Post by prestorjohn on Oct 30, 2014 18:18:31 GMT -5
I was rereading the first book again last night, looking particularly at the book that contains the legend of the Bombinating Beast, which Lemony reads in the library. In light of what's happened in the third book, as well as the second, I think what he found (and essentially dismissed, I get the feeling) raises interesting questions as to how accurate these legends might be, given that one at least, which relates that sailors see the Bombinating Beast still at sea, has some basis in "fact" in the Snicket universe.
"Other stories said that people could tame the Bombinating Beast by imitating its fearsome buzz, and there was a myth about a wizard who held the beast under his power, as long as the terrible monster was kept fed." (77)
If this is true, I'm throwing my lot in with the Bombinating kazoo theory as to the statue; I don't know why it was in the lighthouse with the other memorabilia, I don't know how Hangfire knew was there, but perhaps there's some truth to the story. Obviously, Hangfire wants the beast(s) for some purpose, presumably to take "revenge" on the town, as Dr. Flammarion threatened in book two. If he wants to send them rampaging, and needs the statue to do it, this would explain why he had not collected it from Ellington before book three: he did not need the statue to control the beasts in their larval stage.
I think this also raises interesting questions about what Hangfire means to do with the children, perhaps even something that adds a hint of decency or morality to his character (though I may be misreading this completely). Hangfire is certainly willing to use violence when it suits him, to lie, deceive, kidnap, etc. but to our knowledge, he has only killed Colonel Colophon, someone who, from his point of view, would surely deserve to be punished for his war crimes. Given that he had the chance to kill Lemony in book three and didn't take it, the chance to kill S. Theodore Markson in book one and three and didn't take it, he seems to have an aversion to killing seemingly innocent people; he doesn't like VFD, but there is a great distance between showing up their operatives and killing them. He also has not, to our knowledge, done anything to the children he kidnapped; and it would appear that I was wrong about the larva needing to feast on blood like a parasite to grow (unless Hangfire somehow found a viable population of victims elsewhere, who knows). Generally things with teeth that could bite Lemony are at least omnivores; yet Hangfire has not fed the children to them. Instead, he makes the children fetch honeydew melons as presumable fodder.
I want to propose that Hangfire is operating under some kind of slightly warped but real sense of morality, and that he has no intention of harming the children, but rather intends to get them out of harm's way until he can wreak his revenge on the guilty town; to my knowledge, he has not killed an entirely "innocent" person (from his perspective, and from what we know about the town's history) throughout the entire series. This does not mean that he is noble or a good person; it means he's a complicated villain, with a mix of good and evil inside him.
"Other stories said that people could tame the Bombinating Beast by imitating its fearsome buzz, and there was a myth about a wizard who held the beast under his power, as long as the terrible monster was kept fed." (77)
If this is true, I'm throwing my lot in with the Bombinating kazoo theory as to the statue; I don't know why it was in the lighthouse with the other memorabilia, I don't know how Hangfire knew was there, but perhaps there's some truth to the story. Obviously, Hangfire wants the beast(s) for some purpose, presumably to take "revenge" on the town, as Dr. Flammarion threatened in book two. If he wants to send them rampaging, and needs the statue to do it, this would explain why he had not collected it from Ellington before book three: he did not need the statue to control the beasts in their larval stage.
I think this also raises interesting questions about what Hangfire means to do with the children, perhaps even something that adds a hint of decency or morality to his character (though I may be misreading this completely). Hangfire is certainly willing to use violence when it suits him, to lie, deceive, kidnap, etc. but to our knowledge, he has only killed Colonel Colophon, someone who, from his point of view, would surely deserve to be punished for his war crimes. Given that he had the chance to kill Lemony in book three and didn't take it, the chance to kill S. Theodore Markson in book one and three and didn't take it, he seems to have an aversion to killing seemingly innocent people; he doesn't like VFD, but there is a great distance between showing up their operatives and killing them. He also has not, to our knowledge, done anything to the children he kidnapped; and it would appear that I was wrong about the larva needing to feast on blood like a parasite to grow (unless Hangfire somehow found a viable population of victims elsewhere, who knows). Generally things with teeth that could bite Lemony are at least omnivores; yet Hangfire has not fed the children to them. Instead, he makes the children fetch honeydew melons as presumable fodder.
I want to propose that Hangfire is operating under some kind of slightly warped but real sense of morality, and that he has no intention of harming the children, but rather intends to get them out of harm's way until he can wreak his revenge on the guilty town; to my knowledge, he has not killed an entirely "innocent" person (from his perspective, and from what we know about the town's history) throughout the entire series. This does not mean that he is noble or a good person; it means he's a complicated villain, with a mix of good and evil inside him.