I think it is excellent you put them on a spectrum. LOL.
I would agree. I have been developing the notion of the island as a sort of purgatory. So far, it also seems that The Monster might be seen differently by good v.s. bad people - and might also be more or less vested in destroying one or the other. Locke said he saw a beautiful white light looking at it. Eko says that's not what he saw. At one point WE saw black smoke that approached but did not attack Eko - I was unsure if that was "the" Monster. (I don't know if "The Monster" was perhaps shown in the pilot early on? The transcript said something like "We see the monster in the treeline," at one point but no description was given. I saw several incidents with loudness, rushing, crashing mashed grass/trees, and wide-eyed stares by the Losties, but never actually saw the Monster - if an entity other than the black smoke.) I found the encounter with Jacob similar to those with the "Monster". Danielle asserts that there is no Monster, which I found really intriguing.
Right. Ok, to me, show opens, we are introduced to the protagonists - the Losties. my brain tends automatically to throw them in the "GOOD" basket. I realize I did this because works for most shows, but I realized later, in LOST it doesn't work. (I explain below.)

No need, this is a relevant pattern. I was trying to point out the toggling as mechanism more than the concepts being toggled. We seem to agree it is used more frequently than we'd like. The mechanism is distinct, however, from the concepts it is applied to - such as good and bad. I also mentioned loyalties... these happen on a large and small scale - loyalty within a couple being small scale, loyalty of an individual to a group, or group to group, being large scale. (Btw not implying that intensity goes with scale often the contrary.)

Indeed, who can we trust? At first, we do not know.

Going back to what I said before - with most shows we can "safely" identify with the good guys introduced to us in the beginning. There may be good and bad protagonists, or "good" protagonists which are flawed, but we are usually given background information to identify the "good guys". Even in Dexter, we know that Dexter, however flawed, is our "good guy" for plot purposes.

LOST is interesting, and different, because our protagonists represent a random group of people, not a select group. Thus, some are bound to be more "good" and some more "bad". Probability suggests an even distribution across your good/bad continuum, but the randomness would allow for a complete skewing of that - in either direction. (Btw, I find it hysterical that the Others keep talking about recruiting "good" people and about being the "good guys".)

In Lost, the premise of having a random group of people invalidates any assumptions one would like to make about the crash survivors. Each of them, when we start out, must be logically taken as a tabula rasa, because we have very few deductive elements. The episode entitled thus is apparently about Locke (erhemm!) but can be extended to all the survivors. However the title can also suggest to us, the audience, "You have no clue who you are looking at. You have no/few moral elements by which to assess these people. You cannot tell whom to trust." As we move on... the current events and the flashbacks write on that tablet for us. The more writing we have, the better we can assess the characters, but there is always room for that 180 element...

I believe that would be the empirical approach to character assessment. Go figure.

===============
Mari,

Please, tell me if I am getting into this too deep - for you. I don't have to. I don't want for you to end up feeling too involved in it again or burdened by my interpretations and other ramblings.

I am breaking up my posts I hope this makes it easier to answer if you wish, and/or pick and choose what to ignore

~ waves ~