|
Post by Dante on May 17, 2015 10:52:38 GMT -5
#o# Can Lemony Snicket finally discover all the right answers?There was a town, and there was a train, and there was a murder. Apprentice investigator Lemony Snicket was on the train, and he thought that if he solved the murder he could save the town. He was almost thirteen and he was wrong. He was wrong about all of it. He should have asked the question “Is it more beastly to be a murderer or to let one go free?” Instead, he asked the wrong question – four wrong questions, more or less. This is the account of the last… >~- Source.Source.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 17, 2015 11:11:06 GMT -5
This also definitely confirms the title, I suppose.
Almost thirteen? Isn't he totally thirteen by now?
And I see that the train has eyes, rather like those on Sodor.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on May 17, 2015 11:16:42 GMT -5
Great cover! I guess it's a matter of little time until the LSLibrary social media sites will post a higher quality picture of it as well (they haven't posted this yet).
|
|
Antenora
Detriment Deleter
Fiendish Philologist
Put down that harpoon gun, in the name of these wonderful birds!
Posts: 15,891
Likes: 113
|
Post by Antenora on May 17, 2015 11:21:35 GMT -5
Gorgeous cover! I see that the "?n+2 reverses color scheme of ?n" rule has been fulfilled. Again, green and purple provide a somewhat ominous look-- perhaps green, as people have suggested, connotes poison?
And what's with that chalk outline? I notice there's no Hangfire silhouette here.
The synopsis, too, is fascinating. Just who does that dilemma refer to? Am I asking the wrong questions? I may be a Master of Arts in Linguistics as of yesterday, but there are still many things I don't understand...
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 17, 2015 11:24:18 GMT -5
And what's with that chalk outline? I notice there's no Hangfire silhouette here. A truly intriguing observation. And, if I'm right about what that right question implies, we can probably rule out Theodora or Qwerty as the murder victim...
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 17, 2015 11:25:05 GMT -5
I may be a Master of Arts in Linguistics as of yesterday, but there are still many things I don't understand... Oh wow, congrats! [Burying the lede.] Have you met Anka? And I think we have a third linguist here, though I can't remember who.
|
|
Antenora
Detriment Deleter
Fiendish Philologist
Put down that harpoon gun, in the name of these wonderful birds!
Posts: 15,891
Likes: 113
|
Post by Antenora on May 17, 2015 11:28:43 GMT -5
I may be a Master of Arts in Linguistics as of yesterday, but there are still many things I don't understand... Oh wow, congrats! [Burying the lede.] Have you met Anka? And I think we have a third linguist here, though I can't remember who. I know that Anka's into linguistics, and I believe I've encouraged her elsewhere. And what's with that chalk outline? I notice there's no Hangfire silhouette here. A truly intriguing observation. And, if I'm right about what that right question implies, we can probably rule out Theodora or Qwerty as the murder victim... Indeed, the right question is implying something very disturbing indeed. The use of the word "beastly," of course, is also of interest. It echoes Flammarion's threat about "what monsters are coming," and raises another equally right question: who are the real monsters?
|
|
|
Post by bandit on May 17, 2015 11:34:30 GMT -5
Wow!
The illustrations have some truly disorienting perspectives. It's certainly the most thrilling cover yet.
|
|
|
Post by B. on May 17, 2015 11:43:59 GMT -5
Its okay, I suppose.[/understatement]
No one going to comment on the skeleton key in the bottom left?
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on May 17, 2015 12:04:13 GMT -5
I hate to say this, but I don't really like the cover. The images all seem fine on their own (I especially like the train one), but I don't think they work well together, especially the key. They seem to have done an okay job of fitting the 9-word title on the cover, though. And, if I'm right about what that right question implies, we can probably rule out Theodora or Qwerty as the murder victim... Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but why? I like the question and its ethical quandary. ASOUE contained a lot of the Baudelaires worrying about themselves being villains or blaming themselves for people's deaths (e.g. Dewey), but the only true bit of moral ambiguity I can think of was when they considered pushing Olaf overboard.
|
|
|
Post by thedoctororwell on May 17, 2015 12:07:52 GMT -5
The skeleton key was referenced in the last chapter of SYBIS. It relates to Kit trying to escape from prison.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on May 17, 2015 12:25:39 GMT -5
I don't know if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but I also just noticed on the product page that ?4 is only going to be 304 pages. I figured each book would have an increasing length, especially since there will need to be a lot of plot-wrapping in the final volume. But 304 pages is shorter than SYBIS.
|
|
|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on May 17, 2015 12:46:39 GMT -5
Having just read The Murder on the Orient Express, I can't help feeling a strong similarity - obviously, the train, but also the fact that the 'right' question is thematically very similar to that of the Christie novel. That would also go well with what Antenora implied about the chalk outline. In tMotOE, the murder victim is extremely unlikeable and antagonistic, and could easily have been the villain in previous books. I like the cover, poison green as expected. The corner picture with Snicket in it is a bit too action-y for its art style, I think - it clashes a bit too much with the calm ominousness of the objects.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 17, 2015 13:05:46 GMT -5
And, if I'm right about what that right question implies, we can probably rule out Theodora or Qwerty as the murder victim... Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but why? I take it, because it implies the victim is themself a murderer - which seems unlikely to be true of either S or Q. Surely the burning down of the hotel was morally ambiguous (though, I'd agree, not the killing of Dewey, which they get quite unnecessarily exercised about). Violet also raises the possibility of deserting Fiona before Fiona deserts them (though they don't reach any decision about it at that point).
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on May 17, 2015 14:12:37 GMT -5
Surely the burning down of the hotel was morally ambiguous (though, I'd agree, not the killing of Dewey, which they get quite unnecessarily exercised about). Violet also raises the possibility of deserting Fiona before Fiona deserts them (though they don't reach any decision about it at that point). Deserting Fiona is a good example - I hadn't thought of that. I did think of the hotel, though, and while I don't think it was justifiable at all, I don't recall anyone mentioning it in TE and saying it was morally questionable. I assumed we were just supposed to apply suspension of disbelief, and assume Sunny was unambiguously right to go through with her plan. I suppose Justice Strauss begged the Baudelaires not to leave the roof with Olaf, although I never really empathised with her point of view. I also considered the start of TGG, where they are reminded of the fire they started in Caligari Carnival, but I wouldn't count that either, because (a) Olaf would have burned down the tent if they hadn't (b) surely the fire would have spread to the tent anyway and (c) it was for the greater good (they had no other viable option). Anyway, back to ATWQ: thanks for the explanation of why it might not be S. or Q.
|
|