|
Post by Dante on Sept 8, 2009 12:32:41 GMT -5
I continue to hold that it's an unreal city in an unreal country - perhaps even an unreal continent, though clearly it has links with North America. And I agree, hence my use of "may." I simply consider that, since the setting is fictional, the geographic relation of real places to it is not a great problem. The series is set exactly where it needs to be, wherever that should be. Wikipedia, the most immediately available source, agrees that "vegetable" isn't a scientific term, and a quick Googling suggests that few people see it as problematic that potatoes be considered a root vegetable. Not, you understand, that I'm attempting to argue that Handler never makes mistakes - but there's not a great deal one can do when large numbers of people are entirely willing to believe a mistaken impression. We can't blame just one of them. I think the onus is quite evidently on Beatrice - she is the one who broke up with Lemony, and not vice-versa. I think the main problem we come to here is whether Beatrice is as perfect as Lemony thinks she is - or, to look at it from a different angle, whether either Baudelaire parent is as wonderful as their children think they are. "It is often difficult to admit that someone you love is not perfect, or to consider aspects of a person that are less than admirable." Did Beatrice or did she not have good reasons for breaking off her engagement with Lemony? Was her love less than his? Was Bertrand honourable and upstanding throughout? How much did they love one another, and how do we reconcile the differing opinions of them as parents and parent-murderers? These are grey areas in human understanding, and we never see these characters directly anyway - if you like, because we haven't met them for ourselves, we cannot judge them for ourselves (to turn on a claim in TPP). One may well ask the question, if Lemony accepts, as he says he does, Beatrice's reasons for being unable to marry him, why does he write back at all? What does he want from her - and what does she want from him? Respect and forgiveness? It must be said that, regardless of Lemony's guilt or lack thereof, Beatrice cannot marry him if he is a fugitive who is in hiding overseas. So that, at least, may form part of the puzzle. She wasn't willing to wait for him. There may nonetheless be elements of suspicion in there as well - not only has Lemony gone away, but she cannot trust him, either. One imagines that Beatrice's motives must have been very complex if they required two hundred pages to explain. (I hope you aren't taking the "LS to BB" stamps as evidence; they're part of the design, not the writing. And it's not as if the younger Beatrice should technically be called Beatrice Baudelaire either.) An idea which just occurred to me is that the family surname might have begun with an R before they arose to the aristocracy... but we can't trace the ring back earlier than R.'s mother, and in this series there's nothing implausible about many individuals having the same initials. I suppose their surname would technically be Winnipeg now? I think that's how it works. This relates to the problem I highlighted earlier - can we reconcile a conniving and seductive Bertrand with the Baudelaire father we've seen glimpses of over the series, and who the Baudelaire orphans so love? Probably - but it leaves a nasty taste. The same goes for Beatrice - if she loved Lemony enough to marry him, how is it that she ends up so happily married to Bertrand? It's not fairy-tale. I don't think the sonnet can have been significant in itself, because Beatrice and Lemony met the very evening after he had a copy of the sonnet in his hands, so if it had any immediate significance she would have raised the issue then. So I think its meaning or significance is purely retrospective and in relation to something else entirely. That said, I think many of the questions are more to elicit a reaction from the reader than to contribute to any overall meaning, and the sonnet itself seems to be a general commentary on TBL that forms a nice way of rounding it off. So overall I'm becoming cynical here about the thirteen questions. For Lemony's failure to read the sonnet, the fact that Beatrice composed it may suggest, to her or to the audience, some deficiency on Lemony's own part. Since I suggested earlier that Beatrice is in some way attempting to test Lemony's character, this may be significant. Hmm, a gender isn't specified but "Bela" a bit of research indicates that it can be used for either gender... and I'd always assumed the (one-off, never mentioned again) character was female, probably because of the similarity to "Bella." (And I'm not the only one... as if that makes any difference to what Handler intended.) I don't see it as extraordinary that multiple plays may have had costumes that include hatpins, or even that Beatrice might wear hatpins ordinarily and not as part of her costume, thus enabling her to have one on-hand even in a play in which one was not vital. So I still wouldn't link the butterfly costume to My Silence Knot. There's the hatpin for it, and everything else against it. At that, the hatpin is only included at that point to establish its role in setting up Lemony and Beatrice's meetings and to have a photograph of it which can be one of the anagram's letters.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 8, 2009 14:29:24 GMT -5
Did Beatrice or did she not have good reasons for breaking off her engagement with Lemony? Was her love less than his? Well, if her love was less than his, that is a good reason for breaking it off. I think both the fact he was a fugitive and the suspicion of arson (or whatever) may have contributed, but ultimately the point is that if she doubts him, if she isn't ready to follow him into exile, she ought not to be with him - and it was right of her to acknowledge it. {Perhaps. We don't know, clearly. Ishmael also didn't know, which at least implies it was something more complex than just her thinking he was guilty.) We have very little to go on in imaginging a dishonourable Bertrand. We have first to suppose that he is the co-star, which it the most likely hypothesis, but by no means proved, and then to theorise about L's reasond for being distrustful of him. It may be, for instance, that he was actually distrustful of Lemony on the basis of evidence (deceptive though it was) and just had B's best interests at heart in warning her against him. On the dating I consider most likely, some years may have passed between Beatrice's breakup with Lemony and her marrying Bertrand, and they may by then have thought that L was dead - so the idea that Bertrand may have contributed to the breakup is very uncertain. Well, there is no doubt she is using that name within the story. And presumably the letters were called something in manuscript - I find it hard to believe that the heading 'LS to BB' is a pure invention of the designers. But my main evidence is 'Because I loved her so much, it never occurred to me that there could be more than one Beatrice Baudelaire', togther with the fact that this might actually explain the 'Baudelaire parents' reference, while Bertrand's parents don't seem relevant. Ishmael in TE says that the ring had beonged to previous generations of duchesses - that is why R giving it up is so odd. Members of the aristocracy still have family names distinct from their titles - the Duke of Marlborough's for instance, is Churchill. It's true he woul;d often be called 'John (or whatever) Marlborough', but technically he's still a Churchill, and that is the name that other members of his family use. I guess I agree - the sonnet is significant because of its correspondence to soething that happened later - though 'This poignant melodrama's based on fact' casts some doubt on that. I'm thinking that the most likely inspiration for the use of the name is Bela Lugosi, and that makes him male. But who knows? Not just the hatpin, but the dropping of the hatpin. Though I suppose B might regularly have dropped her hatpin when she wanted L to meet her. BB to LS 5. I think that 'you have a lousy sense of direction', together with 'which in some cases differ wildly from your own accounts', and the earlier remark about constructive criticism, are meant to express an natural fan reaction and cast doubt on the reliability of Lemony's narrative. The sense of direction bit is perhaps particularly inspired by her reading of TCC. I'm not suggesting that L is in any way dishonest or even self-deceived; only that he makes mistakes in the way that all historians do. This can be seen as an acknowledgement of some of the problems in the coherence of the story. (I don't think it's true that unreliable narrators are always exposed - we know that Handler is an admirer of Vladimir Nabokov, and he created two unreliable narrators, Humbert Humbert and Charles Kinbote, who are never explicitly exposed. There are clues to their deceptiveness, of course, but there's a clue here, namely Beatrice's questioning details of L's story.) I agree that the bit about the help provided by the Baudelaires can simply relate to things they taught B before they were separated. The fact that she used knowledge derived from them to find the school is striking, though - did they know about the school (perhaps from A Series of Unfortunate Events) even though they didn't know about the detials of Beatrice and Lemony's story? Or did they just teach her some VFD codes which enabled her to recognise it for what it was? What does 'yak-foot' mean? So, it seems that after sitting through the business letter writing class, B actually managed to be admitted to genuine volunteer training - including baticeering. I don't see why she shouldn't actually have learned to train bats - certainly she didn't like bats earlier, when she found them in Lemony's cave, but attitudes can change. I'm guessing B must have been in the school for at least a year in all, making the whole of her part of the book cover at least two years. Clearly VFD has declined further since the time of ASOUE - the people whom B met at the school are 'those last few volunteers', and now it looks as if even they are dispersed - B's instructor, at least, having fled to the hills. But she is looking for other orphans, so recruitment still goes on. I'm wondering if when B says 'You must have such an item yourself' she (or the author) has anything particular in mind. The paperweight might be an example if Ike was an instructor, as he may have been; but she's already seem the paperweight, and what she says here sounds in some way more charged than that.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 8, 2009 15:28:11 GMT -5
Well, there is no doubt she is using that name within the story. And presumably the letters were called something in manuscript - I find it hard to believe that the heading 'LS to BB' is a pure invention of the designers. But my main evidence is 'Because I loved her so much, it never occurred to me that there could be more than one Beatrice Baudelaire', togther with the fact that this might actually explain the 'Baudelaire parents' reference, while Bertrand's parents don't seem relevant. Of course, Lemony continued to love Beatrice long after she became Beatrice Baudelaire. Meanwhile, many epistolary novels manage without headings cluing us in to who's being written to and who's sending a letter, given that that information is frequently included in the letter itself, as it is in TBL. I find it somewhat improbable that you cannot imagine the manuscript not containing these tiny, artificial notes. (But I'm a TBL purist. One may well imagine me one of these days producing a "canon" version of TBL, which would simply be an individually proof-read version of the text typed neatly on ordinary paper.) That is true, and that is why Beatrice's surrender of it is even less dramatic... surely it must have held some value to her, too? As for R. giving it to Lemony for Beatrice's engagement ring, perhaps it's an early wedding gift, or a reflection of her close friendship with them both? (Which I suppose one may, and indeed one has, read in multiple ways.) I see; thank you for that information. Of course, it's just occurred to me that R. being the initial of the surname of the Winnipeg line also has a problem in that, were they to marry, they would probably change their surnames, and we know the relevant position is the obviously female Duchess... however, they might not change their surnames at all, social standing being one influence on that. Maybe the bally thing's just an heirloom which many members of the family, including R., are named after? Another family naming tradition, if you like. I don't regard the text of the sonnet to actually - that is to say, I think it metafictionally encompasses the story as a whole, rather than referring to a specific canonical incident; the line you quote would therefore refer to the story as a whole rather than a specific canonical incident, in my reading. (An alternative reading may use the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy - Lemony becomes a brae-man because of the poem/play - but that still leaves the story that the poem is based on, which is very obviously TBL.) All we know about Bela is that they own a yacht, which strikes me as very gender-neutral. I'll continue to presume the character is female. Any reasons I could provide would merely be influenced by my initial assumption. Indeed so. If I recall correctly, BB to LS #5 suggests she did this during at least one performance of MSK, and that she and Lemony met up afterwards; I take it that this is a sign they often use - although you may equally well claim that this is so because the play happens to use a hatpin. Beatrice's questioning of Lemony's story doesn't lead anywhere. It is explained within the plot of aSoUE in a fashion that is entirely consistent with the plot itself and its thematic development. Reading Lemony as an unreliable narrator means not one word of the text can be trusted, and therefore aSoUE ceases to exist. Lemony as unreliable narrator is all-destroying nihilism that cannot co-exist with any element of the books. One may as well argue that he is merely a pseudonym for another individual fabricating a fantastical and occasionally contradictory series of novels for amusement and profit. The Baudelaires' knowledge of V.F.D. codes is pretty woeful; your suggestion that they picked up details from ASoUE would work perfectly, however, and also explains where Beatrice (eh, albeit precociously) might have picked up certain background about Beatrice and Lemony without understanding the whole story. How retrospectively obvious. She went to Lemony's cave on a yak, remember? So at that point she was travelling not on foot but on yak-foot. Handler perhaps has something personal in mind, but I don't know if Beatrice does. The paperweight isn't exactly the most useful item compared to Beatrice's corkscrew. It's so fragile that you couldn't even bludgeon somebody to death with it.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 8, 2009 16:49:58 GMT -5
I find it somewhat improbable that you cannot imagine the manuscript not containing these tiny, artificial notes. (But I'm a TBL purist. One may well imagine me one of these days producing a "canon" version of TBL, which would simply be an individually proof-read version of the text typed neatly on ordinary paper.) I know that what Handler originally planned was barer than the actual product; but were things actually inserted aginst his will? Anyway, a version such as you have in mind would be very bare indeed - it wouldn't even contain the anagram (not just the cut-out letters, which I'd agree could be omitted without undue loss, but the marginal letters and photos). I take it that these at least were part of the author's intention, since there are things in the letters which exist only to justify them, and so some preparation beyond the mere printing of the text was always planned - and in that case some way of referring to the letters was necessary - 'Put an E in the margin of BB to LS number 1', etc. There are any number of reasons why R might have given the ring to Lemony - and you can emphasise her feelings towards him, or towards Beatrice, as you like; what is odd is her giving it up at all. Yes, makes sense. Metafictionally, I agree; the main significance of the poem for us, as readers, is the way it encapsulates the story as a whole. Nevertheless it's part of the story that Beatrice actually composed this poem, and it was printed in the programme of My Silence Knot, before the story as a whole had played itself out; and I think it's fair to try to work out what this might mean within the story. One might explain it by saying simply that there is, within the story, a work of fiction which happens to correspond to the overall story - this is quite a common fictional device - except for the line 'this poignant melodrama's based on fact', which implies that real events had already taken place which provided a ground for what happens in the play. Hmph. We are told that there were some secrets the Baudelaires did not tell Beatrice, and some she would never know. The second part cannot account for differences between the Baudelaires' story and the books, because in that case B would come to know them, when she read the books. Rather it implies that just as the Baudelaires are keeping secrets, so is Lemony. The first part accounts for differences, but only of omission - 'differ wildly' sounds to me as if it means something much stronger than that the books contain incidents the Baudelaires hadn't mentioned. If that were true no book with an unreliable narrator would exist; but they do. You use common sense, as you do when evaluating reports in real life, asking which bits are most coherent, where there might be an explanation for his getting something wrong, and so on. Let's see. They do know, from Ishmael, the bare bones of a story about their mother and 'Kit Snicket's brother'. They don't know the name 'Lemony'; but when B saw the books or heard rumours about them she would have been able to put two and two together. The thing that made me doubtful was Violet's 'What does she mean by saying she's been heartbroken before?'; and Sunny's response 'You know what "heartbroken" means,' doesn't suggest any actual knowledge of the facts. But perhaps they are just failing to think things through - and in fact Beatrice does say something - 'Abelard' - which perhaps shows a deeper understanding. 'first by yak, then by foot, and then by yak-foot'. 'by yak-foot' means something different from 'by yak'. Oh gosh, this is swallowing up too much of my time. And there's at least one thing yet to come which will require a fight.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 9, 2009 3:19:20 GMT -5
I know that what Handler originally planned was barer than the actual product; but were things actually inserted aginst his will? Anyway, a version such as you have in mind would be very bare indeed - it wouldn't even contain the anagram (not just the cut-out letters, which I'd agree could be omitted without undue loss, but the marginal letters and photos). I take it that these at least were part of the author's intention, since there are things in the letters which exist only to justify them, and so some preparation beyond the mere printing of the text was always planned - and in that case some way of referring to the letters was necessary - 'Put an E in the margin of BB to LS number 1', etc. Hermes, the section in parentheses was intended to be a humourous diversion. I am fully aware that the correspondence requires certain elaborations, be they in the form of photographs, drawings, or whatever. But these can be achieved in multiple ways. The photographs could be faked, or the illustrations could be drawn by one of a choice of peole. I think the punch-out letters, however, aptly demonstrate that the process of design which led from the book being a few pages of text to the book being a highly decorative package costing far more than its minimal page count would suggest included the addition of features which dilute the book as originally conceived. How about the following: It's a family heirloom, correct? And yet - barring a single allusion in TSS - it would seem that R. doesn't have any children, nor is she married. Possibly this is a situation she anticipated. Certain readings of her feelings towards Beatrice may explain how she could anticipate that, or may not. The younger Beatrice disposed of the ring with yet greater flippancy. Perhaps it's really ugly? I don't think I see any need for the existence of two separate but necessarily similar stories to which the sonnet is referring. I think that any factual story that the sonnet is based on would require the future to be anticipated to an undue level. Alternatively, the point of the sonnet may be that the facts it is based on lead one to an anticipation of a future which includes such things as brae-men and dead people, but that would still amount to its encapsulation of the plot itself. As I read it, either the second part of the sentence is an emphasis of the first, or it is a more general statement - that is, either there are some secrets about the Baudelaires that Beatrice will never know (for example, the details of a certain slope-based scene, although I agree that this would be difficult for one who had read the books), or there are secrets she will never know which, hey, lots of people don't know, her adopted guardians included, and that might cover anything. There are secrets the Baudelaires are aware of, for example, but nonetheless do not know - the nature of the Great Unknown, for instance. (One may invoke Donald Rumsfeld's infamous "known unknowns" here.) I am entirely comfortable with the possibility that the Baudelaires told Beatrice a heavily redacted version of their own history, given that it is suggested that they do exactly that, just as their parents did for them. Genuine unreliable narrators are unreliable to a certain end. There is a secret which can be inferred, a meaning which can be deduced, a method to the madness, and a point to the duplicity. There is no such explanation for Lemony being an unreliable narrator. It is lazy cynicism that achieves nothing, furthers nobody's understanding of the series, and reveals zero hidden secrets. Authors are as human as the rest of us, and sometimes they make mistakes, or change their minds. It happens often, and I think it is quite silly to invoke unreliable narrators where the intention of such a thing by the author and indeed the necessity of such a thing to understanding the story is in considerable doubt. That is problematic, but I'd really rather like to come up with something from the canon to explain how young Beatrice knows what she knows, rather than delegating it to some off-screen explanation which we can never know and which probably doesn't exist. Conceivably ASoUE contains a number of hints and anecdotes which, given time and thought, can be strung together into the bare bones of a story - essentially how we ourselves inferred much of aSoUE's backstory, albeit with the assistance of the U.A. and TBL. That young Beatrice would have to retain this information from quite such a young age is regrettable, but alternatives are somewhat lacking. Apologies; I've put my copy of the book away (it clutters up the desk), and it's a pain to dig it out of its place wedged in one of my bookshelves to check a single line. That looks like mere punnery to me - playing with words for the sake of it in much the same way as the "glass case" line in the Kind Editor letter. Could it be the theory that like nobody's ever agreed with me about and which Daniel Handler himself has implied is incorrect?! I kinda hope not. The fights about that were boring enough the first time.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 9, 2009 8:10:52 GMT -5
I think the punch-out letters, however, aptly demonstrate that the process of design which led from the book being a few pages of text to the book being a highly decorative package costing far more than its minimal page count would suggest included the addition of features which dilute the book as originally conceived. Agreed. I think there is a reason for it - it allows us to do what Lemony is said to be doing, ordering the letters to see what they spell (not that I have; it would damage the book) - but it is overdone. I'm guessing, though, that the original plan was for something more like the UA - which is book-sized and book-shaped, and much less gimmicky, but still has something of the appearance of a file, with documents in what appears to be their original form, and photos, and so on. And in that case it's a rather uncertain question to what extent the addtional material is canon - this affects not only the stamps, but something else I'll come to shortly. Yes, I think I agree with all that. Could be. It's weird. Perhaps young B was in a rather more desperate state than her tone suggests. She's living on wild flowers and weeds, apparently; not a comfortable existence. Not too surprising, I think - young B in the epilogue seems to be rather like Sunny in earlier books, and she was clearly a remarkable child. LS to BB 6. I hadn't previously realised that Night Lettergram was real. This does make the misprint even more surprising. I'll have to think about this a bit more. This is the clearest evidence we've had yet of Beatrice's identity - not only the address to Mrs Baudelaire, but the apparent prediction of Violet/Quigley. L is writing from a long way off - Peru? The opening lines recall the cutting of the wires in TUA and TCC. It seems likely that some years have passed since letter 5. It includes several lines like 'after all these years' 'so long ago' 'so many years ago'. I get the sense L has not seen B for a long time. I agree that this was probably written after B and B's return from the island. It's quite likely that V was conceived there; not certain, as her parents were only there for a few months, but in any case it's unlikely B's pregnancy would be widely known before she went there. Also 'I understand that you and your husband are still alive' suggests someone had reported that they were dead, which makes sense of they were shipwrecked on the island. Whether B actually got the telegram is unclear; though the fact that Klaus is not called Lemony suggests she found out, in some way, that he was alive. I think this telegram should be connected with the story of the masked ball. It is written while Beatrice is pregnant with Violet, hence fifteen years before the events of ASOUE. At the masked ball L approached Beatrice and tried to give her the message he had been waiting to give her for fifteen long and lonely years. I think those years should be counted from the telegram, which was his last attempt to communicate with her. Up to now we might well have thought the should be counted from the time of the breakup - and Jacques did tell him, when he left the country, not to commuicate with B. This retcons that, and so also blocks a certain speculation about Violet. As to what the message is - that's hard to say. I did once speculate that it may have arisen from what happened at the Building Committee meeting - though that doesn't fit with L being in Peru. It's a bit odd that only L can give B this message; they are members of the same organisation, with which L is clearly in active contact at least part of the time'; so even if L can't commuicate with B personally he could get it to her indirectly in some way. Of course, when the 'fifteen long and lonely years' theme was introduced in TAA, VFD had not been fully worked out. (And in any case, why is it dangerous for L to communicate with B specifically? When Jacques told him not to, he also said not to communicate with K and D; but clearly he has resumed contact with them.) 'as you hoped, so many years ago, for a bat to obey your orders'. This echoes something in Beatrice's opening letter; the unreliability of bats is a theme that recurs. I think this may link up with 'A piece of mail fails to arise one day', and perhaps suggests that the piece of mail was from B rather than to her. BB to LS 6. I think this message is to Lemony. First, the language - 'I will leave and never try to contact you again' strikes me as odd when addressed to someone she is writing to for the first time; it seems more natural if addressed to someone she has tried to contact in the past; she has resolved to have one last try and then give up. Then - if the card is not to him, how did L get it (since the book is meant to be a file compiled by him)? Finally, the routing slip on the back (which I realise you may argue is not canon) would seem to imply that L and B did meet, since it's written by him, but has her initials on it in her writing. (Mind you, there's evidence the book was sent to the editor a long time after the events; so you can argue L and B did not meet then, but later. Unless the meeting in the cafe happens some time after Beatrices's earlier adventures - but then if she is ten in the cafe, she must be something like five when she is in the business letter writing class - not impossible if she's a new Sunny, but I guess we shouldn't overdo the improbabilites.)
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 9, 2009 11:03:21 GMT -5
Agreed. I think there is a reason for it - it allows us to do what Lemony is said to be doing, ordering the letters to see what they spell (not that I have; it would damage the book) - but it is overdone. I'm guessing, though, that the original plan was for something more like the UA - which is book-sized and book-shaped, and much less gimmicky, but still has something of the appearance of a file, with documents in what appears to be their original form, and photos, and so on. And in that case it's a rather uncertain question to what extent the addtional material is canon - this affects not only the stamps, but something else I'll come to shortly. Yeah, we can't identify specifically what are and what aren't Handler's own ideas... we can use the copyright page to pin the photographs down to someone else, for example, but can we say whether he was photographing items he'd collected, or the HC team had collected, or that Handler possessed? We know that Alison Donalty and Chloe Foglia hit the antique stores to dig up some of the materials for TBL, but exactly what and which, and did Handler get a say? (We don't even know if Handler gets any say on things like illustrations - I understand that most authors don't get to set the details, but do get to choose from various drafts, for example.) My opinion isn't - I'm probably contradicting myself here - that we can definitely say X isn't canon and Lemony would hate it and want to tear it up, merely to say that we can't be sure that he was responsible for it. Like, say, the typo in the telegram formatting. Yes, I don't see what else she'd have had to trade - or alternatively, that's what the shepherd wanted. If you consider the line "I don't know what I will have to trade to get back" (paraphrase), then that suggests the ring is something that the shepherd asked for in trade - which may suggest that he is fully aware of the ring's history and has some personal interest to it. That would be rather more significant than thinking that Beatrice effectively pawned it away. Yes, I agree with that. I think this to a certain degree may rest on how old Sunny is, but surprise surprise, we don't know that either. I think that according to TRR she is younger than four, at least, but at that range of ages kids develop quite quickly... I think. I must admit, it worried me a bit - until I noticed what I mentioned in my post, that the alignment of the text in the bottom bar is different between the original and the TBL version, indicating that it was remade or at least tampered with. And I feel happy that I've cited enough other circumstantial evidence to indicate that this could be accidental. I'm never sure how seriously I take all the "fleeing the country" business from the U.A. I keep on thinking of Lemony being in hiding in some generically far away place but without real locations being involved. I guess the series sitting alongside real locations never sat well with me - just as some people want to locate where aSoUE is set, I kinda want to brush aside the real locations instead. Peru makes sense - I suppose Jacques managed to tell Beatrice where Lemony was, since I think he said he'd attempt something of the sort in the U.A.? Good point; I'd forgotten about that. That's quite ironic; each thought the other was dead. I agree that Violet was probably conceived on the island; it seems... well, a bit messy for it to have been just before, and the Baudelaire parents' time on the island seems to... they were also shepherding or parenting the island as well, right? So becoming literal parents is a metaphor for that - or rather, vice-versa. Even worse, considering we don't know what the message was and it evidently wasn't that dire. But the fact that the document itself exists rather than just being dead data that was never delivered due to a broken telegram machine suggests to me that she received it. It seems a handy way for her to have learned that Lemony was still alive - there is a means on-screen, rather than having to hypothesise an off-screen one. I recoil somewhat from the actual jiggery-pokery of establishing a timeline, so I'm glad you were willing to step up to the bat. That would make a lot of sense, yes, that the message Lemony is trying to pass on at the masked ball is the same he was trying to pass on in the telegram. Although, thinking now if the telegram wasn't sent, could it be fifteen years between the fifth and sixth letters, or rather, between the fifth letter and the masked ball with the sixth having failed to arrive? Which could be the letter that failed to arrive... but as I said, I don't like working with the timeline. My speculation in the next paragraph erases this possibility, anyway. It'd just be handy to conflate certain events and certain crucial messages rather than be left with multiple unknowns littering the landscape. I think that there would be extra incentive for people to advise Lemony not to contact Beatrice even after he had returned and become able to speak to Kit and Daniel Handler - she's happily married to someone else. He would be an unwelcome spectre to her, and the vision would also be most unwelcome to him. It may be a mark of Lemony's devotion to Beatrice that this is something he wants to do for her personally; alternatively, perhaps the message he tried to deliver at the masked ball was something he'd only discovered recently, which was of pressing urgency, and so he quite literally did not have time to waste passing it on through other volunteers. This would fit with it being about Olaf planning revenge, I imagine - and we know it's about Olaf. That's true, and now you mention it that's been suggested before, and I don't know why I didn't think of it, considering what I was arguing earlier about the lack of a missing letter from TBL. Possibly a letter from Beatrice regarding Lemony's theatrical reviews, or the malevolent intentions of a certain actor, or the increasing charms of a certain co-star might have caused events to take a different and less tragic direction? I disagree entirely. Considering Beatrice's persistence in trying to contact Lemony - a persistence that literally spans years - and what I feel is the highly conclusive nature of her fifth letter compared to the vignette that is the sixth, I would say that Beatrice writing in this way to Lemony is most out of character. It's also far more informal than her usual communication, being written on a calling card - an item used for introductions - rather than on formal letter paper. Compare to the alternative - if Beatrice has a crush on this person, extreme sensitivity to their feelings and a willingness to self-deny for their sake seem extremely likely. The obvious parallels to the first letter, the fact I mentioned that calling cards are for introductions - I can't agree that this would be to Lemony. It bears no resemblance to her previous letters, but its features make absolute sense according to the interpretation I promote. How did he get back the letters he sent to Beatrice? I've suggested an explanation for how he got the first four back, but not the fifth and sixth. Much like the question of how Lemony is able to know to such precise detail what happened to the Baudelaires, it's merely narrative convenience - Lemony is a great researcher, and we accept it as that. You're quite right that I'm certainly not accepting as canon a minor detail of the routing slip which is itself of unclear meaning. Putting "BB" under "Date" looks to me more likely to be a joke about the original Beatrice, not the second, anyway. But at that, where did I say Lemony and Beatrice never met? I think they did meet. I think Beatrice's fifth letter has a sufficiently optimistic ending to make that a reality - and besides, I believe Handler's said they did, anyway. If the fifth letter didn't convince Lemony, the sixth certainly wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 9, 2009 14:23:14 GMT -5
Yes, I don't see what else she'd have had to trade - or alternatively, that's what the shepherd wanted. If you consider the line "I don't know what I will have to trade to get back" (paraphrase), then that suggests the ring is something that the shepherd asked for in trade - which may suggest that he is fully aware of the ring's history and has some personal interest to it. That would be rather more significant than thinking that Beatrice effectively pawned it away. Yes, I'm, thinking something like that - which makes sense if the shepherd has VFD connections. Even so, I think it's a bit odd they managed this typo when they had an exemplar of the correct spelling right in front of them. More on this later. Don't worry, I'm not going to reveal an amazing secret message. (If there were a secret mesage, it would be DREE. Or if we rearrange the letters, DEER or REED. Which clearly means that ....) Ah, good point. I guess - the masked ball can't be more than fifteen years after Violet's birth, since Beatrice was still alive, but it could be less. But I prefer my theory - it allows us to conflate the two fifteen year gaps we know about, without having any undesirable consequences. Yes, makes sense. I'm fairly sure he says in TAA that the message he gave to B was the same one he had been trying to give for fifteen years. Well, I think it might, just by being less confrontational. But OK, if they met, I'm not going to worry about exactly when, and which letter prompted it. I thought you were pushing for a conclusion even more disastrous than the generally accepted one - if not, no worries. And indeed, if he is in touch with Beatrice, there's no deep problem about how he got the card. Letter to the Editor. It's odd that the letter to the editor, normally just a postscript, should become one of the thirteen components of the book. (Does the poem count as part of the same component? Or is it a forteenth, mirroring Chapter 14?) 'It was quite some time before I received the first of Beatrice Baudelaire's letters...' - this sentence would run much more naturally if it read 'quite some time after...' - and that, in fact, is how I first read it. Because L loved B so much, he did not believe there could be another one; so he did not grasp the siginficance of the letter from young B when he first received it. But that isn't what it says. It seems he was aware of the second Beatrice before she wrote to him - and somehow knew that she would write letters - and that they would be significant. Which is odd. Indeed, it seems that by the time she reached his office he had indeed 'begun work on the file' - she found a collection of letters there. This raises the question of the relation of this book to The End. I originally thought that he could not have written TE when B first wrote to him (since I supposed he did not know who she was). But that seems wrong. He did know who she was. The most likely explanation, I think, is that he had already researched The End: he had been on the island and read A Series of Unfortunate Events. Since my old theory of the chronology of writing has been exploded, I now suggest this: L wrote The End during his time in the hills - his description of his life at the end of chapter 13, according to which he spends much time on a brae looking out at the same sea, fits that. But chapter 14, I think, which seems (in-story) like an afterthought, was added later, perhaps after he met Beatrice. (The dedication of chapter 14 - 'We are like boats passing in the night; particualrly you' - is striking; it rather suggests L wants to find B; and some things in the letters (2 and 3) suggest that as well, though others work against it.) Anyway; some time has passed since the main events of TBL; in between there was an incident when Lemony was in a glass case; years seem to have passed both before and after that incident. I take the signficance of 'unravelled' to be that the story in which L was involved has played itself out, and there is no one left to benefit from his discovery; L was searching for the sonnet to complete the file, but though it is completed, this no longer helps anyone - (the original) Beatrice is dead, her children either dead or lost, VFD perhaps dispersed. 'you may never answer the questions that are most important to you' - an anticipation of the theme of The End. My Silence Knot This is extremely precious, being the only thing we have written by Beatrice herself. There were presumably things in the original play which explained it, but we can only see its relevance to the actual lives of Lemony and Beatrice. Most is fairly clear - their separation and his solitariness; the 'piece of mail' remains a bit of a mystery. But what puzzles me most is the final couplet. Lemony broke his silence just before Beatrice died, at the masked ball, but he is not the one who died - and I don't think he is dead now, since writings by him are still appearing. Young Beatrice broke her silence, but she is not dead either. Or might the poem here relate to itself? The elder Beatrice's silence is broken, long after her death, when her poem is discovered - but by then it is too late; 'the curtain falls' as we read it. (Yet to come; the posters; the anagram; possible other secret messages; the duality of Beatrice.)
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 9, 2009 15:29:14 GMT -5
Yes, I'm, thinking something like that - which makes sense if the shepherd has VFD connections. If the old shepherd was Ishmael (I don't think he is, but the possibility exists), then that'd be so messed-up. The ring's story would involve yet more redundancy. I'll wait to see what more you have, then, but I agree, the typo is odd. They all are. My position is to caution against thinking it means anything. My explanations are necessarily speculative, and therefore necessarily inventive - for example: What if the typo was introduced to help deliberately distinguish between the new one and the original in case an obscure rights owner popped up with objections? It's not really, though. The message would've been sent no matter what happened because the machine wouldn't break until the A. However, Beatrice still might not have received it, and there is precedent in the series for telegrams not arriving (or not being read, anyway...). But in retrospect, it's not as if it matters. The message was never fully typed anyway. Yes, but there are still the logistical difficulties you highlighted yourself, such as: Why is it only Lemony's problem? One may say that he is, for example, still a constant fugitive from justice in flight also from criminal enemies, but he was able to work with his siblings on the Snicket File. And his communication of the message didn't work. Beatrice died. So I don't really know what to think here. The nature of the message could perhaps be explained as being something Beatrice wouldn't believe coming from anyone but Lemony, and that it can go fifteen years without being of pressing urgency suggests it is a secret rather than a plot, but where does that leave us? What fulfils the requirements? Unless it's just being shuffled off-screen, a "known unknown" which we can only imagine, like the sugar bowl. Well, perhaps it is that. Oh, just thought of something. What if Lemony thought the telegram had been sent, but in fact Beatrice never did receive it? And thus he goes about his business not worrying about it, for fifteen years, until he discovers somehow - perhaps by Beatrice getting herself into some situation - that in fact she must not have received the message at all, and he is moved to rush into a masked ball and - etc. A little implausible, perhaps, but it would seem to resolve some of the difficulties here. I think the ending of TBL is filled with hope and despair. That's how all the other books in the series end, right? I think the fact that the sonnet leads into a "The End" page that's numbered thirteen means that it can't be considered a fourteenth. I suggest that it is, although this messes with one's head a bit, TBL's equivalent to the Kind Editor letters. An important but brief postscript. I think that... well, without addressing your main suggestion here, I think to suggest that Lemony and Beatrice are like ships passing in the night (as I believe the phrase usually goes) is quite true; just like at what happens in BB to LS #3. She spent some months, maybe a year, journeying from the city to the hills in search of him, but at some point he stopped waiting and journeyed from the hills to the city. They may indeed have been within inches of each other at some point. (I'm vaguely tempted to link Lemony's failure to wait for Beatrice to Beatrice's failure to wait for Lemony... a bit tentative, though, in numerous ways.) Are you including actual quotations in that, or merely pieces of writing? Because there is a certain rather odd scene in The End. That's quite good.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 10, 2009 8:10:02 GMT -5
Oh, just thought of something. What if Lemony thought the telegram had been sent, but in fact Beatrice never did receive it? And thus he goes about his business not worrying about it, for fifteen years, until he discovers somehow - perhaps by Beatrice getting herself into some situation - that in fact she must not have received the message at all, and he is moved to rush into a masked ball and - etc. A little implausible, perhaps, but it would seem to resolve some of the difficulties here. Wel,, it's not even that the telegram wasn't sent - just the warning. (Though come to think of it, that's a bit odd. 'Oh look, Bertrand, it's a telegram from Lemony. He's trying to warn me of something terrible. I wonder what. Oh well, it doesn't matter.') TAA does say 'the message I had been trying to give her for fifteen long anf lonely years' - but I'm not sure how seriously we should take that, as he's just said he hadn't approached her in all that time. Yes, absolutely. Oh, that's certainly true. It's just that it seems odd to dedicate a chapter to someone, writing 'we are like boats passing in the night', if you're actually trying to avoid her. I'm wondering - we only have B's word for it that L is trying to avoid her. Might he be desperately trying to communicate with her in messages that keep going astray (pieces of mail that fail to arrive)? That sort of fits letters 2 and 3 - and in letter 5, if your reading is right, he did answer - or perhaps, if you don't accept that, he really has a lousy sense of direction, and took the wrong staircase. But letter 4, where she knocks on his door and isn't admitted, is hard to fit in. Ah, bother. (And indeed, there is a piece of B's writing in The End, now I come to think of it.) Thanks! PosterThe shipwreck side - shows, obviously, the shipwreck, probably on the Baudelaires' voyage back from the island. Clearly they were there; I don't think we can conclude that they were drowned. First because young Beatrice was there as well, and she wasn't drowned; and second because in The End Lemony remains uncertain of their fate, even in chapter 14, which must have been written after Beatrice made contact with him. The cave side - Lemony's cave in the hills, where he is collecting evidence regarding the Baudelaires. I wouldn't have guessed, just looking at the picture, that it was in the hills - it seems to be just a cave by the sea - but it could be on a slope overlooking the sea. I like Dante's idea that it corresponds with the map in TUA; (it's doubtful how accurate that map is, of course, but then the same doubts could apply to this poster). In that case the braes are on one of the peninsulas enclosing the bay (which explains what I had long found puzzling - how he could be on land but also looking across to land - since there's no suggestion he's on an island). The factory in the middle certainly looks like the horseradish factory. Those are mountains on the left, are they? They are nearer than I would have expected - the sense the books give is that the hitnerlands are betwen the mountains and the sea - but as the mountains are in the north, the east and the west, I don't suppose one can complain. (It's curious, by the way, that though one side of the poster realtes to Lemony and the other to Beatrice, both belong to the 'future' part of the story.) The anagram. The letter to the editor seems to me to say fairly clearly that the letters can spell more than one thing. One thing they spell is clearly BEATRICE SANK. They do spell other things, which are sort of meaningful, but none sound quite right. A SNICKET BRAE can mean a hill where a Snicket lives, and A BRAE SNICKET can mean a Snicket who lives on a hill. However, I'm going to go with CASKET IN BRAE - using 'casket' not in the sense of 'coffin', but in the older sense of a small box or chest, as for jewels (as in the Casket Letters ascribed to Mary Queen of Scots, or the Casket Scene in Merchant of Venice). We know that Lemony has such a box, and the poster of the cave shows it. So each side of the poster shows one interpretation of the anagram. Other secret messages. All attempts to find other secret messages have failed. But I wonder whether the misprints are meant to give us a sense of secret messages within the story, which only people with VFD training can decipher - while as Dante pointed out, the secret message we can decipher is not visible to anyone within the story. The two Beatrices. Fascinating though the story of the two Beatrices is, I suspect young Beatrice was invented, or at least named (since the leaked film script suggests the plan for Kit to have a child goes back some way), as part of a programme of deception, to delay the discovery of who the older Beatrice was. This enabled Handler to say things like 'Some truth but not total truth,' and 'Just because it's one name doesn't mean it has to be one person', and avoid coming out and saying 'It's the Baudelaires' mother, of course'. Which was a bit unfair, since the Beatrice whom we had heard about throughout the series, and to whom all the books are dedicated, is the Baudelaires' mother. This book of course reveals, though not quite in so many words, who the older Beatrice is, but gives us a new mystrery in the younger Beatrice - that she was Kit's child is a fair guess, but not certain, and leaves the puzzle of why she is called Baudelaire. So while the average casual reader can still find the original Beatrice's identity a revelation in the last book, the keen, who had worked that out, are given a new revelation to look forward to. (Don't tell me that The End resolves nothing.)
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 10, 2009 9:51:49 GMT -5
Wel,, it's not even that the telegram wasn't sent - just the warning. (Though come to think of it, that's a bit odd. 'Oh look, Bertrand, it's a telegram from Lemony. He's trying to warn me of something terrible. I wonder what. Oh well, it doesn't matter.') TAA does say 'the message I had been trying to give her for fifteen long anf lonely years' - but I'm not sure how seriously we should take that, as he's just said he hadn't approached her in all that time. Well yeah, exactly. If the telegram does get sent, it doesn't matter that the terrible warning is incomplete - Beatrice isn't just going to up and forget about it. I guess you could say that she remains concerned and vigilant, and we have no evidence that that isn't true, but... Anyway, maybe Snicket literally couldn't get any nearer to Beatrice in those fifteen years, either due to being out of the country, on the run in general, etc. And thus passing on a message he believes has already been passed on, no matter how crucial it is, becomes even less of a priority, until he learns that he was mistaken and it becomes so great a priority that he has to risk capture (and indeed is captured) in communicating it. Well, if you were speculating that Chapter Fourteen was written after Lemony met the younger Beatrice, as I think you were considering, then the dedication would work, because they'd have met by then. Oh yes, notice another instance in which they may be like boats passing in the night - of the final illustrations in The End, one shows Lemony approaching the island, the other shows the Baudelaires leaving it (which may be iffy depending on which timeline you follow, but these would be set a bit more than a year after the Baudelaires left the mainland at the end of TPP and thus effectively left the public sphere). Heh, I forgot the obvious one, too, and remembered the minor one... we'll perhaps move onto The End this weekend or Monday? That the cave overlooks the sea, and the opposite shoreline, may be artistic license - quite apart from it looking rather more interesting than a cave overlooking a bunch of dull hills, it ties in a bit more with some of the motifs of TBL and The End (the ocean, the mainland, etc.). Since both the U.A.'s map and the poster are Helquist's creation, I don't see it as a problem that the canonicity of one or the other is questionable. And the square objects on the left resemble, I think, the mountains to some degree - the regular formation, the apparent snowy caps. They may be near, but that may be an illusion created by curvature of the far shore, and I think Helquist would've wanted to include them since they're in the book as well. That is interesting. But I think - while it's true that both relate to the future part of the story, they also have echoes of the past; the shipwreck has its parallels to that at the start of The End and indeed the one Bertrand and Beatrice must have suffered, and the bat-infested cave also links up with that of LS to BB #2. Although those are products of the writing, not the illustration... I'm totally stealing that as a get-out clause, since I've been saying for a while now that the anagram was intended to produce red herrings. Would that be the box which we don't know the contents of, which is never described outside of the illustration, and which has no relevance to the plot? (Unless, as I proposed earlier, it's one of the boxes mentioned in TEE, and I've already been foolish enough to go and say that I'd accept that despite the fact it's not wooden.) Is it more cynical to think Handler changed his mind, or that he was (effectively) lying, I wonder? (And re: Kit with child, Handler said he knew how the series was going to end from the start, which I choose to interpret as regarding the involvement of a baby who the Baudelaires become guardians of.) Handler's statements on the matter have always been... few and far between, and he can't predict what people are going to ask him. I don't buy that he'd invent the second Beatrice solely so he could give evasive replies to questions that he was never obliged to answer. I can imagine well that an aspect of his choice may have been to mess with the fans' heads a bit, as TBL does, but as you say, it's also a very fascinating story. So I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Besides, the younger Beatrice was introduced in the penultimate book - not even! The optional booklet between the penultimate book and the last book. We'd been spending years doing a perfectly good job of delaying the discovery of Beatrice's identity on our own. (And I think there's a Handler quote out there in which he says that some people have figured out the Beatrice twist and that he doesn't mind because he's not writing the books to shock people with plot twists - or something like that, I'm a lot fuzzier on how the sentence statement ended than on how it began.)
|
|
|
Post by thedoctororwell on Sept 11, 2009 7:17:03 GMT -5
I've been wondering something. Could the twelft letter in TBL and the party held in LSUA's Prologue be... The same event told from two different points of view ? Is Béatrice Dénouement the woman who ends up at the VFD party ? It's not that crazy. I even have several interesting points : * The VFD party is illustrated by a photo on the cover of LSUA (american edition, I least). We see Lemony/Handler sitting in a parlor with other people ; his face is obscured by the passing of a file from a man to a woman wearing gloves and a ring. Beatrice Jr is famous for wearing a ring. * A person at the VFD party indicates that a duchess might be present amongst them, but disguised. Why ? Maybe because he just saw Béatrice Jr wearing the Duchess' ring ! Don't laugh, if Béatrice's features are sufficiently disguised, the confusion is still possible. * At the end, the woman receives a file in an envelope : the Autobiography. Why ? Well, because she's his niece. She has a right to answers about who the hell his uncle is and why he followed the Baudelaires. The info in LSUA was his way of answering. * Moreover in TBL Béatrice says that she has "at least twelves questions" to Lemony. Twelve of LSUA's chapters' titles are questions. The thirteenft can't be read, but I bet it's because it's not supposed to be a question : it's a freaking photo album. Lemony added his photos because he thought she might like the gesture. * In LSUA's prologue, there is a mention about a tradition in the Snicket family, only happening with nieces/nephews and aunts/uncles. It's really too much of a coincidence.
What I think happened : Lemony had finally managed to write the thirteen books. He might have been aware that the Baudelaire had raised his sister's child, but didn't know who the child was. Béatrice Jr learned about his books and began searching for the man who tried to tell the truth about her tutors, and what his motivations were exactly. She didn't know that the Béatrice he talked about in the books was her tutors' mother. She sent him letters, but as they were written by "Béatrice," Lemony it was a poorly devised attempt by Esmé to lure him into a trap by making him believe Béatrice Sr was actually alive. Therefore, he fled whenever Béatrice Jr tracked him down.
She finally managed to corner him at the VFD party where he and his allies were discussing the possibility of publishing Lemony's autobiography. Béatrice Jr came to Lemony and introduced herself. Lemony was of course very confused and didn't understand who the hell she could be. Seeing she was upsetting him, Béatrice left him alone and wrote the twelft letter of TBL, to present a rapid apology. However when Lemony received the letter he racked his brains and understood that Béatrice was his niece. He gave her a copy of LSUA so she could read it before publication.
Then he interviewed her for more information about the Baudelaires : this evidence allowed him to write Chapter Fourteen. In this chapter, he acknowledged that his love for the Baudelaire's mother was the reason behind his work about them ; at the same time, he also revealed the true identity of his niece. Reflecting upon this unexpected yet joyful reunion with the "Béatrice" he had once lost, he felt courageous enough to create TBL.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 11, 2009 7:46:46 GMT -5
Well, if you were speculating that Chapter Fourteen was written after Lemony met the younger Beatrice, as I think you were considering, then the dedication would work, because they'd have met by then. Hm, yes - I'm not so sure about that now - if he has met her, are they like boats passing in the night any more? Unless they met and then she disappeared again (or he did), which is quite possible. It definitely feels to me as if something new happened to provoke the writing of Chapter 14, but I'm not sure what. As you can probably guess, I don't like the implications of that - even if you take L to be just behind the Baudelaires in TSS and TGG, TPP definitely seems to have been written long after. If right, though, it would allow L to write the dedication to Beatrice long before he heard from her. (Has Beatrice read The End? I would be inclined to say not, because she doesn't seem aware of her relation to Lemony. On the other hand, shouldn't she know that even without reading The End? The Baudelaires would presumably have told her her mother's name, and then she would be able to draw the connection.) Well, The End does refer to a brae overlooking the sea. Well, the Beatrice boat isn't mentioned in the text either; that it sank is known only from the anagram and the illustration. As for what the box contains - the world is full of mysteries, but at a guess, since Lemony is collecting evidence, it contains that. Perhaps the actual relics of the Baudelaires (the ribbon, etc.) are in it, since what we see are photos of them. On the other hand, perhaps it contains the sugar bowl. Who knows? I'm not sure I follow that; what might he have been lying about? He was being disingenuous, at least, in saying Beatrice was two people, since the Beatrice everyone wanted to know about, the one referred to throughout the series, to whom every book is dedicated, is one person. That's true whether young Beatrice was a late invention or not. Hmm - that's tricky. On the one hand Kit's child seems to have been planned; on the other, there's evidence her death - on which the significance of the child depends - was not planned a long way in advance. (But that gets us into timeline trouble again.) Edit: I'm only really suggesting that the name was a late invention. Hm, well, yes, let me see - oh, wait! It's not just answers to unpredictable questions; it's also the 'Two called Beatrice' clue in the Vile Videos, and the 'That is indeed Beatrice' clue in the publicity for TPP (which I think in the end must have related to young Beatrice, Kit's unborn child, but might have seemed at the time to relate to the 'previously unknown subling' or the woman in the trunk) .So yes, I think he's messing with our heads. When the 'two Beatrices' theme started to emerge, the natural conclusion was that some of the discrepancies in earlier books could be explained by there having been two Beatrices before and during the timeline of the series - but in fact it didn't mean that at all. Not entirely on our own. There are at least two definite red herrings in the books (the masked ball letter in TUA, and 'the woman whom I happened to love' in TGG) Well, I have no problem with that - I've always said reading the series primarily as a mystery is a mistake - but nevertheless some bits of it are structured like a mystery, and the identity of Beatrice is certainly treated as a puzzle from time to time (most notably in TUA, perhaps, where her picture is missing).
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Sept 11, 2009 17:01:00 GMT -5
My Peep Show DVDs have arrived at the same time as I found my copy of TBL.
Do I lock myself in my living room for 15 hours of Mitchell & Webb goodness, or do I contribute to this discussion...?
I think Mitchell & Webb might win here... sorry guys. I will definitely contribute to discussion for The End.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Sept 12, 2009 11:32:45 GMT -5
... sorry guys. I will definitely contribute to discussion for The End. When is it going to start? Officialy, I mean.
|
|