|
Post by mortinson51 on Dec 2, 2016 18:25:13 GMT -5
It's unusual to see the city looking so modern - and the Baudelaires' clothes, too. (Edit: "Modern" is perhaps not the right word, but I'm not quite sure how to put my finger on exactly what I mean. Ordinary, perhaps, without obvious attempt to imitate another era.) But the monochrome sells it somehow. And I respect the attempt to recreate the Ex Libris pages in the illustrator's own style. Thanks larina for uploading the pictures i found them very interesting. It is interesting that the front cover is based on the same scene as the american one It goes to show me that this story can be interpreted in different ways and work. I agree with Dante thats its a bit jarring at first. While i have never imagined the story as a modern one it could be interesting seeing it presented as such and you could still have the same story unfold. Olaf looks completely different to how i ever pictured him but that comes from me only ever seeing the american books. it also showed my that with the netflix series the characters don't necessarily have to be what we see because there are already multiple interpretations out there. I kind of want to search the internet now and find the covers for the other translated copies.
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Dec 2, 2016 18:27:33 GMT -5
I've finished re-reading TRR and here are my ridiculously long thoughts:
We've been discussing the tone of TRR and it is very interesting to me. I think the vast majority of the book is just normal ASOUE tone, but it does contain quite a few shiver-inducing moments. Monty's death, and any reference to it, is the major thing, but other things - Olaf rubbing the knife against Violet's knee, and I was particularly surprised to find that Olaf "snarled", "If you don't do what I say, you will suffer bodily harm." (p.94) - also set a different tone. It's odd, really, because I assumed that Snicket tells us Monty will die very early on to lessen the horror of it, but the lead-up to the Baudelaires discovering his corpse still seems quite suspenseful and foreboding to me.
The sense of danger never lasts for very long, though, and this book has (in my opinion) some of the comedic highlights of the series: all the snake jokes (reptiles that "looked just like a church" or "learned to drive a car" and the "Virginian Wolfsnake") are a particular favourite of mine, along with "Mr. Poe, would you like a raw carrot as well?" (p.14) and basically anything Monty says.
Another favourite of mine is Mr. Poe's babbling, particularly his exclamations of "[...] Blessed Allah! Zeus and Hera! [...] Nathaniel Hawthorne!" (p.146). His speech here is actually quite similar to Captain Widdershins (especially the contradictory instructions like "Don't touch her! Grab her!), but for some reason I find Poe hilarious here but Widdershins' dialogue mediocre, or even a little annoying.
When Snicket opens chapter 3 with "I am very, very sorry to leave you hanging like that" (p.27), it's just a silly little joke, right? It doesn't imply anything substantial about the way the books are written, for instance that they are written and delivered chapter by chapter, does it? (While we're on the subject: Madame DiLustro, whose party Snicket is supposedly late to while writing TRR, will be mentioned again in TGG as part of Snicket's suggested conversation starter, "Madame DiLustro, I believe I've discovered your true identity!", making her my favourite unseen character.)
The taxi driver is sometimes suggested to be Snicket - now, it makes sense for the taxi driver in TPP to be Snicket, and I can even deal with the one in TWW being Snicket, but the one in TRR being Snicket seems to me to be just unnecessary. It is true that it is probably a member of V.F.D., after TUA notifies us that their disguise kit includes pictures of babies, but surely Lemony would have recognised Olaf and stopped him rather than just taking him to his destination.
When Snicket brings up the "Klaus would lie awake in bed, years later" thing, it seems like very odd timing. For Klaus to have wished he could have called the taxi driver back is an odd regret - how exactly did he picture Olaf, an armed adult, being forced back in the taxi and sent away by the Baudelaires. As others have mentioned already, Klaus is perhaps partially responsible for the death of Monty, for bragging to Olaf "Uncle Monty tore up your ticket", so surely this is a better point for Snicket to interrupt and say "years later, Klaus would regret this".
Sunny seems more sentient in this book - TRR starts the pattern of each sibling saving the day once, with Violet opening Olaf's suitcase, Klaus reading about the Mamba du Mal and Sunny distracting the adults with Ink (in TBB Sunny did nothing). And unlike in TBB, her Sunny speak is either given a definition or fairly obviously in response to something, which implies she understands what's going on. But we still have lines like "Sunny, who was of course scarcely old enough to comprehend the orphans' situation" (p.81).
Snicket's dialogue is occasionally a bit weird: he says "What was Uncle Monty talking about?" (p.70) and, of Violet's invention, "it might work." Rhetorical questions like that or acting as if he doesn't know exactly what's going to happen strikes me as out of character. He also calls the children "orphans" (p.81), which seems a bit cruel - in TBB, this was one of the complaints the Baudelaires made to Mr. Poe about Olaf.
What did Olaf intend to do with the reading lamp? He wasn't trying to kill the Baudelaires ("If I wanted to harm you, orphan, your blood would already be pouring down these stairs like a waterfall" on p.76 is another shocking moment for a children's book). So was he trying to kill Monty, just hurt him, sending some kind of message/warning or just making an impulsive move?
I've never considered the car journey thing properly: I was always focused on the adults' problem of seating everyone, given Lucafont has to drive his own car, the children don't want to be alone with Olaf etc. (and the extra complexity of working out solutions where the children don't end up alone with Lucafont, which unbeknownst to them at the time would have the same outcome). But where are they all going? Originally it seems to be to "get a mechanic" (p.114) but then why can't they make a call from Monty's house, and why does every single one of them have to go? (In fact, originally Olaf wants Lucafont to take Mr. Poe and leave him at Monty's with the Baudelaires.) Mr. Poe later says they're all going "into town" (p.137) - what? Why? Mr. Poe also mentions "the issue of the children's luggage", so maybe they're going back to live with Mr. Poe for a while, but this is all just speculation.
Olaf knew Ink was harmless, so it appears he was actually paying attention to Monty. In fact, when Monty says Olaf "asked [him] a few too many questions about all the snakes", I was just frustrated he doesn't get the message that Stephano is Olaf, but although he definitely makes a mistake in ignoring the children, he might not be as naive as I thought. In TSS, there is talk of sides of V.F.D. controlling different animals, and it appears the villainous side control all the reptiles except Ink - so Olaf's disguise as Stephano may have a double purpose: to steal the Baudelaire's fortune and to steal Monty's reptile collection. So Monty was kind of right in a roundabout way.
On page 153/154, hopefully the page design is intentional: the way I first read it, the idea is that you see 9 "ever"s and think that's the joke, but then you turn over and find a full page of them. What does the audiobook do here? I really hope that the person reading it says each and every one of the 209 "ever"s, but somehow I doubt that's the case.
Other random thoughts:
Sunny and Ink seem to both have the habit of biting someone lightly if they like them - Sunny did it with Justice Strauss, and Ink does it to Sunny. Olaf tries to remain in character as Stephano in front of the children for quite a few pages, but couldn't even be bothered to put powder on his tattoo yet - surely he couldn't think he was going to fool them. Unless I missed a reference somewhere, Beatrice isn't mentioned anywhere in TRR, other than one of my favourite Beatrice dedications, "My love for you shall live forever. / You, however, did not." On page 82, Klaus acts like Olaf's been around for ages ("I see you haven't worked much on your inventions [...] When Count Olaf is around, it sure puts a damper on the imagination") but when he says that, they've been living with Monty for 10 days and only 2 of those featured Olaf living with them. I had a feeling Snicket had defined "insipid" twice - he defines it as "dull and foolish" [to describe The Marvelous Marriage] in TBB and "not worth reading to someone" in TRR (p.141). Snicket says he's would have given up if he were Violet for the second time, in TRR (p.152, about the locked suitcase; first time was in TBB about the grappling hook). He has a very low opinion of himself - in ATWQ we see plenty of brave actions, when he uses his "get scared later" mantra.
EDIT: larina, thanks for uploading those pictures of some of the Russian illustrations. I've seen a couple before and while I wouldn't say I love Helquist's art, if I'm honest I much prefer it to the Russian art, which just seems a bit silly and odd to me. That's not how I picture Monty at all - Helquist rarely depicts major characters, and I think I like that as they are left to our imagination. And also in TRR I like the snake drawings everywhere in the English edition. You say there are a lot of illustrations in the Russian edition - so is it not just one picture per chapter (plus front, back and maybe a couple of extra full page drawings) like it is in the English version? Do you get more than that?
|
|
|
Post by mortinson51 on Dec 2, 2016 18:47:30 GMT -5
On page 153/154, hopefully the page design is intentional: the way I first read it, the idea is that you see 9 "ever"s and think that's the joke, but then you turn over and find a full page of them. What does the audiobook do here? I really hope that the person reading it says each and every one of the 209 "ever"s, but somehow I doubt that's the case. I can glad say that you get Tim Curry Saying ever for about 30 seconds. it one of the most wonderful things to hear. I always took it that Olaf is a method actor because the children never believe him but he seldom breaks character even when he is just with them. The same goes For Lemony who would never call Olaf by his true name till he is revealed to everyone. Lemony being this taxi driver does make sense if you think that Lemony was also spying on the children. how can he know what happens to the children when monty is dead, olaf is unreliable source and he probably never interview the children. it almost makes sense for lemony to be fallowing the children waiting in the shadows. i think a lot has hapen to lemony between ATWQ and ASOUE. First of all he feel in love with Beatrice after ATWQ and that love destroyed him. i think at the End of "Why Is This Night Different From All Other Nights?" lemony start to progress to the Lemony we knew who starts to question his own actions. He starts doubting what he has done is right. i think lemony was with the children in the shadows but never truly did anything because he really just cares for Beatrice.
|
|
|
Post by Teleram on Dec 2, 2016 18:52:59 GMT -5
Is the part where Snicket describes Uncle Monty being upset over Gustav the only time he describes the feelings of a character other than the Baudelaires?
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Dec 3, 2016 3:40:12 GMT -5
In terms of direct description, at least, it might be, though looking at what I think is the moment in question then it's only very narrowly a description of Monty rather than of the Baudelaires' impressions of Monty (that is, there's some of the latter in there as well). It's certainly not something that happens very often, now that you point it out. ASoUE retains a very clear narrative focus on the Baudelaires (and Lemony, though most of the time his activities are so tangential as not to be worth including), and it's interesting that the Netflix series appears to be deviating from this with more third-person-unlimited scenes looking at other characters and places which the Baudelaires can't know about.
|
|
|
Post by Linda Rhaldeen on Dec 3, 2016 13:47:06 GMT -5
^ That was the best part of the Hunger Games movies, IMO; the books were great but since they were first person we got a telescopic view of the world and being able to show scenes that didn't include the main character added richness and depth.
|
|
larina
Reptile Researcher
Posts: 47
Likes: 79
|
Post by larina on Dec 3, 2016 15:24:56 GMT -5
That's quite an impressive analysis right there, gliquey So many things were mentioned in it that I never noticed, even on the present reread. It's kind of sad to know many plot holes there are if you think hard enough. The series was still finding its feet in this installment, and the inconsistency with the future books (like Lemony's weird dialogue) is probably the result. I wonder if they'll try to fix the plot holes in the TV series. Love the little detail about Sunny biting whoever she takes a liking to, it's adorable EDIT: larina, thanks for uploading those pictures of some of the Russian illustrations. I've seen a couple before and while I wouldn't say I love Helquist's art, if I'm honest I much prefer it to the Russian art, which just seems a bit silly and odd to me. That's not how I picture Monty at all - Helquist rarely depicts major characters, and I think I like that as they are left to our imagination. And also in TRR I like the snake drawings everywhere in the English edition. You say there are a lot of illustrations in the Russian edition - so is it not just one picture per chapter (plus front, back and maybe a couple of extra full page drawings) like it is in the English version? Do you get more than that? I can totally see these illustrations being waaay too grotesque/silly for someone's taste. Especially if you aren't used to them/didn't grow up with them and are used to seeing the way more sophisticated artwork of Mr. Helquist. I do have an English copy of TAA that I by some miracle stumbled upon in a bookstore (even the Russian versions are hard to find nowdays). Me and my sister were kind of shocked by how little illustrations there is in comparison to the Russian editions. There's way more illustrations per chapter in the Russian version. The ones I posted were from the 1st 2 chapters. And there are pictures of reptiles all over the book just like in the Helquist edition. Totally agree with you on there being no need for many illustrations. Most of the time the best kind of illustrations are the ones that appear in the reader's head.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Dec 3, 2016 16:15:48 GMT -5
While I also prefer Helquist's style over that of the Russian illustrator, I have a lot of respect for the amount of work the Russian illustrator put in, and I feel that their style is quite personal and distinctive, too. This is the sort of treatment the series deserves, and it really feels like the publishers cared about and believed in the books. I have a great deal of time for this kind of palpable enthusiasm.
|
|
|
Post by lorelai on Dec 3, 2016 19:32:05 GMT -5
Here are my random musings upon completion: I didn't notice the Grim River last time I read this book, but I think that may have just amused me because I recently finished a paper on fairy tales. Based on the discussion about Monty's house being big enough to give the Baudelaires their own rooms, I'm going with the idea that Olaf DID have the room to give each kid a place to sleep and chose to put them all in one, ill-equipped room. I know lots of people have talked about the knife, and while that is VERY creepy, can we also acknowledge the threat to cut off one of Sunny's toes (now I'm going to keep a lookout for if Sunny wears shoes or socks after this book)? Grief is handled beautifully here, as opposed to book one, which deals more with the effects of loss rather than the emotions. I like how the Baudelaires were forced to work together, in the sense that everyone played a crucial role while maintaining their individualism, and they were more aware of the other's actions. It's also nice to see the instinctive trust that comes with a family dynamic; they've learned--or had no choice but to except--that they can't protect each other anymore, which is sad and brilliant. I think part of what truly makes Olaf scary is that, like the Lion he's compared to at the end, he has a lot of coiled power. He can be impulsive--which I think was what motivated the lamp incident--and a braggared and a creep, and utterly immoral and cruel, and prone to dark humor, but you can't pinpoint what emotion will win out based on just looking at events. That he snaps out how it's wrong to lie, but doesn't follow that up with any sort of violence, despite looking like he wants to commit it, how much he snarled threats and waved that knife around, and even made a point of reminding the Baudelaires of it... it's unsettling. It also goes against the typical norm of children's books, where a captured/thwarted villain automaticly loses some of their power. Things like the exposition that the Baudelaires had always thought of Poe as well intentioned but unhelpful and that Klaus felt like he'd spent half his life explaining things to Mr. Poe really mark this as a halfpoint book. You can see where Handler was laying groundwork to have the four contracted books feel like a complete series, if that tturned out to be the case. This also explains the bit about Klaus years later that others have mentioned, though in verse that timing works for me, because if he could've convinced the taxi driver to help them, anything Olaf might have done/did do would have been prevented altogether (there's even the chance Olaf would have had to use a different disguise given how long it takes for him to turn up, which suggests he probably couldn't have accompanied them to Peru). If you take it from the viewpoint of him regretting telling Olaf about the tickets, then Olaf would have done whatever he was planning in Peru, and those results could have been much worse. Audiobook specifics: Monty has a slight lisp, whereas both movie and show Monty have accents. Everyone wants to make this guy auditorily distinctive and I love it! Mr. Poe's cough when asked whether he wants a carrot is played as him being embarrased and faking it. the one thing I can like about you, Mr. Poe , and it's a narrator choice. Olaf flips between a character voice and his real one, which is used to frankly chilling affect; when Violet and Klaus are talking about the lamp their dialogue is whispered, so you get that effect of being startled by a louder voice, that's also mad and slightly mocking. Not only do we get all the evers, but they're read at different speeds.
|
|
|
Post by lorelai on Dec 3, 2016 19:44:25 GMT -5
Almost forgot that the hookhanded man also does a fake voice;, it's richer than his voice in TBB though the pitch is the same and there are some inflection similarities, plus that slight accent where the vowels are more noticeable ccaries over from book to book. And unlike Olaf, THHM never drops the vocal act, so you really have to be on the alert to clue into who he is, stiff hands aside.
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Dec 4, 2016 8:13:24 GMT -5
Things like the exposition that the Baudelaires had always thought of Poe as well intentioned but unhelpful and that Klaus felt like he'd spent half his life explaining things to Mr. Poe really mark this as a halfpoint book. You can see where Handler was laying groundwork to have the four contracted books feel like a complete series, if that tturned out to be the case. Yes, this is interesting. In TBB, Mr. Poe was utterly useless, but the children did not expect this to be so - they thought he would help them when they visit him at the bank. In TBB, it's also mentioned how Mr. Poe was a friend of the Baudelaire's parents, and came over quite frequently, and presumably before the fire the children liked him. So by TRR things must have changed a lot to get to the point where Klaus feels such exasperation towards Mr. Poe - I think maybe living in the Poe household for several weeks/months really changed the children's opinion of him.
|
|