"Lost" in thought: Is Ben good, "good" or not so good?

Before diving into my title question, tonight's "Lost" episode is called "Ji Yeon" and is a Jin-Sun flash. If it's a flash-forward, that likely means they're the final two members of the Oceanic Six. Promos suggested we'd know the remaining pair soon enough, so use that information however you see fit. Also, we'll find out Ben's man on the boat, and unless there's a huge swerve coming, it's Michael. That level of predictability isn't a drag, though -- at least to me. "Lost" is probably going to throw a major curveball with Michael before the 9 p.m. hour and we'll all be talking about it tomorrow.

So, back to my "'Lost' in thought" query. Recently, my wife pointed out that I've been referring to Ben as good, which was a mistake on my part because I really meant "good" in the "justified" sense of the word. Let's face it. "Lost" has become Ben's show. Michael Emerson has the best facial expressions and one-liners -- again, his "see you at dinner" jab was absolutely delicious. He takes the biggest beatings. And most important, he holds the key to the island's secrets.

For Ben to become the show's centerpiece is a pretty big deal when you consider that "Lost" fans aligned themselves with several highly regarded characters from the get-go. Going into this season, I figured Ben's usefulness had run its course. The creators were going to introduce new baddies from the freighter; he'd be replaced, yet the island's shroud of secrecy could still be adequately explained by folks like ageless wonder Richard Alpert.

So far this season? Ben is indispensable. He completely overshadows whoever he's on screen with, Locke included. Which begs the question: Are any "Lost" fans feeling sympathy for the faux-Henry Gale? Is he good, "good" or pure evil?

Look, Ben is a bad dude, no doubt about it. He'll kill anyone who gets in his way. He's manipulating Locke, also a man he left for dead in a skeleton hole. He claims to own Juliet. But I like him WAY too much these days, so not only do I root for him, I'm willing to support his "Save the Island" cause. Which is why I referred to him as, well, good.

But he commits criminal acts, so he can't truly be good, at least not like Jesus, Gandhi or Barney the Purple Dinosaur. But is he "good" (note the quotations!) enough that protecting the island -- even if it borders on religious zealotry -- is a cause "Lost" fans will eventually rally around? Or more succinctly, will Sayid siding with Ben in the future lead fans to look at him in a completely different way? Is that already the case?

(Here's where my wife argues that Sayid isn't "good" either. He used to be a torturer. Can kill people willingly. But isn't Sayid ultimately a thoughtful, compassionate human being who would choose right versus wrong when given the chance? Don't similar shades of gray exist with Locke, Kate, Sawyer ... gulp, even Ben?)

I realize that intentions are different from actions. But that's the point of the question. If Ben's evil actions always overwhelm his (perhaps) noble intentions, well, you probably don't think he's "one of the good guys" -- as he memorably told Jack. But if you feel like he's justified in protecting the island -- by any means -- from the seemingly sadistic Charles Widmore (and whoever else he's aligned with), well, you might just want to give ol' Gizmo a hug.

So, any "Lost" fans care to chime in? Do you like Ben enough at this point to believe he's got a shred of goodness, or at least a righteous agenda worthy of Jack's "we must go back" reaction in the future? Or in the end, will "Lost" have tricked us into having sympathy for the devil?

-- Thomas Rozwadowski, trozwado@greenbaypressgazette.com