Imagine That: Lost, Star Wars and Conspiracy Theories, Oh My!

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.

Carl Sagan

As an exercise, consider the following statement:

"My, you certainly have a vivid imagination!"

Does it carry a positive or negative connotation?

Certainly, depending on the context, it could go either way: We often encourage a healthy imagination when it comes to our children, but society tends to frown upon an adult who exhibits an active imagination. (There are, of course, exceptions to every rule.)

Learning to manipulate (or work with) the imagination of an audience is key to the success of politicians, entertainers and single men and women everywhere: Leave too much or too little to the imagination, and situations can go astray very quickly.

Imagination is, in general, the power and process of producing mental images and ideas. The term is technically used in psychology for the process of reviving in the mind percepts of objects formerly given in sense perception. Since this use of the term conflicts with that of ordinary language, some psychologists have preferred to describe this process as "imaging" or "imagery" or to speak of it as "reproductive" as opposed to "productive" or "constructive" imagination. Imagined images are seen with the "mind's eye". One hypothesis for the evolution of human imagination is that it allowed conscious beings to solve problems (and hence increase an individual's fitness) by use of mental simulation.

Source.

Psychologically speaking, the imagination is a immensely powerful tool. This means it's also potentially dangerous to those in power (and those not in power) and also potentially damaging to the success of any given intention -- good or bad.

Take, for example the massively popular (and maddeningly evasive) television series, Lost. Few other shows in recent memory (save perhaps Carnivale) have built their reputation around such an even mixture of mystery, science and seemingly supernatural occurrences spiked with an almost complete lack of substantive answers.

In the short term, this is a good thing: Audiences love a good mystery.

In the long term, Lost's biggest obstacle won't be that its viewers may eventually guess the ending correctly -- it's that they may imagine a better ending than they actually get. By providing no limits for the imagination, millions of viewers may ultimately imagine too much. In this digital age, one person's imaginative theory is the world's playground.

Speculation runs rampant, and "The Others" are merely well-groomed men with fake beards and tattered costumes. (They would have gotten away with it too -- if it weren't for those pesky castaways!)

J.J. Abrams would do well to speak with George Lucas -- he knows a little something about the collective imagination and the problems inherent with unchecked musings: The original Star Wars Trilogy captured the imagination of countless fans because Lucas provided the perfect mix of back-story and subtly placed historical suggestion to inspire a mythology which would be created almost entirely within the minds of awe-stuck teenagers over the next two-dozen odd years.

(Notably, it is also "imagination" that allowed audiences to grieve the death of a "muppet" Jedi Master in Return of the Jedi.)

Lucas then slept on his myth for over 20 years before announcing that the prodigal son was to return. The rest, as they say, is history: The back-story he provided did not match the mythology conjured up in the minds of his fans. Indeed, many felt betrayed. The obvious question: What if Lucas hadn't waited so long? What if filming on the prequels had begun immediately? Would fans have damned the movies (and the man) then, as they do now?

I suspect that our imaginations would not have heightened our expectations and that an identically-plotted movie would have been better received in 1986. Further, our imaginations would have been given more play in the moment because we would not have been treated to photo-realistic creatures which (arguably) crossed into the uncanny valley due to the way in which they were digitally-constructed in The Phantom Menace.

In essence, Lucas committed two seemingly conflicting sins: He allowed our imagination to work too hard and at the same time he didn't allow it to work hard enough.

The Horrors!

Imagination is what allows us to be frightened while watching horror movies even when they show little to no frightening imagery: A skillful director knows how to tap into a certain mindset in order to find a balance between psychological fear and a feeling of entertainment.

The trend of late is to provide what is better left to the imagination and this is a huge step back for artistry in horror filmmaking. Grizzly images of torture and mutilation fill in all of the blanks (and create new blanks to fill) only to prove that a new generation of film-makers haven't the talent to captivate an audience -- instead relying upon shock value. One only has to rent the recently released and utterly unnecessary film Hostel to give the imagination a two hour rest.

Splatter-porn flicks (like Hostel) can be summed up thusly: "Cheap thrills through sensational kills."

On the other hand, The Sixth Sense succeeded because it allowed the audience's minds to provide the horror. Hell, even the writers of the Dick Van Dyke Show show knew that what we we imagine is far more terrifying than any reality which we can be shown. (They also knew how to balance the funny and entertaining with the oddly scary.)

Reality leaves a lot to the imagination.

John Lennon

This is true both in the above examples, as well as in sexuality. Often we find certain sexual thoughts to be erotic precisely because they leave something to the imagination -- this is why so many are aroused by written stimuli rather than visual imagery. Similarly, those who do prefer visual stimulation often find strategic "coverage" to be more arousing than complete nudity. We like to let our minds run free and in the context of sexuality, this is regarded as "fantasy". On the other hand, providing an insufficient ground for the imagination to work from can be something of a turn-off.

A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

As the above quote suggests, it's certainly possible to let one's imagination run the show and It's important that our imaginations not be a controlling factor in our lives: Doing so can lead to sexual frustration (caused by an inability to meet perceived sexual needs) as well as irrational fears, paranoia and any number of other social vices.

Historically speaking, our cultural imagination has gotten the better of us on several occasions, leading to potentially disastrous confrontations on the world-stage:

The Cold War sparked years of destructive imagination and eventually ignited a nationwide fear of nuclear annihilation. Senator Joseph McCarthy used this to gain a political advantage by exploiting the population's fears concerning the threat of Communism:

...as a result, the term McCarthyism was coined to describe both the historical period (roughly 1950-1956) and the practices that came to be identified with McCarthy. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "McCarthyism" as "the practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence" and "the use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition."[2]

In the opinion of most historians and many of his contemporaries, McCarthy was not motivated by a genuine concern about Communism, but manipulated the public's fears to further his political career.

Source.

And that brings us to today: We find ourselves involved in a war with an indeterminate enemy and politically divided as a nation. Whether you are for the President or against his policies, it's not likely to be disputed that his administration is highly secretive, for lack of a better word. (Whether they're good at keeping secrets is another matter entirely.)

Secrets on a general (or personal) level inspire the imagination -- secrets which involve national security issues and/or concern perceived matters of civil-rights may eventually lead to conspiracy theories.

The failure of George W. Bush (and more generally, his administration) is that he has not been able to maintain a balance between a feeling of national security, the national curiosity and an acceptable level of secrecy: As his popularity slips, the conspiracy theories have continued to rise. (Conversely, the theories wouldn't exist if we felt secure under his leadership.) There are, of course, those who question the validity of these theories and that is as it should be: Most of them are the result of unrealistic imaginations gone wild.

With that in mind, the question should not be: Why would so many people believe these things, which are often absurd?

The question ought to be: Why is our President unable to capture and direct our imagination in a time of war?

The sheer number of theories about 9/11 and our subsequent invasion of Iraq which do not mesh with the "official" stories should not make us reflect upon the nuttiness of said theories -- but upon the inability of our Commander-in-Chief to make us believe (in any large number) that what we're doing is the right thing to do.

Ultimately, our imaginations have taken over because the reality feels so bleak and because the President has done so little to counter this reality.

For this, the Bush administration has no one to blame but its own tactics of manipulation, which have now backfired: We were sold fear and uncertainty and our imaginations were nourished with the very real tragedy of 9/11. We paid far too much for tin-foil hats because we had a national tragedy dangled in our faces at every opportune moment.

Indeed, our imaginations were exploited so that we would swallow a pill that was not the cure for our ills and that our President was not qualified to prescribe in the first place.

In 2006, George W. Bush is running out of pills -- and our imaginations are starting to stir erratically. (Even the most faithful are beginning to ask questions.) Bush planted a field of unwarranted fear and is surprised to find (years later) that he is reaping a rough-harvest of skepticism.

In short: He's created a monster with one hell of a vivid imagination.

What George Bush could learn from the reactions to Lost and Star Wars is that -- given insufficient information -- we will fill in the gaps. In this case, we were initially given information that didn't check out (which hasn't been replaced with updated or accurate information) and our imaginations are now forced to ponder flights of fancy.

Probably the difference between man and the monkeys is that the monkeys are merely bored, while man has boredom plus imagination.

Lin Yutang

Whether or not this is a good thing, depends entirely upon the context.

This much is clear -- the imagination is powerful and complex: It can entertain and it can cause harm on both personal and societal levels. Either way, few seem capable of manipulating it with any great success or to a positive end.

One has to imagine that it won't always be that way.

Back To Top