aussy16
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 1
|
Post by aussy16 on Jun 28, 2010 14:34:37 GMT -5
I was wondering if one of them or both ARE alive. I mean theres a lot of stuff in the books that say one could be alive, but in TE or TPP (I forget), I think it mentions neither being alive. I don't really know if it's been posted before (probably), but I'm new to the site so.. Thoughts anyone?
My thought is Beatrice is hiding somewhere and is still alive, with the sugar bowl maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jun 29, 2010 3:42:43 GMT -5
The subject is never really closed off. The narrative states towards the end of TSS that the Baudelaire father, Bertrand, is dead, but Snicket isn't necessarily omniscient in this regard - he could've been talking from the Baudelaires' perspective, or even been outright wrong. And in The End, the Baudelaires realise that their parents were dead all along and would never return, but this is more that they're moving on from something they never properly understood before; again, there's no actual evidence.
The thirteenth page of the Snicket file states that there was a survivor of the fire, but the page is extremely controversial to the extent that it's not even agreed that it refers to the Baudelaire fire; circumstantial evidence exists to compromise this from either direction.
Lemony is generally considered to be in possession of the sugar bowl last it was seen; it's usually agreed that the damp object the taxi driver in TPP drove off with was the sugar bowl, and that the driver was Lemony himself.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jun 29, 2010 15:07:44 GMT -5
I think the only good reason for thinking that one of the parents had survived was the 'survivor of the fire' line from the Snicket file, and that isn't really very strong. Even though the file is sometimes called the Baudelaire file, we know it dealt with more than one fire. Quigley afterwards suggests that the line refers to him; even if he's wrong, his existence shows that there are other survivors of fires in the world.
There may be a theme of self-deception here. At the beginning of THH we are told the Baudelaires would like to think their parents had not been killed, 'but picturing something doesn't make it so'. This is then underlined when we meet the Volunteers Fighting Disease, who think picturing something does make it so, and are clearly absurd. So later in the book, when the Baudelaires think the line from the Snicket file refers to one of their parents, this is because it is something they would like to believe - and perhaps that Lemony would like to believe as well. Although in TSS, after meeting Quigley, they are still uncertain, in TGG they are almost certain, and in TE they finally accept the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jun 29, 2010 18:40:26 GMT -5
I'm not quite certain the "picturing something doesn't make it so" can be taken as sure evidence that both Baudelaire parents are dead. While I agree that the unlikeliness for their survival is relatively high, it seems more likely that Snicket was referring to the case in a general sense; that visualization isn't reality. In the case of the Volunteers Fighting Disease, picturing something does, in fact, make it so (for example, they picture themselves singing, and then sing) but of course I don't disagree that it is indeed an absurd concept.
I think it's unlikely that either or both of the Baudelaire parents survived, for primarily two reasons: Firstly, the Baudelaire mansion was likely set on fire, i.e., arson. The only possible escapes would be a door or window, which a good arsonist would block off ahead of time. This leaves the secret passageway to the penthouse on Dark Avenue, and from there either parent would easily be able to find their children. Secondly, if Beatrice or Bertrand did survive somehow, why didn't either contact Mr. Poe? He wouldn't be hard to track down, being a public figure, and both of them were apparently on good terms with him (they invited him to dinner on a few occasions).
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jun 30, 2010 2:38:34 GMT -5
I do think that the biggest stumbling block for any theory that either parent survived is the question of why they've never revealed themselves. It is just about possible that they've had to go deep into hiding to avoid their murderous enemies, and have been pursuing their children with as little success as Lemony and Jacques and Justice Strauss and Jerome Squalor, but they should surely at least have been able to get a message to their children.
|
|
|
Post by almostnearly on Jul 30, 2010 15:43:53 GMT -5
I do believe that the Baudelaires' parents survived the fire. However, I do believe that the Baudelaires' parents are still dead.
While Olaf may have set the Baudelaire mansion on fire, his words near the end of TE seem to imply that he believes that he did not make the Baudelaire children orphans. Of anyone, Olaf would know if Beatrice and Bertrand managed to escape the fire. In the notes to the rare edition of TBB, Snicket implies that Olaf is a part of the Official Fire Department that arrived when the mansion caught on fire. Esme was also situated at 667 Dark Avenue where the passageway led. Still, Olaf seems to believe that he wasn't responsible for the children losing their parents, stating that the children know nothing when they accuse him.
So if the parents escaped why do I think they are still dead and why did they not contact their children?
The song by the Gothic Archies for the final book is entitled "Shipwrecked" and features the tale of a man who attempts to get stranded on an island with his beloved, resorting to devious methods to attain his goal. It would seem only connected to ASOUE with the shipwrecked theme but the final word of the song seems strange. The last word is "Again" hinting that the couple had previously been shipwrecked. As a one shot about strangers this seems irrelavant to the final important book in the series.
Unless it is one final clue.
The only couple this could pertain to would be Bertrand and Beatrice. They did survive the fire. However, knowing that Lemony, Beatrice's true love, had re-entered his wife's life, he sought to seperate them and be alone with Beatrice once more. This attempt failed when there was no island nearby and they died of starvation, dehydration or even the Great Unknown.
It has always seemed "convenient" that Beatrice wound up shipwrecked with Bertrand on an island where she could hear no news of Lemony possibly being alive. In one of his letters to Beatrice, Lemony cast suspicion on Bertrand and also alluded to the "jealousies of actors". In truth, we know little of Bertrand's character.
It can be argued that the lyrics of the song suggest that the couple are smokers and Klaus stated that his father didn't smoke but then again there were many things that the Baudelaires did not know about their parents.
If this was the true fate of Bertrand and Beatrice Lemony, or anybody else, may not know about it. It would also explain why the Baudelaires' parents never contacted them.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jul 30, 2010 16:48:59 GMT -5
Eek!
It's a very clever theory, to be sure. My only question is why, if Bertrand is responsible for Beatrice's death, Lemony never shows any hostility towards him. I've always thought this one of Lemony's most admirable qualities - but that's on the assumption that Beatrice really loved Bertrand; on this reading it looks very strange.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jul 30, 2010 18:05:08 GMT -5
Intriguing interpretation! Doesn't the song also mention decapitating a crew, though, implying that they brought others with them? I can't seem to think of why Bertrand would bring anyone else, if his intention was to be alone with Beatrice--unless the crew was metaphorical.
|
|
|
Post by almostnearly on Aug 4, 2010 14:01:13 GMT -5
Eek! It's a very clever theory, to be sure. My only question is why, if Bertrand is responsible for Beatrice's death, Lemony never shows any hostility towards him. I've always thought this one of Lemony's most admirable qualities - but that's on the assumption that Beatrice really loved Bertrand; on this reading it looks very strange. Lemony never showed Bertrand any hostility because he never knew the truth. If the theory is correct there would possibly not be enough evidence to show what really happened. When it comes to those lost at sea fates can be a tricky thing to determine. I'm sure that Sunny would answer with "Mary Celeste". There is also the fact of the schism. Any nefarious act would be at first suspected of being done by an enemy. I am not convinced that Beatrice truly loved Bertrand. I believe that she would leave him if Lemony was alive and free, an opportunity the sugar bowl presented. Intriguing interpretation! Doesn't the song also mention decapitating a crew, though, implying that they brought others with them? I can't seem to think of why Bertrand would bring anyone else, if his intention was to be alone with Beatrice--unless the crew was metaphorical. Lemony references in the notes to the rare edition of TBB that the Baudelaire parents had some pressing bussiness to attend to on the day the mansion caught on fire. I assume that this was VFD bussiness. There is also a reference made in TE that Beatrice had aquired certain weather reports and a naval map when Sunny was a few weeks old. This could have pertained to the mission. If this is the case, VFD would have supplied the crew, possibly without Bertrand's desire. While Beatrice wanted to fulfill the mission and then return to her children, and possibly Lemony who would be freed if he found the sugar bowl, Bertrand had no such desire. He saw the attempt on their life by Olaf as a perfect scapegoat. He could kill the crew without suspicion and end up shipwrecked on an island with Beatrice alone, while they were assumed dead. However, there was no island nearby, probably a result of a wrong naval map or the atlas being destroyed as referenced in TGG.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Aug 4, 2010 16:07:26 GMT -5
Very interesting. One wonders whether they might have been on the Prospero - since the Incredibly Deadly Viper was last heard of on the Prospero, this would give some explanation for how it came ot be lost at sea.
I do wonder - if they were on an expedition for VFD, would not some of the volunteers who met the children know about it?
And an out-of-story question: who writes the songs? Since the song is the main piece of evidence here, this seems important - is it by Handler, or by Stephin Merritt, who can't be expected to know what really happened?
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Aug 4, 2010 17:52:35 GMT -5
They're written by Stephin Merritt, but Handler's performed them (which could be attributed to approval, perhaps?).
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Aug 5, 2010 11:39:52 GMT -5
They're written by Stephin Merritt, but Handler's performed them (which could be attributed to approval, perhaps?). OK, but I think this theory needs more than just approval - the idea is that there is a secret message hidden in them. Not all of them seem to relate directly to the books at all, so Handler's approval needn't mean he has any particular view about the plot of the books. I get the general sense that the songs are darker than the books - Lemony seems to think that there is just a bit of hope, somewhere, I'm not sure Merritt agrees. That 'again' is striking, though. I really don't know what it means.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 7, 2010 10:27:59 GMT -5
Given that, during the course of the song, the protagonists of "Shipwrecked" are indeed shipwrecked (the first half is hypothetical, the second is the reality), the "again" would seem simply to refer to another hypothetical shipwrecking after the somewhat botched first attempt. I would also caution against finding clues to the books in the songs. They're written by Stephin Merritt, and their material seems to me to be of only thematic relevance.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Aug 7, 2010 16:56:29 GMT -5
Given that, during the course of the song, the protagonists of "Shipwrecked" are indeed shipwrecked (the first half is hypothetical, the second is the reality), the "again" would seem simply to refer to another hypothetical shipwrecking after the somewhat botched first attempt. I would also caution against finding clues to the books in the songs. They're written by Stephin Merritt, and their material seems to me to be of only thematic relevance. Are they actually shipwrecked, though? I thought they were becalmed, unable to get anywhere without the crew, but the ship was still intact. And in any case they aren't on an island. I think, though, that if this song relates to anyone in the series it's probably Olaf - not that he ever actually did this, but he might want to do it either with Esme or with Kit. It also might provide some clues as to what happened to Fernald.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 8, 2010 3:07:40 GMT -5
Hmm, my reading was that the protagonists' ship does indeed wreck due to the lack of a crew, but with no island nearby, they were left clinging to bits of detritus. Or possibly to some kind of lone sea rock. I think they'd be in somewhat less dire straits if they still had a ship, and this would satisfy the "again," particularly since a dreadful ocean-related event clearly does occur during the narrative of the song. In any case, though, I'm fairly confident that the song is merely a darkly humourous reading of the idea of shipwrecking, in much the same way that most of the songs pick out one element and spin their own tale.
|
|