|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 7, 2019 10:55:30 GMT -5
I didn't know where to put this, but I've come across a video where J. Peterson talks about the necessity for heroes (in stories) to become monsters in order to then choose to be virtuous, which I thought also fits perfectly with the Baudelaires' moral dilemmas in the last few episodes (of course, in the books, too)--something Klaus acknowledges when he tells Fiona they're not entirely harmless (paraphrase), or when he says "We're innocent...enough":
Might serve as an interesting footnote to the themes the show's writers dealt with this season.
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Jan 7, 2019 12:29:25 GMT -5
I didn't know where to put this, but I've come across a video where J. Peterson talks about the necessity for heroes (in stories) to become monsters in order to then choose to be virtuous, which I thought also fits perfectly with the Baudelaires' moral dilemmas in the last few episodes (of course, in the books, too)--something Klaus acknowledges when he tells Fiona they're not entirely harmless (paraphrase), or when he says "We're innocent...enough": I don't think this is quite the same thing - Handler asks the readers to question whether the Baudelaires are heroes or not. I'm of the opinion that their actions in burning down the Hotel Denouement are not defensible. But in TSS in particular, they are viewed as positive role models specifically because they reject the plan of trapping Esme, which is the opposite of what Peterson is saying one should do ("become a monster") and the opposite of the message of the Nietzsche quotes that Lemony mentions. In TE, they have the option to throw Olaf overboard and it's completely ambiguous and up to interpretation what they would have done, or what Lemony thinks they should have done. Not the clear cut message Peterson is propagating. When Klaus says they're not entirely innocent, it's not to defend their negative actions or to say that it is a necessary part of them being good, but simply him acknowledging their flaws and mistakes, and asking Fiona and more broadly the reader to forgive them for this. Now, Peterson uses examples of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and while I'm not familiar with the former, the latter certainly does approach the topic of a hero doing a bad thing in a different manner to ASOUE. But his example of Harry breaking school rules is more an example of rejection of authority than it is of doing something inherently immoral - there's a dangerous conflation of morality and law in Peterson's speech. More broadly, Peterson's sexist and pseudoscientific views on gender is antithetical to ASOUE's strong theme of gender equality and of characters eschewing traditional gender roles. (For instance, he criticised Frozen because it "demonstrate[d] that a woman did not need a man to be successful". I doubt he'd like Violet or Fiona or Kit or the other strong women in ASOUE very much.) His transphobia and homophobia (e.g. opposing gay marriage on the grounds that it was spearheaded by "cultural Marxists") is also hugely contrary to the LGBT-inclusive values promoted by the Netflix adaptation of ASOUE in particular.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 7, 2019 21:28:04 GMT -5
I don't think this is quite the same thing - Handler asks the readers to question whether the Baudelaires are heroes or not. I'm of the opinion that their actions in burning down the Hotel Denouement are not defensible. But in TSS in particular, they are viewed as positive role models specifically because they reject the plan of trapping Esme, which is the opposite of what Peterson is saying one should do ("become a monster") and the opposite of the message of the Nietzsche quotes that Lemony mentions. In TE, they have the option to throw Olaf overboard and it's completely ambiguous and up to interpretation what they would have done, or what Lemony thinks they should have done. Not the clear cut message Peterson is propagating. When Klaus says they're not entirely innocent, it's not to defend their negative actions or to say that it is a necessary part of them being good, but simply him acknowledging their flaws and mistakes, and asking Fiona and more broadly the reader to forgive them for this. Yes, Handler goes the extra step in having the Baudelaires--the supposed heroes--actually act out on their shadow/monster side, which makes his point of not defending such behavior so much stronger. Obviously, neither does Peterson recommend "becoming the monster"! He says the hero needs to properly acknowledge his monster side, in order to tame it. If one does not even acknowledge one's own ability to do evil, to become a monster, one is not able to tame this side. Such people remain either harmless--not virtuous--and prone to manipulation by other people, like Mr. Poe and the other clueless adults of ASoUE, or they won't realize they've become actors of evil. This is a trap, f.ex., Fernald fell into (Olaf's other henchfolk probably as well), which he realizes in TGG when he can't name a single good thing about Olaf (after almost having professed to love him in an earlier scene).
The Baudelaires also do not realize that they have a shadow side, which leads them to fight fire with fire, and they burn down a hotel despite their good intentions. The fact that they even entertained the notion of trapping Esmé for blackmail is an earlier sign that they carry this monster side in them. As is their having burnt down Carnival Caligari in the previous season. Only once the Baudelaires recognized their unjustifiable misdeeds (above all, burning down the HD) as such, though too late, can they decide to not throw Olaf overboard, which serves as a moment of temptation to continue on this evil path. This moment also thematically sets up the rest of the "The End" with culminates in the Biblical imagery of having to ingest the apple of knowledge (knowing one's shadow side, I would argue--the apple is bitter, after all) in order to fight the evil (Medusoid Mycelium) that is inside them.
Peterson never says "negative (i.e. evil) actions" are a necessary part of being good. What Peterson basically says/implies is that people are like chef's salads (in parallel to ASoUE: “People aren't either wicked or noble. They're like chef's salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.”) and that it's necessary for people to be aware of both sides, in order to resolve this conflict inside of them, so they can become heroes... by consciously deciding against acting out on the evil urges that are inside every one of us, and opposing evil when we see it.
But his example of Harry breaking school rules is more an example of rejection of authority than it is of doing something inherently immoral - there's a dangerous conflation of morality and law in Peterson's speech. He is not limiting Harry's rule-breaking to mere school rules; He mentions his ability to speak to snakes, which is considered the mark of a Dark Wizard (i.e. evildoers). Iirc there were a few morally ambiguous moments for Harry in the series, but I read the books a while ago. You're probably right about the second part, though... That's something JP could/should have elaborated on, and differentiated (he might have, I didn't see the full lecture). More broadly, Peterson's sexist and pseudoscientific views on gender is antithetical to ASOUE's strong theme of gender equality and of characters eschewing traditional gender roles. (For instance, he criticised Frozen because it "demonstrate[d] that a woman did not need a man to be successful". I doubt he'd like Violet or Fiona or Kit or the other strong women in ASOUE very much.) His transphobia and homophobia (e.g. opposing gay marriage on the grounds that it was spearheaded by "cultural Marxists") is also hugely contrary to the LGBT-inclusive values promoted by the Netflix adaptation of ASOUE in particular. Nice strawmen, gliquey... By labeling Peterson as sexist (and transphobic and homophobic), as if this were fact and not your very distorted, close-minded interpretation of his views, for things he said in a different context, it's easy for you to write him off. Your quote on Frozen is ridiculously out of context, afaik, since Peterson implied people need a companion to be successful; The reason he criticizes Frozen as a piece of art is for being propaganda rather than the more open mythological explorations other Disney films (like Pinocchio) have been. Thus, your aside on how you "doubt" he would like the "strong women of ASoUE" doesn't hold any ground whatsoever.
But I didn't want to argue the man, only the message in the video I posted. Peterson generally talks about a number of subjects by fusing different fields, coming from a psychological background. One of his fields is comparative mythology, which is what I wanted to discuss in relevance to ASoUE. I do not want to go on off-topic tangents on what you think of Jordan Peterson.
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Jan 7, 2019 21:43:24 GMT -5
Nice strawmen, gliquey... By labeling Peterson as sexist ( and transphobic and homophobic), as if this were fact and not your very distorted, close-minded interpretation of his views, for things he said in a different context, it's easy for you to write him off. Your quote on Frozen is ridiculously out of context, afaik, since Peterson implied people need a companion to be successful; The reason he criticizes Frozen as a piece of art is for being propaganda rather than the more open mythological explorations other Disney films (like Pinocchio) have been. Thus, your aside on how you "doubt" he would like the "strong women of ASoUE" doesn't hold any ground whatsoever. I won't reply any further to avoid derailing the topic, but I will defend myself against the false accusation that I am somehow strawmanning Peterson. I have read his Frozen quote in its full context (a small comment on reddit, found here) and re-read it before describing it here. There is no mention in his comment of every person needing a companion. He characterises the film as propaganda specifically because it features a woman who does not rely on a man. Not 'a person without a companion', but 'a woman independent of a man'. The word "propaganda" is being abused by Peterson to refer simply to something he doesn't like - he then says "Anything written to serve a political purpose is propaganda, not art." This is nonsense, contradicted by many people in the thread, and simply contrary to the purpose of art. Art is inherently political. ASOUE does have political commentary (take Sunny's "Scalia" joke) and I would argue that gender equality is a fundamental premise to the series. So if Peterson's ideas are consistent, he would characterise ASOUE as propaganda for its strong female characters such as Kit, who at times works independent of men (in fact, independent of any companion at all).
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 7, 2019 22:23:35 GMT -5
This is a totally different--and huge--discussion on aesthetics (whether art is inherently political or not) that would go widely off-topic, if we had it here.
I think the ninth comment in the reddit thread points at the core of the misinterpretation of JP's probably badly worded, short reply, and what he actually meant. Also, Peterson goes into greater detail on Frozen in one of his lectures on YouTube, which is where he elaborates that woman OR man cannot be successful without a companion. Maybe you set up a strawman without knowing better, gliquey, but it's still a distortion of his views that you arrived at by jumping to a conclusion based on a tweet-length statement on reddit that has nothing to do with gender roles per sé.
You basically called him a sexist, transphobic, and homophobic because he didn't like Frozen, which is not just libel but really dumb.
I'd rather you responded to the idea of my Jungian interpretation of ASoUE, especially in the "The End".
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on Jan 8, 2019 7:16:02 GMT -5
He is not limiting Harry's rule-breaking to mere school rules; He mentions his ability to speak to snakes, which is considered the mark of a Dark Wizard (i.e. evildoers). Iirc there were a few morally ambiguous moments for Harry in the series, but I read the books a while ago. I wouldn't say his being a Parselmouth is a good example. Being a Parselmouth being considered a mark of a Dark Wizard is, I think, firmly established as a prejudiced stereotype; it's of the same ilk as arguing that Hermione being a mudblood shows her "becoming an inhuman monster". But yes, he does have morally ambiguous moment later on; he seriously considers murdering Bellatrix Lestrange in Order of the Phoenix, and Deathly Hallows have him use a mind-control curse on a banker (oh, don't we ASoUE fans wish we could do that…) and attempt a torture curse on one of the Dark Lord's henchmen, though he can't manage the latter due to not being sadistic enough for it. Though this does, in hindsight, mean that he was power-hungry enough, deep down, to cast the earlier mind-control curse, so some moral complexity is preserved. As concerns art vs. propaganda: it's a debate worthy of its own thread, but I just want to put on record that I agree with neither stated opinion. Unlike Peterson (for whom something is either art or propaganda), or gliquey (who considers art inherently political), I'd classify propaganda (in the sense of a politically-motivated work, stripped of pejorative connotations) as a type of art. (As for Frozen in particular: I'm willing to take in good faith Peterson's claim that he simply believes people, other than truly asexual people, will be unhappy if they try to live on their own, whatever their gender. And if we take this and its opposite — people don't need a romance in their life to be happy — to be two political opinions, then yes, I'd say Frozen was probably conscious "propaganda" for the second opinion.)
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jan 8, 2019 9:41:48 GMT -5
Also the Sectumsempra scene in HBP. (Which I have never managed to feel as indignant about as some people do, given Harry was defending himself against torture, but it is morally dubious al the same.)
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on Jan 8, 2019 13:09:36 GMT -5
Also the Sectumsempra scene in HBP. (Which I have never managed to feel as indignant about as some people do, given Harry was defending himself against torture, but it is morally dubious al the same.) If we're playing that game, I don't think any of the Baudelaires' "questionable" decision are really as objectionable as the narrative role they play would suggest they'd be.
|
|
|
Post by kingarthur on Jan 8, 2019 13:31:31 GMT -5
I didn't like they revealed what was in the sugar bowl but I don't really have any other criticisms. The End was better than the book in my opinion.
This is how I would rate the episodes.
1. TPP 1 2. TPP 2 3. TE 4. TGG 2 5. TSS 1 6. TSS 2 7. TGG 1
|
|
|
Post by ryantrimble457 on Jan 8, 2019 15:22:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jan 24, 2019 17:29:47 GMT -5
I was able to go into TPP: 2's sound mix and extract the full version of That's Not How The Story Goes, at the same time removing all of Lemony Snicket's narration and restoring the portions of the song that were placed under it. I was also able to create a fully instrumental version of the song from the episode's sound mix in case anybody would like it. :Edit: If anyone has any requests for other pieces of music from Season 3 they would like me to extract, please don't hesitate to ask.
|
|
|
Post by Liam R. Findlay on Jan 25, 2019 5:47:31 GMT -5
Thanks for extracting more of the music! If you wouldn't mind, I'd rather like to hear a few tracks by themselves, but they're all from Season 2! I'll make a little list, but of course only do whatever you feel like doing. I appreciate your time! - The music in The Austere Academy: Part I from when Carmelita first appears until Klaus defines Memento Mori - The music when Carmelita confronts Larry in TAA: P1 - The opening to The Ersatz Elevator: Part I (until Mr. Poe drives over Lemony) - The opening to The Vile Village: Part I (from the beginning to when Mr. Poe goes to the saloon, if that's not too long- can end sooner if necessary) Danke
|
|
|
Post by veryfakedonkey on Jan 25, 2019 19:58:10 GMT -5
The Soundclouds are really amazing!
If you are taking requests, I would love the music from when Hector's floats up and says goodbye to everything. I also love the music from when the Carmelita chases the Queequeg.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on Jan 26, 2019 9:48:18 GMT -5
Brilliant indeed, gothicarchiesfan! While we're making request, I'd like a clean version of the soundtrack from the Opera Murder Flashback, and of Count Olaf's rescue of Kit and subsequent death.
|
|
|
Post by Liam R. Findlay on Jan 26, 2019 11:30:00 GMT -5
Count Olaf dies?
|
|