|
Post by Sora on Mar 3, 2009 0:19:12 GMT -5
The Great 667 Re-Read - Week 2 - The Reptile Room And so we begin discussion on the second book in our beloved A Series of Unfortunate Events - The Reptile Room. In this novel we encounter a car accident, a terrible smell, a deadly serpant, a long knife, a large brass reading lamp, and the reappearance of a dreadful man. This was the first of the series to grab my attention - so enjoy your re-read and let us begin! Feel free to post your notes chapter by chapter - or your feelings on the book as a whole. You may also reference any additional material found in the paperback version The Reptile Room: Or, Murder!
|
|
|
Post by Mijahu on Mar 3, 2009 4:34:40 GMT -5
I will not be participating in this discussion, as I don't have book the second. Actually let me just list the books I have, so as to excuse myself from any discussions for them henceforth.
TBB | TWW | TUA| TSS | TE
Hope you all have fun, I will probably comment and some stuff I remember from the book anyway. One of my favorite quotes is in this book, the one about climbing stairs in the middle of the night, and you think there is one more step than there actually is, and there's "a sickly moment of dark surprise as your foot falls through the air"...or something along those lines...enjoy the discussion, everyone!
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Mar 3, 2009 10:15:51 GMT -5
OK; notes on chapters 1-4.
The first thing that struck me was the sour apples growing around Lousy Lane - I know these apples are sour, not bitter like those on the island, but I think the way they appear along with horseradish is still interesting.
Toads are not reptiles. They are amphibians. This annoys me. I suppose Monty may be an amphibiologist, or whatever it is called, as well as a herpetologist; but we are never told this.
This book may be the hardest to reconcile with what we discover later in the series. The first place this becomes clear is with the Incredibly Deadly Viper. Monty says that he has just discovered and named it; but in The End we learn that it was known fifteen years ago, and was already called the Incredibly Deadly Viper then. Of course, Monty may be lying, but it's not clear why he should be; he could say that he has had the IDV for a long time without giving away anything about VFD. What's more, his theory about Stephano as a rival herpetologist only makes sense if the IDV is indeed something new which hasn't yet been introduced to the scientific world.
Monty says he has been studying snakes for forty years. This bears on the discussion of ages we were having on another thread. If we suppose he started after leaving school, he must be about sixty by now; but of course he may have already been a herpetologist as a teenager, rather as Quigley is a cartographer, Fiona a mycologist, etc.
I don't think I ever noticed before that they went to the movies every night, not just the night they saw Zombies in the Snow. Presumably the other films they saw were by non-VFD directors.
More on the problem of reconciling the book with what comes later; why doesn't Monty recognise Olaf? Of course, Olaf is very cunningly disguised (though the orphans have no diffculty recognising him), but he is using a VFD disguise kit, which Monty should surely know about. Indeed, he seems unable to grasp Olaf's significance; he thinks it's more likely he's a herpetological spy rather than an evil count. I suspect he hasn't been very closely involved in VFD for a long time, and that his connection is confined to lending them reptiles occasionally for dangerous missions, but Olaf's defection was surely quite an important event, which he should have known about.
'For years after this moment... Klaus thought of the time...' This supports the view that the Baudelaires survived the end of the series; it also implies that Lemony is writing long after the events. This is especially problematic for TRR, because according to TUA it had already been published when Olaf's cow-henchman was looking for the reptiles, which has to be within the timeline of the series. I think someone proposed that there was an earlier and a later edition - and there is stuff within TUA which might support that.
We are given here the official list of Olaf's assistants, from which all the accomplices we meet in the next few books will come. It is indeed striking that the wart-faced man, who disappeared with him in TBB, is not mentioned. It's true that Lemony specifies that these people are actors, while the wart-faced man seems rather to be a technician; but that doesn't seem a good enough reason for not mnentioning him here. (There are various possible explanations of his not turning up again; the puzzle is how the Baudelaires know he won't.)
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Mar 3, 2009 11:06:45 GMT -5
Note on the list of Olaf's assistants: here's it's highlighted that the bald man with the long nose 'always wears a black robe'. This is of course not so in his next two appearances - TMM and THH - where he is in disguise, and in TCC what he's wearing is never specified. I assume it had been forgotten by that point.
On the subject of Olaf's henchmen, can somebody scan in the illustration of Lucafont from Murder! if possible? I'd be most interested in this and can't find the book anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 3, 2009 11:14:09 GMT -5
I'm going to have to sit this one out for the moment, at least as far as rereading goes; I'm not free enough for a couple of days. Just one question: Are you sure, hermes, that the Incredibly Deadly Viper was already known as the Incredibly Deadly Viper before Monty discovered it? As far as I'm aware, the Baudelaire parents just dubbed it "Inky," which could be simply a reference to its pitch-black colour even while there are obvious parallels to the name Monty gave it. Perhaps Monty was aware of its true origins but was unable to divulge any information that might prove incriminating to V.F.D., but was nonetheless highly confident that the Incredibly Deadly Viper was a new discovery to known science rather than V.F.D.'s occasionally ad-hoc methods. Possibly also Monty only leapt to attention once he learnt that the Incredibly Deadly Viper was on the mainland, having left the island with two unidentified women some years before The End, although I expect he'd have been itching to examine it before if the Baudelaire parents ever told him about it. Recalling that Monty apparently never learnt the Sebald Code, according to the U.A., I think there's a very good argument for him not being especially closely involved with V.F.D. Perhaps V.F.D. matters were something he largely left to Gustav while he just dealt with the reptiles (and amphibians)? It may also be that it's not only that Olaf is in disguise, a disguise Monty isn't too familiar with, but also that it's been years since Monty met him, if he ever did. Apples growing near a horseradish factory sounds interesting; retrospectively, could we suggest the horseradish factory is also preparing for experiments in hybridising apples based on reports received from the Baudelaire parents? Although it's been more than a decade, so evidently those experiments must be on hold if the apples are sour rather than bitter. Or maybe they aren't doing it right. As for the wart-faced man, possibly he was arrested between TBB and TRR, but the authorities didn't learn anything from him and he wasn't really very important... Scream and Run Away apparently tries to conflate him with the bald man, but that won't fly with us. Okay, well, I've come up with a few comments anyway, I guess, but bear in mind I haven't reread TRR myself yet. I suspect my own thoughts when I get around to rereading won't be as extensive as they were for TBB. On the subject of Olaf's henchmen, can somebody scan in the illustration of Lucafont from Murder! if possible? I'd be most interested in this and can't find the book anywhere. I'm not surprised you can't find it; it's a U.S.-only publication. I had to import. Well, that's not strictly true, I suppose, but - well, anyway. Prepare to be astonished, cwm, at the truly awesome scan of Lucafont that you've been missing. Gods I don't know what I'd do if I'd missed this, it's just such an amazing illustration. After the original TBB Dear Reader letter implied a Lucafont illustration that never appeared, well, I was distraught, but even though it took ten years, Helquist hasn't let us down. Put on some sunglasses my friend, as you are about to be dazzled: i21.photobucket.com/albums/b275/FFWF_Dante/FFWF_Dante%202/MurderScan7.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Mar 3, 2009 12:30:37 GMT -5
Just one question: Are you sure, hermes, that the Incredibly Deadly Viper was already known as the Incredibly Deadly Viper before Monty discovered it? As far as I'm aware, the Baudelaire parents just dubbed it "Inky," which could be simply a reference to its pitch-black colour even while there are obvious parallels to the name Monty gave it. Ah, good point. I'm fairly sure Handler intended 'Inky' to be short for 'Incredibly Deadly Viper', but of course, in our efforts to find a consistent meaning in the series, we're not bound by what he thinks.
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Mar 3, 2009 12:36:09 GMT -5
Oh you tease.
I assumed from your comments in TBB that it was some kind of creepy shadowy shot or something.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 3, 2009 12:44:46 GMT -5
Oh you tease. I assumed from your comments in TBB that it was some kind of creepy shadowy shot or something. Helquist's illustrations are fragmentary to the point of frustration sometimes. Man of his full-page illustrations from the new paperbacks are excellent character art depicting a full costume and pose, so I genuinely am not sure why he wastes one of them on a hand and a head he's illustrated more than a dozen times. It seems like a huge missed opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Mar 3, 2009 12:49:30 GMT -5
I have now created this genuinely creepy shot of Lucafont, with his head and hands shrouded in shadow to disguise his true identity, perhaps leaning off to an angle away from the Baudelaires, inside my own head.
Even if we hadn't been hoping for a proper illustration that is disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by Mijahu on Mar 3, 2009 14:53:31 GMT -5
You all raise some great points. Perhaps Monty knew it was Olaf, and was trying to hide this from the children, so that they wouldn't be worried that there is a murderer after them? That would kind of clear everything up. Maybe he even expected Olaf to show up, so he created the backstory with Inky.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Mar 4, 2009 10:13:46 GMT -5
Notes on chapters 5-13
(I don't have so much to say about the later part of the book).
Violet says she will come of age in four years - so this is clearly a country where the age of majority is 18. (It is in most places now, of course, but given the rather old-fashioned nature of the ASOUE world in some respects, I thought it was worth noting.)
Zombies in the Snow does indeed seem a fine film. A lot of people nowadays have tried to present vampires and werewolves in a sympathetic light, but has anyone, except Dr Sebald, done the same with zombies?
The Prospero, according to the picture, is a sailing ship, even though we are in a world with computers, credit cards etc. The figurehead is a bust of Shakespeare, taken, I think, from his monument at Stratford. It is often thought that the character of Prospero in The Tempest in some way represents the author.
Olaf is still drunken - he plans to have a bottle of wine before lunch.
When Dr Lucafont appears, we face for the first time the puzzle why, when the Baudelaires always recognise count Olaf, they never recognise his accomplices. It may just be, I suppose, that the accomplices are better actors.
Sunny is beginning to develop into the character we know and love. The idea that she cannot understand what people are saying to her has been abandoned; and while most of her utterances are still just baby-talk, at least two are significant; 'Jose' for 'No way', and 'Ackroid' for 'Roger'.
What is the religious significance of Nathaniel Hawthorne, who appears in Mr Poe's sequence of oaths?
Might the two-pronged plug help with the question of where the books are set? (On the same topic, by the way, I noticed that in TBB the Fountain of Victorious Finance is made in the shape of a dollar-sign. This covers a few places, but definitely seems to rule out Britain).
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 4, 2009 11:39:38 GMT -5
Zombies in the Snow does indeed seem a fine film. A lot of people nowadays have tried to present vampires and werewolves in a sympathetic light, but has anyone, except Dr Sebald, done the same with zombies? Hmm... I don't know of any examples that predate TRR, but it has been done. It's usually a matter of either restoring the zombies' living intelligence and/or presenting them as not necessarily murderous, as having the ability to empathise with humans. Edit: Although, if I recall correctly, Helquist illustrates them as looking like evil snowmen in coats. I don't know what to think about that, but there's precedent for evil snowmen, at least. Worth noting that the U.A.'s photographs present it as a modern ship, due to the stock photography they were using, but the plan of the ship matches the sailing ship of TRR. I don't think we need to see either as accurate or inaccurate; they're down to illustrator choice and the limitations of stock photography. The text, to my knowledge, never comments on what kind of ship the Prospero is. As for the Shakespeare figurehead, I wouldn't read too much into taking Shakespeare as representing Prospero or vice-versa for the purposes of the illustration; I'd assume Helquist was just making the Shakespeare link explicit, or indeed, "canonical," if you like - that is, the name isn't just a coincidence but was chosen for its Shakespearean significance. This is an issue you can raise about many of the literary allusions in the series; do the characters recognise the allusion, or do they just accept it as a regular name with no literary intent behind it? Is Detective Dupin chosen by Olaf on a whim, or a deliberate literary reference by V.F.D.? Have the Baudelaires ever commented on how they and Mr. Poe share their names with poets? I tend to assume that the Baudelaires are more concerned with Olaf and so tend to overlook the troupe; besides, they associate the troupe more with their physical oddities. They're looking for a man with hooks instead of hands, not paying attention to his face. Although by THH they can see through such disguises - and of course some are more effective than others. I think Handler just liked him enough to throw him in as a... a high-status figure, but also to increase the humour of the exclamation. The same might go for Mr. Poe; in his desperation, he's confusing religious figures and famous authors. The dollar sign can probably be considered illustrator bias, but the two-pronged plug, less so. From an authorial perspective, though, it's just Handler writing what he knows, rather than using the shape of plugs to hint to the reader as to where the books are taking place as though it's a crucial fact. I'll be frank; I consider the question of the setting to be a non-issue. Are we really so uncomfortable with the idea of it being set nowhere in particular?
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Mar 4, 2009 12:06:41 GMT -5
I think Handler just liked him enough to throw him in as a... a high-status figure, but also to increase the humour of the exclamation. The same might go for Mr. Poe; in his desperation, he's confusing religious figures and famous authors. Yes, I was being a bit ironic there. There's an even odder incongruity in a religious context in TPP, of course, where a shuffleboard court turns up alongside a church, a synagogue, etc. Not at all. But people do sometimes say it's in Britain - I guess just because of the rather old-fashioned and formal feel it sometimes has - and I like to find evidence which counts against this. My feeling is that while it is indeed nowhere, it's a North American nowhere rather than a European nowhere. After all, Winnipeg is in North America, and the pictures of Daniel Handler in TUA are clearly meant to be in San Francisco and to be recognised as such (otherwise the joke in 'as soon as I can find out which city he is in' wouldn't work).
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Mar 4, 2009 12:33:42 GMT -5
TRR is the only time when the Baudelaires recognise a henchman in disguise, and even then they do so only when it's too late; Sunny probably picked up on this from a combination of his 'oddly solid' hands, his comment "Uh, boss..." when Olaf is giving the game away, the fact that he appesrs straight away, and I think 'Lucafont' refers to Olaf as 'boss' at least one other time in the book. I'm discounting THH since they already knew the troupe's plan at that point and so knew exactly what they were wearing in advance; in TPP they don't see through the freaks' disguises at all, although they are fleeting glimpses only.
TRR is not so much of a 'whodunnit' as a 'howdunnit' - Violet presenting all the evidence at the end is a bit like a classic detective novel.
Since Lucafont appears straight away, and (I think) Stephano accompanied Mr. Poe and the children back to the house, how did he know how to wait there? Either he was there to ensure that nobody discovered the body until it was too late and the 'doctor' cover story was hastily improvised, or he was there posing as a doctor in the eventuality that Olaf was forced to return to the house.
Correct me if I'm wrong as to what happens after the car crash tho, I haven't got my copy at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Mar 4, 2009 17:55:17 GMT -5
TRR is not so much of a 'whodunnit' as a 'howdunnit' - Violet presenting all the evidence at the end is a bit like a classic detective novel. Oh yes, I really like that idea. Stephano goes into the house; the children stay outside arguing with Mr Poe; then Lucafont arrives. It is emphasised that he's got there very fast, too fast to have got there from town in response to Stephano's call. If he's in the neighbouirhood, might Stephano have called him by walkie-talkie (which we know he has from TBB)?
|
|