In "Raised By Another:"
CLAIRE: My mom would disown me.
THOMAS: She basically has already.

How did her mom manage to disown her?

Transcript from http://www.lost-tv.com/transcripts/

In "Raised By Another:"
CLAIRE: My mom would disown me.
THOMAS: She basically has already.

How did her mom manage to disown her?

Transcript from http://www.lost-tv.com/transcripts/

uh, wtf? That's weird. I wouldnt think she would be referring to her aunt, and her mom was obviously in a coma/braindead by the time she was pregnant - so wtf?

Good find.

ETA: My buddy just said "well, maybe she wakes up".

Maybe there is more to Claire's story.

It is possible he rmother could awaken from her coma.

I immediately thought of that too. All I can think of is maybe she "practically" disowned her before the accident. But then why would they speak ill of a vegetable? Pretty low.

I thnk she was speaking theoretically. Without her mum to guide her she was trying to live her life according to what she thought her mum would want. I think when she said "my mum would disown me" she meant, "if my mum knew this, she would disown me". She still cared what her mother thought, and Thomas' response, that she basically has already, was an insensitive way to remind Claire that her mum was in no position to be a part of her life regardless.

Maybe there is more to Claire's story.

It is possible he rmother could awaken from her coma.
Except that in the overall timeline the scene of Claire apologizing to her still unconscious mother takes place after she tells Thomas her mother would disown her.

I suspect that the writers hadn't fully fleshed out Claire's story when RBA was filmed.

Could she have been speaking hypothetically? And then the comment about she basically already has is because her mother isn't exactly available to her?

I really think it showed that Claire had hope and was acting as if her mum was still a part of her life, hoping she would be again one day. She talked to her, watched TV with her, told Charlie that they watched nature shows together. She speaks of her mum as if she's still well, because without her she was alone.

Thanks for posting this. I thought the same thing. Continuity error, maybe?

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Yeah, I was wondering about that during the episode but as I see the transcript it looks like she's considering her mum in the same way she did pre-accident, and Thomas is being insensitive.

I was wondering if it was a continuity error when I was watching it, but now I agree with PJ. Claire was acting as if her mother was still alive. She was still siding on the side of hope, false or not. That's true to her character to this day.

Obviously, getting over her fear of telling her mother was a big deal, even if her mother would never wake up.

I think that when Claire left for the flight, her mother was still in her vegetable state.

Well, hold on here.. If Claire's mom is still on life support, in Claire's mind she's still alive and still her mother.. Look at Claire had conversations with her in tonight's epi..

So she could mean "My mom would disown me" as in - Claire is ever-hopeful that she's going to wake up.. Claire's still living within the parameters of having her mother..

Thomas' reply could be a snarky and kind of nasty reference to she's disowned already - meaning disengaged from life/ on life support..

(oops,pace and i are on the same page.. must.. type .... faster.. )

I'm dying with laughter. Congrats on the single greatest thread title in the history of the Fuselage to date. I SOOOO wish I had thought of it!

C'mon guys, the Claire/Thomas conversation re: Mum disowning was in no way hypothetical. You kidding me? She's having the panicked conversation immediate post finding out the stick turned pink and she throws in "Oh by the way, if my Vego Mum were capable of processing this info she'd be a bitch on wheels!" And Tom jauntily adds his jab at braindead Mum as well?!?! I just so think not. And as another poster pointed out, Mum was still Vego months AFTER that conversation, as evidenced by Claire's advanced pregnancy.

Also, remember when the friend took Claire to Malkin and Malkin immediately sensed Claire was pregnant? The friend piped up and said, "We haven't told her Mum yet because we're afraid she'll . . ." then Claire cut her off. Afraid she'll what? Have increased peaks on the brain monitor?!? Sorry, this stuff was NOT hypothetical.

A definite rip in the fabric of the Lost timeline and the brain of the continuity guys.

Also, at what point did Dad of All Trades Christian sing "Catch A Falling Star" to little Claire. Funny she remembered the song but not the Dad. Or was it the other imaginery Dad she didn't remember that her Mom made up that she remembered singing the song to her? I'm sure this could be explained away by saying her Mum, pre-Veg, told her that Dad, Whoever He Was, sang the song.

Really liked the Ep, but this had timeline goof had us howling.

Yeah.. I don't think that was hypothetical. That was a goof. The entire episode, I was saying to myself, "Mom BETTER wake up, or Mr. Nations will have some questions to answer."

Has anyone whined about this to him yet? :P

It's almost as funny as all of us figuring out that Christian had to be Claire's father because the woman he visited in TftR looked just like her and had to be her mother. And of course, it's her aunt.

Christian did say he came over a lot when Claire was little and sang to her, so that's the dad she remembers.

Cardie

At first I thought it probably WAS a continuity error, but upon further reflection, I don't think so. We saw Claire apologizing to her comatose mum for how strained their relationship was pre-accident, so that explains Thomas's comment about how she had basically already disowned her. And obviously Claire was going on pretending that her mum was okay and trying to have a relationship with her, carrying on conversations and etc. with her -- so I think Claire saying "My mum will disown me!" is just reflective of her still imagining that her mom is aware and able to make judgments about her daughter's life. Or maybe it's just sloppy writing... but you can make it work if you have to.

Couldn't his comment be referring to Claire's relationship with her mother pre-crash. Maybe she had "disowned" her earlier than the crash, while Claire was in what appeared to be a rebelious stage of her life. In her last scene with her mom, she apologized for arguing with her, telling her "I hate you" and "I wish you weren't my mother". This either was an isolated argument, or perhaps on ongoing problem with Claire and her mother. There could be an obvious history of problems between the two.

Perhaps Claire never told Thomas that her mother was a vegetable?

Perhaps Claire never told Thomas that her mother was a vegetable?


That's another good point. Claire obviously had a tremendous amount of guilt about the whole thing... I think there's a strong possibility that she just told Thomas that her relationship with her mother was strained and failed to mention the "vegetable" part.

it's probably a continutit error, but vague enough that it's not a big deal, and arguable.

as for the song/dad...memory works in strange ways. and Claire did say her dad died when she was 2...

so, I score the continuity as such.

Claire saying her mom would disown her: ambiguous enough to slide
Thomas's response: -1 for TPTB...he was a jerk, but he wasn't that callous.
Falling Star song: ambiguous enough to slide...

so TPTB lose a point in the ongoing continuity wars...not bad.

I'm not buying it- it's a goof, they just tried to fix it by making it seem like she thinks her mother's still well. Maybe I could buy into the whole Thomas not knowing or Thomas just being a jerk, but not her friend saying

"RACHEL: She hasn't told her mom yet -- [Claire shushes her].

[The Psychic opens his eyes and looks concerned.]

CLAIRE: What? Should I not tell her? [the psychic looks up at her, looking worried, frightened]. What? What is it?"

One time, maybe, but twice is a bit much

so TPTB lose a point in the ongoing continuity wars...not bad

I must be just a crotchety old fart, but it is very bad to me, very sloppy and unprofessional for a production of this caliber. If this many people are howling about it, and we are having to strain credibility this hard with pretzel logic to explain it, it's bad in my book.

Or else the strangest piece of writing in TV history. So you really think that two years ago they wrote that RBA dialogue with the scenerio in mind that this girl was responsible for her Mom's brain dead condition, but supressed it to the point that no one close to her knew about it? Yet at the moment she is panicking about an accidental pregnancy she spills that Mom "would have" disowned her if she knew?

Somehow, still just not buying it.

This is ultmimately a question for Gregg Nations, as he's usually pretty good about answering peoples' questions...

But in this episode, Christian told Claire that he would visit and sing songs to her. Claire obviously remembered this, as she bowed her head and managed the only smile I remember during their conversation over coffee. This definitely rings back to how she recalled her father singing Catch a Falling Star to her when she was a child.

So, I'd wager Thomas's line, "she's pretty much disowned you already," probably refers to the way Claire would talk about how she got along with her mother before the accident. When Claire told her comatose mother that she was pregnant, a whole lot of emotion and guilt about their past surfaced. Maybe Claire's mom really had just about given up on her, and Thomas was only citing the terrible pre-accident relationship Claire had talked about having with her mother. Of course, his comment would still have been inappropriate -- at least from my American point of view.

I doubt it was a continuity error, maybe just unclear writing. Either that, or we're going to see a whole lot of purposeful contradiction ever since Desmond turned the failsafe - a clue that things are changing.

I got the feeling that when Claire went to visit her mother in this episode, it was hours before she got on the plane to go to Los Angeles. I also really appreciated getting to see why Claire is now drawn to Charlie. A tattoo/piercing artist with black nail polish and dyed black hair makes perfect sense... The only thing that has really bothered me about Claire lately is... suddenly she has a hairstyle and wears heavy cosmetics on the Island.

I thnk she was speaking theoretically. Without her mum to guide her she was trying to live her life according to what she thought her mum would want. I think when she said "my mum would disown me" she meant, "if my mum knew this, she would disown me". She still cared what her mother thought, and Thomas' response, that she basically has already, was an insensitive way to remind Claire that her mum was in no position to be a part of her life regardless.

I really think it showed that Claire had hope and was acting as if her mum was still a part of her life, hoping she would be again one day. She talked to her, watched TV with her, told Charlie that they watched nature shows together. She speaks of her mum as if she's still well, because without her she was alone.

I'm not buying it- it's a goof, they just tried to fix it by making it seem like she thinks her mother's still well. Maybe I could buy into the whole Thomas not knowing or Thomas just being a jerk, but not her friend saying

"RACHEL: She hasn't told her mom yet -- [Claire shushes her].

[The Psychic opens his eyes and looks concerned.]

CLAIRE: What? Should I not tell her? [the psychic looks up at her, looking worried, frightened]. What? What is it?"

One time, maybe, but twice is a bit much

Good catch on that other instance, Lunch.
I have to agree with PJ still, though.
This is not a continuity error. We ALL picked up on it when we were watching tonight. Do you really think TPTB and Gregg wouldn't have thought of this??? No way. Claire was living her life like her mom was still functioning normally. THAT is why she hadn't told her yet whey she was pregnant. She was waiting for the right time, waiting for her mom to be awake so she could tell her on regular terms.
But this doesn't happen. And she's reached the point where she's going off to the US, so she finally tells her mom. And, I do believe it's possible that she never told Thomas about her mother's status. Part of Claire might have been to sad and embarassed to tell anyone.

I think the question to the psychic "Should I not tell her?" fits with her mum being on life support. She visited her and continued to tell her everything, pretending to have the mother/daughter relationship that Claire regretted not having. Of course if Claire's mum were well, she wouldn't be able to withhold the information about the pregnancy, in a few months it would become obvious. It wouldn't make sense for Claire to comtemplate not telling her mum because she wouldn't have been able to hide it. But this way, she can choose to tell her or not to.

I think it was suggested somewhere in the episode that the mother could hear what was being said around her, despite her condition. Maybe just subconsciously. But it does take a considerable bout of rationalization to bridge this gap.

Unless of course this flashback is taking place in the future, after ... uhh never mind.

I'm sorry, it is just too bizarre an explanation, plus, why would the writers come up with something this convuluted and then wait two freaking years to get back to it.

Oh yeah, this is Lost!

Woah, woah, woah...yeah, my brain is going to go splodey. First, I though it was hypothetical, then I thought it was a goof.

I think the question to the psychic "Should I not tell her?" fits with her mum being on life support. She visited her and continued to tell her everything, pretending to have the mother/daughter relationship that Claire regretted not having. Of course if Claire's mum were well, she wouldn't be able to withhold the information about the pregnancy, in a few months it would become obvious. It wouldn't make sense for Claire to comtemplate not telling her mum because she wouldn't have been able to hide it. But this way, she can choose to tell her or not to.
I'm going to have to go with this, though. Good point.

I must be just a crotchety old fart, but it is very bad to me, very sloppy and unprofessional for a production of this caliber. If this many people are howling about it, and we are having to strain credibility this hard with pretzel logic to explain it, it's bad in my book.

Or else the strangest piece of writing in TV history. So you really think that two years ago they wrote that RBA dialogue with the scenerio in mind that this girl was responsible for her Mom's brain dead condition, but supressed it to the point that no one close to her knew about it? Yet at the moment she is panicking about an accidental pregnancy she spills that Mom "would have" disowned her if she knew?

Somehow, still just not buying it.

have you ever read Don Quixote? Many writers and intellectuals consider it one of, if not the greatest novel ever written. And it's loaded with continuity errors...

Disappearing/reappearing Donkys, the name of Sancho Panza's wife changing several times...sure there weren't computers then, but people love the art form enough that the continuity is minor in comparison...

what I'm getting at is this...crotchety and old has nothing to do with it or some of our oldest, most treasured novels would be dismissed outright...it's a TV show...if I can forgive Cervantes his mistakes that 'marred' a world masterpiece I can certainly forgive TPTB for screwing up a silly little TV show.

McGuane, I was just about to respond to your awesome post and you changed it! Oh well. I agree with what you said about the Charlie and Claire moments, but particularly the part about Claire using Aaron as a weapon against Charlie. Not cool. She knows how Charlie feels about that baby and everytime she gets mad it's "I don't want you around him." Being mad is one thing, but I wish she wouldn't do that.

McGuane, I was just about to respond to your awesome post and you changed it! Oh well. I agree with what you said about the Charlie and Claire moments, but particularly the part about Claire using Aaron as a weapon against Charlie. Not cool. She knows how Charlie feels about that baby and everytime she gets mad it's "I don't want you around him." Being mad is one thing, but I wish she wouldn't do that.
Now its awesome in the loved it thread where it was meant to go all along. Wrong post in wrong thread. Respond to the awesomeness there.

And for the 50th time, I'm still not buying anything but a goof resulting of so very much story over almost 3 years and so little of it and so long ago involving Claire.

This is ultimately a question for Gregg Nations, as he's usually pretty good about answering peoples' questions...

But in this episode, Christian told Claire that he would visit and sing songs to her. Claire obviously remembered this, as she bowed her head and managed the only smile I remember during their conversation over coffee. This definitely rings back to how she recalled her father singing Catch a Falling Star to her when she was a child.

So, I'd wager Thomas's line, "she's pretty much disowned you already," probably refers to the way Claire would talk about how she got along with her mother before the accident. When Claire told her comatose mother that she was pregnant, a whole lot of emotion and guilt about their past surfaced. Maybe Claire's mom really had just about given up on her, and Thomas was only citing the terrible pre-accident relationship Claire had talked about having with her mother. Of course, his comment would still have been inappropriate -- at least from my American point of view.

I doubt it was a continuity error, maybe just unclear writing. Either that, or we're going to see a whole lot of purposeful contradiction ever since Desmond turned the failsafe - a clue that things are changing.

I got the feeling that when Claire went to visit her mother in this episode, it was hours before she got on the plane to go to Los Angeles. I also really appreciated getting to see why Claire is now drawn to Charlie. A tattoo/piercing artist with black nail polish and dyed black hair makes perfect sense... The only thing that has really bothered me about Claire lately is... suddenly she has a hairstyle and wears heavy cosmetics on the Island.

+1 for 42nd Floor. I'm torn between the 2 points that I underlined above... either it's unclear writing because they had the brilliant idea :rolleyes: to make Christian Shephard Claire's father and had to rework the story so he could make an appearance and Claire would know, OR Desmond turning the failsafe, going back in time, and changing something has already started to "resonate" as one of the TPTB has said. Maybe the adapted hairstyles after the break have something to do with it. :rolleyes:

I came online to post about the continuity error I caught, and it looks like I was WAY late. :biggrin: Overall, seeing that "glitch" as we'll call it, made me sick to my stomach for a moment. I really, really, really hope it wasn't an oversight.

Im still confused, maybe someone can clear it up for me.

-Claire and her mom in a car accident - Claire had dark hair and not pregnant.
-Claire meets her dad for the first time - Claire had dark hair and not pregnant.
-Claire visits her mom - Claire has blonde hair and very much pregnant.

So when did Christian try to visit her when he was with Ana Lucia? Claire's mom answered the door, didn't she? Wasn't that close to the plane crash?

Im still confused, maybe someone can clear it up for me.

-Claire and her mom in a car accident - Claire had dark hair and not pregnant.
-Claire meets her dad for the first time - Claire had dark hair and not pregnant.
-Claire visits her mom - Claire has blonde hair and very much pregnant.

So when did Christian try to visit her when he was with Ana Lucia? Claire's mom answered the door, didn't she? Wasn't that close to the plane crash?

No it was Lindsay that opened the door, Claire's aunt.

That was Claire's Aunt Lindsey (her mom's sister) that answered the door, the one that Christian said always hated him.

Oh, ok. I totally missed that, it makes more sense now. Thanks.

I partially agree that it was a slight continuity error - because it was very vague and very easy to misconstrue exactly what state mom was in based on her conversation with Thomas -- and add the other instance (at the psychic) both could really lead one to believe that her mom was just fine, but there was a strained relationship possibly -- but certainly not that mom's in a coma.. but at the same time, it is vague enough to be explained as it has been in this thread as to what could have happened..
if it is a continuity error.. yay for those who found it.. and boo to whoever missed it - but things like this are always fun to find..
Aside from having seen it in spoilers - I never would have imagined Claire as Ms Goth Piercer..

It seems pretty obvious that the creators didn't have this story idea in their head during season 1. The writer of "Raised by Another" was Lynne E. Litt, who has only written that one episode. It's likely the creators instruction was to hint at a strained relationship with the mom, which is entirely true.

It's usually possible to expain away the things that people say. In this case it's easy to explain her conversations in "Raised like Another". She simply hasn't told anyone her mother is in a coma because she feels guilty about it and behaving as if her mom is OK helps her cope. She acts as if she and her mom have an active relationship to other people, which in her mind is true. So she tells Thomas that her mother has disowned her and tells Rachel she hasn't told her mum yet, both of which are entirely accurate.

Is it possible that Claire just didn't tell Thomas the truth about her mother?

She seemed to be carrying around a lot of guilt thinking she caused her mother's condition, so I could understand her not wanting to tell anyone about it. Maybe she just told Thomas that her mother disowned her years ago and they don't talk. Then she sneaks to the hospital when Thomas thinks out getting coffee or whatever.

I think Thomas may have been referring to Claire's Aunt who I assume stepped in as a surrogate mother.

It seems pretty obvious that the creators didn't have this story idea in their head during season 1.
Agree, it's obvious.

It's usually possible to expain away the things that people say
Agree, that's what folks are doing here.

I'm sure Nations or whatever PTB address this, if they ever do, they will pick the best of the post-goof explanations and go with it.

I believe you just ended the discussion!

i think we should ask Gregg this

was it the same actress playing the aunt?

Aight, I read this whole thread ***Mod edited***

These Claire moments aren't "unclear writing" nor is the dialogue "up for interpretation" nor are they "clues that things are changing on the island!"

It's simple: A pair of rather irrelevant continuity errors.

This is fiction. None of us are professional writers (professional writers wouldn't get into this arguement to begin with!), but writing dialogue that is several seasons apart, even with a mild outline of future events, is a very VERY difficult thing to do.

***Mod edited***

This is a group of writers and assistant writers (the assistants actually do most of the grunt dialogue work) who put the shows together merely weeks before shooting.

***Mod edited***

***Mod edited***

Agree with the first half, rethinking the parenthesis part.

After a few hours sleep, I no longer think it was a mistake of not knowing the RBA dialogue. I think it was just a rewrite of a character history in which they knew most would not remember the RBA dialogue, many would not care, and some would twist themselves in knots trying to "explain".

I guess I am a writing pollyanna to expect them not to be this obvious in the character rewrite. You can too plainly see the Eureka moment when they decided to make Claire and St. Jack half sibs, then said "What do we have to do to make it work?" I guess I also jumped on it so hard b/c it exactly proves several points that some of us have screamed about. The plot is not all that well thought out in advance, at least not in little-known corners like the Claire corner. And when you are endeavoring to stretch things out over multiple seasons, when you have an overabundance of story and character, when a character is as underused as Claire, these things are going to happen.

The only real question left is whether or not it is a punishable offense or as you suggest, just one of the things that happens in a fictional world.

One request, which will probably never happen: TPTB, pretty please don't lie about this. How refreshing would it be for them to just say, Yep, it's a rewrite. Had the long lost sib idea after RBA. Yeah, I know, dream on.

If people didn't listen to early writer hype about how every small detail was significant to decoding the mystery of the island--because the last thing they wanted was for us to think it's OK to skip an episode every now and then--there would be less hand-wringing over stuff like this. Of course they had a new story idea about Claire and Jack's history and had to "tweak" continuity to make it happen. This is certainly better than telling us the exact same thing about characters every flashback, and though I noticed immediately that this was an apparent contradiction, I've seen worse on many shows and novels.

Cardie

To be honest..its not bothering me all that much. It could be Claire is in denial about her mother's condition. I've known people like that. Someone is falling apart medically right in front of them and they refuse to acknowledge it.She would speak of her mother in the present tense as though she were rational and able to make decisions...and no one else may know. I have no idea if this is what is going on with Claire or if the writers took a gamble on the viewers forgetting about what happened in Season 1. Its a non-issue for me.

Feel free to ridicule me if this thread has been started already (or for that matter, if it's terribly wrong), but this has been bugging me...

If I recall correctly, in Claire's season 1 episode (Raised By Another), she mentions to Thomas (her now ex-boyfriend) that her mother is going to disown her because of the pregnancy and Thomas replies with "She pretty much has already." Or something like that.

Is this a continuity problem or not? Why would Claire make this statement if her mother was in a coma?

Well her statement sort of makes sense in that she was still obviously treating her mother as if she was still alive. And that's why her douchebag boyfriend said "well she pretty much has already".

I only vaguely remember that exchange though...

I think it could be looked at as Claire assuming that her mom would disown her...but the more i think about it if she was in a coma for awhile it may be a continuity error because her mom wouldn't have been able to know...i don't know if it's crucial to the story but it is a good catch...

There are too many possibilities.

Well, one possible reason is that Claire may have lied to Thomas about her mother. She did feel responsible.

Denile that her mom is in a coma.

Well her statement sort of makes sense in that she was still obviously treating her mother as if she was still alive. And that's why her douchebag boyfriend said "well she pretty much has already".

I only vaguely remember that exchange though...

There are too many possibilities.

Well, one possible reason is that Claire may have lied to Thomas about her mother. She did feel responsible.

Denile that her mom is in a coma.

I hope it's not a continuity error but it could be. "My mom would disown me" is a very understandable thing to say even if her mom was in a coma. In the last scene of her flashback we saw a pregnant Claire visiting supposedly daily, talking to her mom as if she heard her -- because the doctor said he liked to think that she could -- and keeping her up to date. You have to believe your loved one hears you and may recover to get through a situation like that.
Thomas' reply "she basically has already", though, was crude. Good riddance to him.

I kind of doubt that Claire would have kept her mother's condition from Thomas, given that she owned up to the responsibility for the crash right away saying she was sorry she was arguing with her, etc.

Feel free to ridicule me if this thread has been started already (or for that matter, if it's terribly wrong), but this has been bugging me...

If I recall correctly, in Claire's season 1 episode (Raised By Another), she mentions to Thomas (her now ex-boyfriend) that her mother is going to disown her because of the pregnancy and Thomas replies with "She pretty much has already." Or something like that.

Is this a continuity problem or not? Why would Claire make this statement if her mother was in a coma?


depends how you may define continuity problem.

What IF....when desmond turned the key and "went back in time"...his decisions affetced somehow Claire into getting into the accident.

That way in Claires first flashback...her mother is alive...in her second...she's a vegatable.

There are some definate issue regarding parallel lives and multiple lives IMO since it's known to the "Others" who some of these Losties are...ala...legless Locke, when it's not apartant to the Losties that they have been here before.

CLAIRE:I am six weeks late, okay. Six weeks. That never happens. I'm pregnant.
THOMAS: Okay. Okay. Look, it's all going to be okay.
CLAIRE: I know. I know.
THOMAS: Hey, Claire? If we, if we wanted to we could do this.
CLAIRE: Stop it.
THOMAS: No. I'm not kidding.
CLAIRE: My mom would disown me.
THOMAS: She basically has already.
CLAIRE: Yeah. But with what? My five dollar an hour job at Fish and Fry?
THOMAS: You're not the only one with a job, you know. I mean, I've got my painting.
CLAIRE: That's sweet, but this isn't what we want.
THOMAS: Maybe it is. This could be like, uh, I don't know. It could be like the best thing ever.
CLAIRE: You, you really want to try?
THOMAS: Yeah. Claire, I love you.

That's exactly what she said. I could make the excuse that it fits with what we saw in 3.12, but it seems that they were going to go a different direction with Claire then.

There is already a thread on this:

http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=72400

I hope it's not a continuity error but it could be. "My mom would disown me" is a very understandable thing to say even if her mom was in a coma. In the last scene of her flashback we saw a pregnant Claire visiting supposedly daily, talking to her mom as if she heard her -- because the doctor said he liked to think that she could -- and keeping her up to date. You have to believe your loved one hears you and may recover to get through a situation like that.
Thomas' reply "she basically has already", though, was crude. Good riddance to him.

I kind of doubt that Claire would have kept her mother's condition from Thomas, given that she owned up to the responsibility for the crash right away saying she was sorry she was arguing with her, etc.

She didn't do that until after she was way pregnant. She hadn't taken responsibility for being a bad kid until after the Season 1 flashback. It must have been close to getting on the plane that she did apologize to her mom, she seems 7 or so months pregnant.

depends how you may define continuity problem.

What IF....when desmond turned the key and "went back in time"...

yes, yes, then we don't have any continuity problems, because we don't have any continuity, and we don't have a story. its a big, grand collection of "look at what happens now", with 'retro-fitting', rather then a complex story of cause and effect, with foreshadowing.

I think the days of claiming a "Continunity Error" are over. Not until the last episode airs are we going to be able to put things in place. We can ask what certain things might mean, why they were put there, do they differ from what we've seen before but we won't know until the end or TPTB admit a goof.

Many of the "errors" have turned out to be clues. We're good and we pay attention. I think we should give some credit to the writer's and crew, they're good and they pay attention too!

What if it was a Desmond like flashback and that car accident didn't happen the first time around .........?

First, I think that this storyline is new and was not the intended story way back in RBA.

BUT, I buy the explanation that it was her way of dealing with it by kind of pretending it didn't happen and that's how she presented it to her friends. I think it's entirely possible that Claire never told Thomas or her friend about her mom's condition. She didn't really accept what had happened until right before she left for LA when she confessed to her mom about how the crash was her fault, etc.

I think technically a lot of things like this could be considered continuity errors but you could find ways to make them work.

I browsed the thread, but didn't see this mentioned. Maybe Claire was "raised by another" meaning that Lindsey and Christian are her parents and gave her to her "Mom" to be raised. Then, after the accident, she was told the truth. Just a possibility to explain the incongruity.

yes, yes, then we don't have any continuity problems, because we don't have any continuity, and we don't have a story. its a big, grand collection of "look at what happens now", with 'retro-fitting', rather then a complex story of cause and effect, with foreshadowing.


but thats the thing...the complex story arc's and forshadowing are still there.

The universe still "course corrected" Claires mother out of her life. The only difference is that her mother is in a coma...instead of being out of claires life becuase she disowned her.

maybe the disowned comment was more from the "feeling" of being disowned. could it be that since Claire feels "at fault" for the accident that caused her mother to be in a coma, she would think that her mom would disown her for any number of things? She apparently told her mom that she hated her before the car accident. She had a strained relationship with her mother long before the pregnancy. Claire could have felt that she already has been disowned because the minute mom wakes up, she will find out that her coma is Claire's fault. While the continuity error issue is not a problem in my eyes, I feel that Claire & Thomas' conversation was about the mom of the past not the one in a coma. I dunno, there is so much more to Claire's story we dont know yet. I dont think TPTB will lead us down the wrong path.

I don't see it as a major problem. The "already disowned" part was in the past, prior to the big argument/auto accident. The "would disown me" is weird, but not when you realize that Claire at some level isn't facing reality about her mother's condition. She's still expecting her mom to wake up and immediately disapprove of her.

Well, Thomas does use the word "basically", so what I think he means is just that Claire's mother being in a coma has much the same effect as her mother disowning her would have.

I think Claire and Sun's talk while cutting bait is proof of what people are saying about Claire being in denial about her mother's condition... all Claire really says about her is that she "was a librarian". When Sun asks her to clarify the "was", she quickly changes the subject, showing that she's still not comfortable talking about it.

interesting thread.

i think claire is/was in denial of her mother's condition bc she told charlie she watched nature shows with her mother, when in reality she watched them when her momma was in a coma.

i seem to recall reading (or maybe it was on one of the dvds) something somewhere that said that all the characters backstories were fleshed out in advance by the writers. since this would be a big part of claire's backstory...i would say they prolly knew about it when they were writing RBA.

or...it is a continuity error...but i doubt the writers were unaware of it. i mean...they often reference things from past episodes...so they had to be aware of what theyve previously brought out in claire's fb's. but its easily explainable by saying she's in denial or whatever. so its not a huge deal.

at any rate...you can prolly bet itll be brought out again and explained in a future claire episode.

[scratches chin]
I like 42nd Floor's explanation--that the past has been changed.

Also good is the idea that she'd lied to Thomas.

As for the scene with the psychic...one other explanation might be that in that case they were using "Mum" to refer to her aunt...too complicated to explain the situation to the psychic--like he'd wonder "Why would they be worried about telling her aunt?"--so they just call her "Mum" and it's clear enough.

I think there are enough possibilities to let it slide.

[scratches chin]
I like 42nd Floor's explanation--that the past has been changed.

Also good is the idea that she'd lied to Thomas.

As for the scene with the psychic...one other explanation might be that in that case they were using "Mum" to refer to her aunt...too complicated to explain the situation to the psychic--like he'd wonder "Why would they be worried about telling her aunt?"--so they just call her "Mum" and it's clear enough.

I think there are enough possibilities to let it slide.
I think that your right

I really think it showed that Claire had hope and was acting as if her mum was still a part of her life, hoping she would be again one day. She talked to her, watched TV with her, told Charlie that they watched nature shows together. She speaks of her mum as if she's still well, because without her she was alone.
I think this is a very valid and probable explanation for Claire's statement to Thomas. Plus when someone close is in a coma you never give up hope that they will snap out of it one day and go back to being the same person they were before. This is what Christian was warning Claire against when he told her not to keep her mother alive for the wrong reasons.

I dont buy the "claire was hoping/acting like she wasnt in a coma" argument.

It's a plot hole - a continuity error.

Look at her friend when they go and see the pyschic in 1x10 too, she also refers to her as if she wasnt in a coma, saying that they were afraid of what she'd say...


They can find ways of making it not look like a plot hole by showing more flashback later on of Claire pretending her mum isnt in a coma, but from what Thomas and her friend at the Psychic's house said I dont buy this.

I'm inclined to think that in "Raised by Another" Claire was referring to her aunt Lindsey, who, after what happened to Claire's mum, started taking care of Claire directly. In "Two For The Road", Christian Shepard goes to Lindsey's house and wants to see Claire: it's clear that she's living with her aunt. And judging by this week's episode, Lindsay seems a quite authoritative mother figure. So it doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to assume that Claire was referring to her in "Raised by Another". Lindsay seems quite the type to get angry and upset if she finds out about Claire's pregnancy. Claire's friend could have easily mistaken Lindsay for Claire's mother and Claire could have been hiding the truth from her friend and her boyfriend because of the sense of guilt for reducing her mother in such a state.

And yes, I find hard to believe that Lost writers have made such a blatant mistake. Especially because we haven't had many Claire-centric episodes, and up to "Par Avion" Claire's pre-crash life hadn't been explored or developed that much. It didn't have (and still hasn't) the level of intricacy of other characters' past stories (like Locke's, or Jack's, or Kate's, for example). It'd be an amazing overlooked detail, if it were truly a mistake.

Just my two cents, of course.
Rick

I don't think this is a continuity error.

Possibilities
1. She told Thomas and Rachel that Lindsey was her mother. There must have been 4/5 years between black haired Claire and pregnant Claire and we all could see that Lindsey has a temper hence (My mum would disown me) Maybe when she met her friends she didn't want to tell them the truth.

Or

2. Like so many have already said maybe she was still in denial that her mother was never going to wake up. Maybe she was still upset at how much she disappointed her mother before the crash that she changed her ways and became good until she got pregnant, hence why she wouldn't want to say it to her.

Claire has had 2 off island flashbacks. I don't think the writers would be so stupid to completely forget what was said in her first off island fb.

People are going to use the "things happened differently since Desmond time travelled!" excuse for every plot hole now, aren't they... :(

I think it was a goof, but one that they could cover up in a later episode if they wanted to with some exposition that Claire never told anyone about her mother's condition.

It doesn't bother me that much that there's an obvious incongruity, which there is. If the writers had had the coma in mind back in RBA or the connection to Christian Shepherd, the artistic thing to do would have been foreshadow it with an easter egg so we would be sitting here today looking at a cool connection instead of thinking of ways the earlier dialogue makes sense.

They didn't know where they were going. In RBA, they had a girl who was both concerned about what her Mom would think and one who had clearly made her Mom mad. Also she had big issues about Daddy Abandonment. However, back in RBA she was angry in a different way, more like she was mad at a father she knew.

If you think about it, the Claire of PA would not even have a Daddy Abandoned Me complex, because that kind of complex comes from growing up with the belief that "Dad doesn't want me enough to be there for me." The Claire in PA grew up believing her father died, not that he wasn't there for her. When the Claire of PA discovers that her dad was not deceased but rather a philanderer, she might not like him much, but she's not going to retroactively fall prey to an abandonment complex, which would have to be formed in childhood.

They tweaked the story. That happens in TV. What bothers me is the lengths that fans go in explaining everything that the creative team doesn't completely think through. It bothers me because this creative team is basically relieved of worrying about consistency. They could make the most glaring continuity errors in the history of TV, and time travel or a momentary trip into a parallel universe would be drug out to make it not an error.

I think it's better if the errors get noticed. Next time when they rewrite the character, maybe they'll work harder to keep it consistent. Have discussions like, "but in RBA they said ... and this conflicts with that." Right now they can do anything, no worries, the fans will either explain it away to each other or use the "don't even think about it now because in two years it will all make sense" argument.

They tweaked the story. That happens in TV. What bothers me is the lengths that fans go in explaining everything that the creative team doesn't completely think through. It bothers me because this creative team is basically relieved of worrying about consistency. They could make the most glaring continuity errors in the history of TV, and time travel or a momentary trip into a parallel universe would be drug out to make it not an error.

I think it's better if the errors get noticed. Next time when they rewrite the character, maybe they'll work harder to keep it consistent. Have discussions like, "but in RBA they said ... and this conflicts with that." Right now they can do anything, no worries, the fans will either explain it away to each other or use the "don't even think about it now because in two years it will all make sense" argument.

Thank you!! Boy there must be alot of sore feet out there from forcing that shoe that does not fit onto the foot.

Some of the "explanations" do get pretty amusing though. How many late teens/young 20s would suddenly start referring to an aunt, especially one who loathes her, as "Mum", especially with her own Mum still alive? If she doesn't want friends and lover to know real Mum is alive but in a coma, would she bring up Mum and being "disowned" by her 10 seconds after finding out she is pregnant?

Yes, of course, they rewrote. I'll lick pavement from here to Lostie island if the writers of RBA had a comatose Mum in mind when they wrote those references in RBA. No way, no how do they make a plot that convuluted and leave it lay for over two years! But no, it is not the crime of the century in a show this packed with plot to rewrite character. Yes, they did it sloppily and obviously, and yes, watching the extreme pretzel logic go on to explain it makes the writers more likely to do it again.

Now back to explaining why it all makes perfect sense, even when it doesn't.

I found PA to be pretty incompatible with RBA too, and not just because of the references to her mother. The character in RBA seemed like a young woman playing at being a grown up, who was then forced to become more mature when she ended up with real grown up responsibilities that she wasn't ready for. If she had already spent a few years dealing with the emotional and logistical responsibilities of caring for an invalid parent, I think she would have been a much different person than she was in RBA.

It wouldn't suprise me to find out that the writers didn't have this story arc planned back when RBA was filmed, and I wouldn't think any less of them for it. I know whenever I've tried to write a long and involved story, even if I think I know exactly where I'm going things come out during the writing that I didn't expect. Sometimes they're good and I want to go with them, sometimes they're not. But I have the luxury of going back to rewrite and change the beginning to fit in with what comes later, or edit something out entirely.

The Lost writers don't have the luxury of revision when it comes to previous episodes. They're writing a very long, very complex story and if new ideas come up in the writing, they have to try and make them fit without being able to change the earlier chapters. That's tough! I can forgive them a few minor inconsistencies here and there.

I really think it showed that Claire had hope and was acting as if her mum was still a part of her life, hoping she would be again one day. She talked to her, watched TV with her, told Charlie that they watched nature shows together. She speaks of her mum as if she's still well, because without her she was alone.
I think you nailed it.

I don't think this is a continuity error.

Possibilities
1. She told Thomas and Rachel that Lindsey was her mother. There must have been 4/5 years between black haired Claire and pregnant Claire and we all could see that Lindsey has a temper hence (My mum would disown me) Maybe when she met her friends she didn't want to tell them the truth.

Or

2. Like so many have already said maybe she was still in denial that her mother was never going to wake up. Maybe she was still upset at how much she disappointed her mother before the crash that she changed her ways and became good until she got pregnant, hence why she wouldn't want to say it to her.

Claire has had 2 off island flashbacks. I don't think the writers would be so stupid to completely forget what was said in her first off island fb.

Or

3. Lindsey was actually Claire's mother, but she was 'raised by another'. This could explain the reception Christian received since Lindsey was incredibly angry with him. Sure she'd be upset by his treatment of her sister, but to that extent? After all these years?

By raised by another she could be reconciled to the fact that Lindsey is her birth mother, so calls her 'mom', but also has the connection to coma-mom. The relationship between Lindsey and Claire wasn't great in PA, and if Lindsey had abandoned Claire to have her raised by coma-mom, then that would account for her being disowned as Thomas said.

Personally I think the Christian part of the story was always intended, it gives Christian a reason to be in Oz, which gives Jack and Ana-Lucia a reason to be on the flight.

The simpliest explanation is that Claire was lying to the people in her life, telling them that Aunt Lindsay was her mother. She kept her real mother's condition a secret because of her guilt.