Are the writers attempting to subvert and dismantle weak and tired storytelling techniques in order to make the cognate (and necessary) philosophical points? (If the answer is that they are not, then they are merely replicating and perpetuating poor narrative devices and philosophic premises--and their show will prove to be popular pulp, not the art it has appeared to be thus far.)
Routinely, the character that I focus on as the answer to this question is Jack Shephard. Ayn Rand explains my point in her essay "What is Romanticism?":
This phenomenon--the fascinating villain or colorful rogue, who steals the story and the drama from the anemic hero--is prevalent in the history of Romantic literature, serious or popular, from top to bottom. It is, as if, under the dead crust of the altruist code officially adopted by mankind, an illicit subterranean were boiling chaotically and erupting once in awhile; forbidden to the hero, the fire of self-assertiveness burst forth from the apologetic ashes of a "villain."It is important to note here that LOST has both the fascinating villain (Benjamin Linus) and the colorful rogue (James "Sawyer" Ford). Both characters have thus far been characterized by a self-assertiveness that Jack has shunned in favor of pleasing the will of others (most notably his father). Ben's weakest moment, that seemed to pull him from his pedestal of villainy on the show in favor of a yet unnamed and undefined "Mr. X" (or Smokey? But are they the same? Are the a duo? WTF, LOST?), occurred in the Season 5 finale and featured a stark lack of self-assertiveness on his part where he allowed his will to be subjugated to faux-Locke's ("Mr. X's"?). Likewise, Season 5 featured the first moment where Jack stood up for himself, as he refused to heal Harry Potter (mini-Ben). Still, though he admitted he fixed Ben the first time (Season 3) for Kate, he still subjugated his will to the island in that scene, right as we were in the middle of an arc that taught us Locke's subjugation to the island's will brought him death and the use of his visage as a pawn by "Mr. X."
That Jack has been anemic through the series run thus far is impossible to deny. He is an emotional basketcase who, when forced to accept moral responsibility for a choice he made turned to pills, alcohol, and suicide (see: "Through the Looking Glass"). I won't recite the laundry list here. Go watch the series. You'll see. However, in case you still disagree, here is the definition of anemic according to dictionary.com:
–adjectiveJack fans will, of course, point to his many decisions, medical procedures, and "displays of passion" (See: "Put it on me!") as examples of "power, vigor, and vitality." This incorrect definition is exactly what Rand is referring to in the above quote.
1. Pathology. suffering from anemia.
2. lacking power, vigor, vitality, or colorfulness; listless; weak: an anemic effort; anemic tones.
Which type of hero do you and, more importantly for our discussion here, the LOST writers prefer? Is it the self-assertive rationalist who is confident in his own mind thus making decisions on his own for himself or is it the weak-willed altruist who lacks self esteem so he turns to others for approval and indication as to how to choose?
I have tracked these themes not only through the show itself, but through its fan base. So far, I found sufficient evidence that the writers are playing with these themes intentionally (and not merely falling prey to them). In contrast, many LOST fans to this day believe that Jack is the ultimate hero of the show, and Sawyer will be "redeemed" through the altruistic act of laying his life down for others. We will all have the proof for arguments in a matters of months.