Follow along! The episode guide for “What Kate Did” is in Finding Lost, pp. 225-230.
More than any other episode so far, this one seemed to foreshadow the events to come in S5 and even S6. This ep had tons of potential foreshadowing for season 6… What Kate Did is the bridge episode between the action of finding the Tailies and what happened on that side of the island, and everything else that’s to come in S2.
Fun things I noticed:
• Diane Austen. Yet another candidate for Mother of the Year.
• Man, I remember the Jater/Skater wars that broke out after THIS episode. It was insane. Thank goodness THAT whole triangle has been cleared up, eh? *cough*
• Locke: “Boy, when you say beginning, you mean beginning.” Ha!!
• I always get a charge out of seeing Sayid on the television when Kate storms into Sam’s office.
• Sawyer: “Who the hell’s Wayne?” Ha!
Things that have new meaning:
• I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the horse is black. See also “Black, Man in.”
• When Eko is telling his story about Josiah, he says the ancients found a book called “The Book of Law.” That would be the very book that Alpert put in front of five-year-old Locke as one of the artifacts that “already belonged to him.” (That was called the Book of Laws, but close enough.) And, when Locke chose the knife, Alpert looked disgusted and packed up, his eye on the book instead. That was clearly the “right” choice, and Locke blew it. Now we can see when the book was given to him. Interesting that Eko said this book was what Josiah used to rebuild the temple. He hands a book to Locke, and it made me think that this particular book (the Old Testament) would be used to rebuild the Temple on the island. But how?
• Sawyer asks Kate, “Are we saved?” and she says, “Not yet.” It takes on a religious overtone in light of the story Eko had just told.
• This episode had that pivotal line from Eko, “Don’t mistake coincidence for fate,” which we’ll hear later directed AT Eko. Is Locke mistaking coincidence for fate, or is he right?
• In the film splice, Chang says that if they use the computer for anything else, it could lead to another Incident. Then Michael uses it for something else. In a way, one could argue that Michael’s action leads to everything else that’s to come, which ultimately forces some of them back in time to revisit the Incident.