Lostpedia has arranged a string of interviews with characters from The Lost Experience. Follow the links to submit your questions for Speaker, The Lost Ninja and Javier Grillo-Marxuach!
Do you have an idea for a new wiki? Please share it with us here

From Lostpedia

Defining Mindfuck

A proposed definition for Mindfuck was copied from Answers.com above. Here it is again:

I'm pretty sure this was also the previous definition on Wikipedia. Shall we use this definition here on Lostpedia for this article?-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 22:37, 9 May 2007 (PDT)

"Mindfuck is a term used by film fans and critics to describe a work in which techniques and devices such as nonlinear storytelling, seemingly unreliable viewpoints, and radical plot twists are combined to provoke uncertainty and tension in the viewer. When a casual observer is not able to discern what is happening in a narrative without making a serious attempt to decipher the connections between parts, when narrators or main characters are unreliable, misinformed, or deliberately deceptive without the audience's being aware of it, and/or when the plot seems severely fragmented or seems to digress from the original story but ultimately forms a complex whole, one can say that a film, television series, or written story is a mindfuck. Some mindfucks involve a single plot twist or resolution of a seemingly minor subplot which completely changes the viewer's understanding of events."

It's longer, I think that's a little more precise. Dagg, if you and the other good people approve, you should use it.

BTW, if we reference the JUMP CUT piece, we also might want to reference David Church's essay "Fantastic Films, Fantastic Bodies: Speculations on the Fantastic and Disability Representation", Offscreen, Volume 10, Issue 10: "After the shattering of diegetic reality, the spectator’s resulting sense of disorientation and perceptual instability is even a sensation sometimes casually compared to (temporary) insanity and madness—hence the 'mindfuck' nickname..."

He later points out that in mindfucks, we eventually come to understand (in narrative terms) the source of the "shattering", to realize what made everything seem so odd.

Church writes for a number of film publications, most notably SENSES OF CINEMA, which is cited as a source in a number of Wikipedia articles on film directors.

BTW, I'm not opposed to merging the article with a discussion of other narrative techniques and devices. Depends on length.

Can't speak for anyone else, but Jacob struck me as a mindfuck. His appearance made sense of a lot of other things on the show (at least for me), but I still went, "What the..." And I think any explanation of his "appearance" will change what we already thought we knew about the Island/ the "rules of reality" in the show. ^.^

--PresterJohn 00:23, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Is it safe to say that the first appearance of all of the mysterious elements of the show are all mindfucks? For example,

• Adam and Eve - Right now, we don't know who they are, but when it is revealed, it will explain or change a lot of things.
• Black Rock (ship) - Right now, we don't know how it got there, but when it is finally revealed how it got there, it will explain or change a lot of things.
• Blast Door Map - Right now, we don't know a lot of things about this map, but when the meanings are revealed, it will explain or change a lot of things.
• Dave (Hurley's Friend) - Right now, we don't know if Dave is real, but when the true nature of Dave is revealed, it will explain or change a lot of things.

etc. Am I on the right track? I.e., the revelation of the true nature of a mysterious element is a mindfuck if the revelation explains or changes a lot of things.-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 01:13, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

I think you are starting to understand the concept of mindfuck now. The Black Rock is definitely a mindfuck... Adam and Eve less so, because if you are just watching the show without being as intensely invested like people here are, two dead skeletons don't mean that much. A lot of the mysterious elements will apply, but its those that really make you wonder whats going on "How did that slave ship end up in land" and how did it get there... being a good example of it. How did a short range African drugs mule plane end up in the South Pacific? Its those things that everyone realises is a big change in direction, not just the obsessive fans. :)  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  01:28, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

The map was a clue, in a pretty traditional sense of the word; the fact that it was concealed doesn't make it anything more than a map. Certain things on the map might prove to be mindfucks, but... Adam and Eve could well prove to be a mindfuck; at present, they're a mystery. One could definitely describe the Black Rock as a mindfuck, unless I'm being absent-minded; perhaps I'm forgetting something, but I didn't expect to see it in the jungle, and I don't remember any indication that it would be in such a location. It's a similar thing with Jacob. Audiences expected to see him, or to discover that he didn't exist. The outcome-- and the implications-- mess with one's sense of "reality" in the show. Granted, the Monster is on the island, but even the Monster didn't prepare the audience for that little bit of weirdness with Jacob, I think. With Jacob's, erm, "appearance", I think we can safely say that our basic understanding of Ben, the Others, and the Island has changed in a pretty radical way. Now, what that means is another matter...

I guess I'm repeating what plkrtn said. Some things are mysterious, some things seem peculiar, some things strike us as "natural" resolutions to plots and subplots, and some things are simply there... But some things shatter your perceptions and hugely recontextualize or radically alter one's interpretations, or else disturb what you thought you knew in a profound way.--PresterJohn 01:49, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Ok, thanks guys. I am getting the impression that there is a scale of 1 to 10 for mindfucks. I.e., the end of Sixth Sense is very high on the scale, the Black Rock is pretty high, and Adam and Eve are low-to-mid scale. However, all three are still mindfucks. The first appearance of the Monster is very high on the scale in my opinion. Also, was Snuffleupagus (as referenced by Sawyer in "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead") on Sesame Street a mindfuck on all the children that watch the show?-- Dagg talk contribs4 8 02:01, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

In a sense, snuffy would be since for a long time he was portrayed as an imaginary friend of Big Bird's. Nobody else could see him. Eventually a creative decision was made to reveal him to the others on Sesame Street, but if I remember correctly this wasn't something that was planned out long in advance. TPTB for Sesame Street didn't want to show Big Bird keeping secret friends from the adults and setting teaching kids that it's ok to have that secret relationships with possibly nefarious people. Snuffy would be about a .5 on my scale of 10.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 06:51, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Can the discussion template be removed from this page yet, or is there still spiritful debate happening? --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:52, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

Well given that no decision has been reached on the deletion issue yet, it seems that the debate is still ongoing. And the definition debate still seems confused as the examples on the article page don't match the definition given there.--TechNic|talk|conts 13:59, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

Here is an easy definition of Mindfuck that everyone will understand: "A mindfuck is when something fucks with the mind." Sorry to be vulgar, but it is very obvious to me what mindfuck means. Ask yourself: what does assf*ck mean? Ask yourself: what does skullf*ck mean? Then ask yourself what does mindf*ck mean?

When Jacob comes up on the screen and you say "WTF? (what the fuck?)" That is a mindfuck. Anything that makes you say WTF is a mindfuck. Unless there are any objections, i'm going to change the current definition to this new one.--Mindfucker 23:24, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

I think the current definition works better.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 11:18, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Proposed definition, distinguishing it from 'plot twist':

I feel that there is a linguistic continuity between the word 'fuck' and the proposed terminology, and that is: Every interaction with a fellow human being has a long list of assumptions built into it, some of which are honesty, a shared sense of reality, cultural continuity, stated contract, etc. When one person 'plays' these assumptions, it can be said that they are 'fucking' the other person.

Examine the sexually crude definition - the same act, intercourse, can be described as either 'fucking' or 'making love'. This is because there is often long list of assumptions that are not discussed as two people couple. If you leave immediately after intercourse, you're fucking. If you don't reveal that you're already involved, you're fucking. If you don't care if she gets pregnant, you're fucking. If you intend to get pregnant but aren't involving him, you're fucking. Examples of non-sexual usage are abundant - in business terms, assumptions are made in every simple contract. If someone sells me a crate of rotten oranges, I'm being fucked, because I assumed that the crate was full of fresh oranges.

A mindfuck, in dramatic terms, occurs when a large ontological or dramatic-structure assumption on the audience's part has been violated. We grant a dramatic presentation (such as LOST) a certain connection to our human reality - for example, our beards grow, there are no monsters, we don't heal miraculously, and dead people don't appear before us and talk with us. When We The Audience watched as flt 815 crashed, we made these assumptions about their reality. When an author can presume the audience's assumptions, not reveal immediately how they differ from the dramatic reality, and then later reveal that dramatic reality in a mind-shifting way, they have achieved a mindfuck. A mindfuck HAS to have some sort of ontological or dramatic-structure shift to qualify as a mindfuck. Otherwise, yes, it's just a plot twist. Locke showing up at the radio tower was a plot twist. Juliet revealing her shifting loyalties was a plot twist. Jack playing football with Tom was a plot twist. However, discovering the first hatch was a mindfuck. Hurley seeing his Numbers on the side of the Swan was a mindfuck. The monster was a mindfuck. Locke seeing Cooper tied up in the box was a mindfuck. Desmond's abilities are a mindfuck. The flashforward was a mindfuck (that's an example of a 'dramatic-structure' mindfuck - the flashback is a well-established device on the show, and presumably 99.9 percent of the audience assumed the flashforward was a flashback as they started watching it). "This is another island" was a mindfuck. Subsequent hatches, monster appearances, rapid healings are now just part of the ontology of the show, and are not mindfucks. Logically, it seems like fewer and fewer mindfucks will be possible as more and more dramatic reality is canonized. --Lupaganaram 12:49, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

I'm personally of the opinion that this article doesn't belong, period. Whether or not it is a 'recognized literary term' seems irrelevant. 'Novella' is a recognized literary term, as is 'prologue' and 'adjective,' but clearly they have nothing to do with LOST so they don't belong on the site. In my opinion, 'mindfuck' is simply a vague term that some (perhaps many) viewers use to describe an aspect of the show that they find amazing or 'mind-blowing.' So does that mean we would be justified to create a page for "amazing," or "mind-blowing," or "awesome," or "romantic," or "disappointing," or "thoughtful" or "confusing"? I'm sure many more people use those terms than use 'mindfuck.' --Jacob's Lather 03:57, 23 October 2007 (PDT)

Links to this article

Please link to the Mindfuck article using a redirect such as Mindf*ck. This should alleviate some concerns from other users about the appearance of swear words on the site, especially in episode articles. I have updated the links on the literary techniques template but some crossrefs may remain.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 11:20, 21 May 2007 (PDT)

So if I called you a "f*ckhead" instead of the uncensored term, you suddenly would not be offended? Whatever. (I'm not calling you that, btw. Just making a point.) Jinxmchue 17:44, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• True, but it has the same effect as a bleep does on television. Everyone knows what they mean we just don't have to hear (in this case see) it. Could we just rename the entire article "Mindf*ck", or would that not solve anything? Loraxx753 04:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is tiresome

OK, here's the situation. No one here has given any reasonable explanation of why this expression should be described as a legitimate literary technique on this site. The word "mindfuck" is popping up all over the place, and people are accepting it as is! Well, it's not at all a legitimate expression. The term does not show up on Wikipedia any more, and, when it did, it was described as "slang." Is that what editors of this site want? A slang expression used instead of actually literary terms?

Instead of this crude slang expression, why not use the term "plot-twist" or "twist-ending. The latter term has a very well researched and resourced entry in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twist_ending) and pretty much explains the "mindfucks" in Lost to a tee. Lets be adults here, not snickering pre-teens who giggle when a naughty word is used. Wrecktum 18:04, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

• I think it's pretty ironic that you pick a username that sounds like rectum then complain about the word mindfuck. The fact that some Wikipedia editors removed it from their site doesn't mean it's not a legitimate term.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 07:35, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• I'd also like to point out that the user account Wrecktum appears to be a single-purpose account for the point of making this comment.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 07:38, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

1) Why do you care what my user-name is? 2) So I just logged on for the first time, big deal? 3) You seem very possessive of this unnecessary slang term. Why is that? Wrecktum 08:52, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• First off, rectum isn't a swear word, in fact quite the opposite of being slang it's a scientific term. People might find it rude, but the difference between that and a swear word is that a swear word is by its very definition and purpose offensive, and in this example the use of swearing is unjustified to describe the subject of the article. Secondly, his first post was only yesterday, so of course his account is going to look like a single-purpose account until he makes some more comments. There's nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose account if their purpose is useful, and I think he made a valid contribution. It's quite likely that he is a long-time user of the site who finally signed up for an account when he felt he had something worth contributing.Liquidcow 08:09, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Yes, exactly. The word 'mindfuck' is just a slang expression for 'surprising twist', and since this is an encyclopedia, the more encylopedic term should be used, rather than slang. As I've said before, I'm not advocating un-necessary censorship, I'm not particularly bothered by swearing in general, but in this case it is entirely unnecessary and inappropriatte, and there is a perfectly good, and more suitable phrase that can be used instead.Liquidcow 01:08, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• The fact that the term is "popping up all over the place" is what gives it legitimacy. The difference between slang and a legitimate term is simply a matter of acceptance. A friend of mine describes such situations in Lost as the writers "pulling the rug out from me, slipping it under, and then pulling it out again!". The term "plot twist" or "surprise ending" doesn't carry the same exasperation or awe of the circumstance that "mindfuck" does convey. Yes, I suppose it's a vulgar word, but it does express a unique shade of meaning that other terms fall short of. I don't consider myself immature or short on vocabulary and I've used it occasionally while discussing the show. An adult would accept the word on its own merits and not fret about potentially offending others.

Rhettoric 08:53, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Legitmacy comes from the natural use of a term. Trying to promote a term by putting it in people's faces is advertising. The problem with Mindfuck is that it doesn't mean anything. It has no merits as a term. Dharmatel4 15:07, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• I invite those in this discussion section to critique my recently added definition above. It's late, but I think it's tight. --Lupaganaram 13:23, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

Proposed title change

Since the term 'mindfuck' is obviously causing a lot of controversy, I propose a title change. It seems entirely gratuitous to use a swear word to define something that has nothing to do with swear words.

I propose either we change the title to 'surprising twists' (or similar), or, considering the article seems to include other forms of narrative confusion besides the 'reveal', make the simple change to 'mindgames' to reflect the idea of the show messing with our heads. It could even be expanded to include mindgames the characters play with each other (although that might intrude on 'deceptions and cons' I suppose). I just want to get rid of the ridiculous swearing in this title, so there's my proposed solution: 'Mindgames'.Liquidcow 01:18, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Rename To Mindgames. An excellent suggestion. This should alleviate the concerns over the language and should allow for a better defining of the term. Seeing as the majority vote for deletion was ignored and the deletion tag removed, hopefully someone can add the Rename tag to the page and we can reach a compromise.--TechNic|talk|conts 04:36, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Undecided: I agree that the new name change is a good one; however, with "Mindfuck" we are dealing with a technical term... so I'm unsure. I'll wait for others' comments and then make a decision. --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  05:09, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Don't Rename: This arguement is so stupid I want to shoot myself in the head. It is just a word people, let it go.--CaptainInsano 08:50, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Rename: Yes, it's "just a word" but the word isn't encyclopedic and there are other, better words that can be used. There's been a lot of heated typing in this discussion, but no one has explained how the term "mindfuck" is encyclopedic or an legitimate literary term. People want to use it simply because they like the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrecktum (talk • contribs) .

• Undecided: In my opinion it's a pretty stupid page. The whole show is about plot lines which are used to confuse the viewer or make them think about the connection. May as well write MINDFUCK IS LOST in the biggest font possible.--Baker1000 09:00, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Don't Rename: It doesn't need to be renamed. Mindfuck is a legitimate term. Read more here.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 09:12, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

Inconclusive. That article calls the term "trendy." There's no indication that it's nothing more than a slang term for the current "plot twist" trend in movies and TV. Wrecktum 09:51, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• Don't Rename: Look, I'm from the midwestern US, and therefore by nature am not as comfortable with casual use of the word in question as those from either coast. That being said, the concept of mindfuck has been around in fiction and science fiction for decades now. If you actually take the time to read Wilson's "Illuminatus Trilogy" it would be clear to you that it is not a slang term for "plot twist" and has little to do with modern trends in movies and TV. The fact that it's name is coarse in nature does not detract from its obvious relevance to LOST. Yes, we could change it to "Surprising Plot Twists" or "Fuzzy Baby Ducks", but then it would no longer refer to the known and established concept. Renaming "rape" to "non-consentual physical contact commonly involving reproductive anatomy" does not make the concept any less ugly, but it does cause confusion. It is just a word, it is a well established concept, and as much as I don't care for it, it still has relevance on this site. We're all grown-ups here. Get over it. (I did). --Doc 10:15, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• RENAME: I don't believe that the intent of Lostpedia is to offend anyone, and this page is clearly offensive to many. While I do believe it is beneficial to document the "mindgames" on the show, the actual content is now taking a distant backseat to the heated discussion over the name of the article. Renaming to "mindgames" is an excellent idea, in my opinion. It is non-offensive and still provides an excellent means of tracking these occurrences. Thanks! --Libbyjones715 14:04, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Unfortunately "mindgames" is not synonymous with "mindfuck" - I wish it were, and if you can find a term that is synonymous in the realm of literary criticism then I'll be happy to support you. Lostpedia isn't here to offend anyone, but it's also not here to play the part of "language police" and try and replace established words that are used elsewhere just because some (including me) find them distasteful or vulgar. --Doc 06:50, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

• I guess I have to agree with the RENAME. I personally couldn't care less anymore, but it is obvious that the term Mindfuck is offensive to many, and in my opinion, Mind Games is an excellent compromise to those many people who use lostpedia.--Lewis-Talk-Contribs 14:21, 23 May 2007 (PDT)
  • I wouldn't mind a rename if someone could find an appropriate term. There are lots of "literary techniques" glossaries, etc out on the web. Maybe someone could find something that is suitable and would satisfy everyone. The term mind game is already defined with a different meaning, though: "passive aggressive behaviour". I.e, Jack and Locke were seemingly working together, but they were each playing mind games.

• RENAME or DELETE When I last looked opinion was running nearly 3-1 (21-8) in favor of deleting the article already. Dharmatel4 14:53, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• DON'T RENAME for the hundreds of reasons I've given before, its a legit film term, its relevant. [1] the show is part of the genre, i'm an adult and the problem people have with this, is a word that we all use, and at its most base, all do else there wouldn't be 100 million viewers of this show world-wide!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:15, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

That article is a joke. Its written a nobody who wrote a few scripts for indy films in the late 1990s and has since taught intro scriptwriting classes at writers retreats and community colleges. Its not a serious article on film and the author has no credentials. On top of that, the article is badly written. It reads like a long list of films that somebody saw over a number of years and wants to ramble about. It is not taken seriously as a genre by much of anyone and its supporters have trouble even defining what it is. Dharmatel4 16:48, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• RENAME If it's a term that they would not use on the show or in their specials, then it is not a term that should be used here. Let's try to keep Lostpedia a family-friendly site. Jinxmchue 17:46, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• RENAME Not everyone who visits this site is an adult and the use of f*** is not appropriate for all ages to view. Belle42 19:43, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• DON'T RENAME I'm sick of seeing all the arguments on here which are purely based on anti-profanity. Keep it family friendly? The show itself is loaded with gore, violence and sex, and you want to see a site about it eliminate all profanity, just because the FCC is okay with seeing brainpan splatter but not the word "shit"? You think your 8 year old kid has never heard the word "fuck" on the playground, but you're okay with him seeing Sayid torture a man? In a long history of interent idiocy, this debate's moving to near the top of the pile. Dharmabum 23:34, 23 May 2007 (PDT)

• It's not 'anti-profanity' and it's not 'censorship', it's about the fact that profanity is not appropriatte in this instance. In the show there are scenes of torture and violence (though not as many as you seem to be implying) because they are required to tell the story. I can guarantee you that the writers carefully consider every act of violence that goes into the script to make sure it won't be considered gratuitous. Similarly, the show is not 'loaded' with sex, it's all implied and again, I guarantee that the writers and directors put in only the necessary amount required to tell the story and keep us emotionally involved. Swearing is never used in the show because it is never required to tell the story or heighten tension. Similarly, swearing is not required in this article to make the point it's trying to make. It's not about people being 'offended', it's about the fact that the title is unnecessary and immature. It's certainly not, in my eyes, about making the site 'kid friendly' - here in Britain the show is aired at 10pm and on DVD gets a '12' or sometimes a '15' rating, at which the F-word can be used, so it's not that I would expect viewers of the show to be too young or delicate to hear swear words, it is literally a case of its appropriateness in this case.

There is no indication either that 'mindfuck' is accepted as a genre by any credible sources.Liquidcow 03:30, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

• I have no interest in the core argument that should be fought here; whether an article about "mindfuck", as a genre, belongs here. For the record, I really don't think it should be if other genres are not defined. What I have a problem with is people trying to remove it based on the opinion that it's offensive, rather than that an article about the specific genre is allowed. Whatever the rules on British television, there is no swearing on the show because the network will get fined a lot of money by the FCC if they do. The FCC apparently has no problem with (non-graphic) sex or considerably graphic violence, but the Lostpedia should not base its standards on what the FCC allows, but rather on what its readers and editors allow.

That is the ENTIRE point of my suggestion below, which you seem to think I miss the point with; that the argument over what kind of adult content should be allowed on the Lostpedia has absolutely nothing to do with the argument over whether "mindfuck" is a genre worth including in its own article, and that until any consensus debate is stripped of the people who are only interested in seeing a profanity-free website, no valid consensus about "mindfuck"'s inclusion can really be assessed. Dharmabum 05:20, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

Rename - 'Plot-twist' is absolutely sufficient to describe the literary technique in question. Perhaps on the 'Plot-twist' page reference could be made to the 'mindf*ck' sub-technique, but these most assuredly are plot-twists we are talking about. Higsby 09:58, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

• Don't rename per Dharmabum and Captain Insano. --Neurophyre 02:28, 25 May 2007 (PDT)

• Rename - Mindgames is good--Lucky Day 18:50, 14 June 2007 (PDT)