

That's all very interesting, and I see your point, but once again I think you are all giving Locke too much credit. We have no idea where these powers are coming from- the island, Locke himself, maybe even one of the research hatches. For one reason or another, though, Locke has tapped into some mild psychic energy on the island. Why ever this is, he has embraced it fully, and without knowledge of its source.

My only real beef with Locke is that he does things to people without their permission- he oversteps his bounds. Hitting Boone, hitting Sayid, these are acts of assult. 'I did it because I wanted to help them' is a poor excuse- the wife beater down the street might say the same thing. And I once got into a huge argument with someone on a different board over this, but for Locke to take Walt and teach him to throw knives without Michael's say so was full out wrong.

I've been suspicious of Locke ever since he used Charlie as bait during the Moth. I don't care his reasons, he has no right to keep hurting people this way.

Now let's get one thing straight- Locke is my favorite character. I even joined up for his little fan club down on the group boards (though I don't go there anymore). But the reason I like him so much is because I see him doing evil, but he doesn't think that it is. He honestly believes that this is for the greater good. He honestly believes that the island demanded Boone as a sacrifice. I wonder how Locke would feel about his precious island if it demanded him as a sacrifice.

Locke's lived his whole life pretty much as a loner, or at least without parental figures to serve as role models. So no matter what his intentions are, it would be unrealistic to expect him to relate to people in a normal manner. He's always going to seem detached.

I find the theories intriguing regarding Locke's manipulation of others, because that's essentially what his parents (and maybe some of the foster parents) did to him. Those who are abused as children are the most prone to abuse their own children because they think that's what parents are supposed to do. Just as Locke's backstory in DEM chronicled the "mouse trap" his parents set for him, Locke was setting a trap of his own for Boone (perhaps unknowingly, that's up for debate).

I find the theories intriguing regarding Locke's manipulation of others, because that's essentially what his parents (and maybe some of the foster parents) did to him. Those who are abused as children are the most prone to abuse their own children because they think that's what parents are supposed to do. Just as Locke's backstory in DEM chronicled the "mouse trap" his parents set for him, Locke was setting a trap of his own for Boone (perhaps unknowingly, that's up for debate).

That's intriguing. I knew about what happened with his parents but I never put them together and realized that's what Locke was doing to others. I was always curious about his admission that he loves games. I thought that was pretty telling since he treats people like pawns on a chessboard. Good insight about his parents though!