Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Feb 22, 2019 18:37:54 GMT -5
My name is Jean, and I'm a Brazilian fan of ASOUE. For many years I did read ASOUE completely alone, without knowing foreign communities that were dedicated to research the work of Daniel Handler in ASOUE. In this year 2019 I had the opportunity to talk to Dante. In our conversation we noticed great differences of interpretation of the text of ASOUE, not because of translation problems, but because of cultural differences factors. Dante said:
"This is absolutely fascinating. I'm glad that I was able to read this interpretation. Approaching the series from a completely different cultural perspective, you were able to come to a different status quo and form different conclusions. If you post your theories on the forum, I think you should open with this information, as it will help readers from western nations, who are not quite so cynical about their narrators, to understand the origins of your ideas."
I have fun making theories about ASOUE for many years. I do not consider myself the owner of the truth about ASOUE. But I really spent lots of fun re-reading and trying to find coherence in ASOUE. I was surprised when Dante told me that most fans in the United States believe that the apparent contradictions in ASOUE are fruit of Daniel Handler's mistakes. And I can not deny that this is a strong possibility.
However, there is another possibility. Most of the Brazilian fans of ASOUE believe that Lemony Snicket is not a reliable storyteller. I will transcribe here the words I used in explaining this to Dante:
"For you to find consistency in ASOUE, you need to admit that Lemony Snicket writes lies sometimes in his work. I know this does not seem to make sense to someone who is not Brazilian, but Brazil is the land of corruption and lies. Thus, in our creative works it is common to appear unreliable narrators, that is, the narration of a character made from his point of view. As a character himself, he can lie in his descriptions of events. The author needs to use some mechanism to show the reader that his storytelling character is lying to the reader. Basically all of the brazilian readers of ASOUE believe that Lemony is not a reliable narrator. But few stop to think where Lemony is lying. To find out this would require a study of the character and his motivations, as well as a study of the contradictions in the text. This is how we do it in Brazil with unreliable narrators. We learned this in Literature classes.'
Daniel Handler made clear the nature of Lemony. Lemony says that lying sometimes is good and necessary. Lemony warns the reader that something should not be regarded as truth just because it is in a newspaper or a book. We see Lemony when he was 12 or 13 at ATWQ using lies and cheating in the name of a greater good. So I seriously believe Lemony is a good liar. It is interesting to remember that the target audience of Lemony Snicket is the Great Public of his universe, not of our universe.
I believe I am right to say that Lemony would be able to lie to the Great Public of his universe in the name of a greater good, in case Lemony realized that lying would be good and necessary.
Probably because of this, before the main text of the UA there is the following remark:
"Please, note that the author has been called a fraud, a criminal, a bestseller, a corpse, a fictional character, an UNREALIABLE NARRATOR, an objective flaneur, an embatteled gentleman, a magnectic field, an arsonist, and late for dinner by an odd number of dubious authoritiews."
On the other hand, the letters found in The Beatrice Letters do not have as public target the Great Public of the universe of Lemony. Therefore, I do not believe there are intentional lies in these letters. In the same way, the ATWQ books were originally written as a form of report, and did not target the Great Public of the Lemony Snicket universe. Rather, they are confidential VFD documents. So there are no intentional lies in ATWQ. Similarly, The author of the promotional pamphlet 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket it's not Lemony Snicket. The target audience for this pamphlet is not the Great Public of Lemony's universe, but the people of our universe. Thus, there must be no lies told by characters or even mistakes made by characters who are narrators.
Similarly, the documents found in UA are not narratives of Lemony Snicket. It is interesting to note that Daniel Handler realized that it was necessary to highlight in his introduction to the UA
1.- This book does not appear to be a forgery, which is not to say that the story is true - only that it is accurate.
2 - That this book come from Mr. Snicket is unquestionable.
What readers find in the UA are documents and photographs created in Lemony Snicket's universe by persanations of that universe. The target audience is not the Great Public either. This increases the credibility of the work. Despite this, it is possible that characters are not certain about some facts recorded in the documents. For example, in chapter 1 of the UA, readers find a letter written by Lemony to Dr. Charley Patton. In this letter Lemony states that he himself was a child a few years old when he was captured by VFD. Lemony claims that the song known as The Little Snicket Lad is wrong to claim that he was caught as a baby.
However, in 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket Daniel Handler informs readers: "Secret 7: When he was a baby, Lemony Snicket was kidnapped by a secret organization." This is an example of a contradiction between what Lemony claims and what the evidence shows. In this case, 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket has more credibility. Evidently, knowing this raises questions about the other differences between what Lemony states in the letter to Dr. Charley Patton and the song The Little Snicket Lad. Questions like 'Could Lemony have been kidnapped twice? Does not he remember the first time he was kidnapped because he was still a baby? "
I have spoken of this subject only as an example of how my research on the Baudelaire case works. We learned in Brazil in literature classes that when a reader perceives that he stands before an unreliable narrator, he must question every statement made by the narrator about matters he could not be certain of, or that he would be able to tell a Intensive lie. Then it is necessary to use the mechanisms left by the author to indicate the correct direction.
I believe that the claims of the 13 major ASOUE books need to be compared to the documents found in The Beatrice Letters, UA, 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket and ATWQ.
From this, I have created some theories that may seem very strange. However, I was careful to substantiate the strange aspects of the theories. Of course every aspect of my theory can be explained in another way. In my conversation with Dante, I realized that you have done a great job creating very good theories about ASOUE, and I would never criticize your work. But I said something to Dante, which he found interesting and I will transcribe here:
"I would like to say again how fun it is to talk to someone who really understands how I feel about ASOUE. For a long time I did theories alone. And I've never had anyone to argue about them the way we're doing. But I think that was good, because we could form different patterns of thought. When several people come together to form a theory, there is a kind of "mass fishery" and one ends up being influenced by the other. This is not bad at all. But it is good to have other people researching independently without even knowing the research of other people, so in the future the result may be quite different, and two distinct thought patterns may complement each other.
"
And Dante says:
'I won't hide the fact that I completely disagree with your theories. But I do think that they are ingenious, and I feel that my mind has been broadened a bit by reading such inventive interpretations.
"
So from the next thread I would like to start explaining about my most controversial theory, which can be said in the form of a question: "Was Lemony lying about Beatrice's death?"
But to be able to explain this theory, it will be necessary first to explain other theories.
1 - Was the 13 books of ASOUE written many years after the events described in the books involving Violet, Klaus and Sunny?
2 - Where did Lemony Snicket get information that would be impossible to discover by simple observation or interviews with others, such as the dialogues between Violet, Sunny and Klaus when they were alone?
3 - Did Lemony get away on the ship Prospero twice, once soon after the cancellation of his marriage and again after publishing some of the ASOUE books?
4 - Could it be that the Masked ball in which Lemony was dressed as a bullfighter happened many years after the fire of the Baudelaire mansion?
5 - Is it possible that there was a Great Hiatus of ASOUE publications between books 3 and 4 in Lemony's universe?
6 - Could it be that someone other than Kit Snicket is the true recipient of the secret letter hidden in Book 10?
I have some other theories, of course.
I only ask you to be open-minded to such theories,
consider as the fruit of an independent research on the Baudelaire case. These same theories have led me to my current theory about the sugar bowl and who the real JS is. Just like Dante, you do not have to agree. I only wish the Great Public knows my work. If possible, call this set of theories "The Strange Interpretation of Jean Lúcio From Brazil."
Regards,
Jean Lúcio, from Brazil.
"This is absolutely fascinating. I'm glad that I was able to read this interpretation. Approaching the series from a completely different cultural perspective, you were able to come to a different status quo and form different conclusions. If you post your theories on the forum, I think you should open with this information, as it will help readers from western nations, who are not quite so cynical about their narrators, to understand the origins of your ideas."
I have fun making theories about ASOUE for many years. I do not consider myself the owner of the truth about ASOUE. But I really spent lots of fun re-reading and trying to find coherence in ASOUE. I was surprised when Dante told me that most fans in the United States believe that the apparent contradictions in ASOUE are fruit of Daniel Handler's mistakes. And I can not deny that this is a strong possibility.
However, there is another possibility. Most of the Brazilian fans of ASOUE believe that Lemony Snicket is not a reliable storyteller. I will transcribe here the words I used in explaining this to Dante:
"For you to find consistency in ASOUE, you need to admit that Lemony Snicket writes lies sometimes in his work. I know this does not seem to make sense to someone who is not Brazilian, but Brazil is the land of corruption and lies. Thus, in our creative works it is common to appear unreliable narrators, that is, the narration of a character made from his point of view. As a character himself, he can lie in his descriptions of events. The author needs to use some mechanism to show the reader that his storytelling character is lying to the reader. Basically all of the brazilian readers of ASOUE believe that Lemony is not a reliable narrator. But few stop to think where Lemony is lying. To find out this would require a study of the character and his motivations, as well as a study of the contradictions in the text. This is how we do it in Brazil with unreliable narrators. We learned this in Literature classes.'
Daniel Handler made clear the nature of Lemony. Lemony says that lying sometimes is good and necessary. Lemony warns the reader that something should not be regarded as truth just because it is in a newspaper or a book. We see Lemony when he was 12 or 13 at ATWQ using lies and cheating in the name of a greater good. So I seriously believe Lemony is a good liar. It is interesting to remember that the target audience of Lemony Snicket is the Great Public of his universe, not of our universe.
I believe I am right to say that Lemony would be able to lie to the Great Public of his universe in the name of a greater good, in case Lemony realized that lying would be good and necessary.
Probably because of this, before the main text of the UA there is the following remark:
"Please, note that the author has been called a fraud, a criminal, a bestseller, a corpse, a fictional character, an UNREALIABLE NARRATOR, an objective flaneur, an embatteled gentleman, a magnectic field, an arsonist, and late for dinner by an odd number of dubious authoritiews."
On the other hand, the letters found in The Beatrice Letters do not have as public target the Great Public of the universe of Lemony. Therefore, I do not believe there are intentional lies in these letters. In the same way, the ATWQ books were originally written as a form of report, and did not target the Great Public of the Lemony Snicket universe. Rather, they are confidential VFD documents. So there are no intentional lies in ATWQ. Similarly, The author of the promotional pamphlet 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket it's not Lemony Snicket. The target audience for this pamphlet is not the Great Public of Lemony's universe, but the people of our universe. Thus, there must be no lies told by characters or even mistakes made by characters who are narrators.
Similarly, the documents found in UA are not narratives of Lemony Snicket. It is interesting to note that Daniel Handler realized that it was necessary to highlight in his introduction to the UA
1.- This book does not appear to be a forgery, which is not to say that the story is true - only that it is accurate.
2 - That this book come from Mr. Snicket is unquestionable.
What readers find in the UA are documents and photographs created in Lemony Snicket's universe by persanations of that universe. The target audience is not the Great Public either. This increases the credibility of the work. Despite this, it is possible that characters are not certain about some facts recorded in the documents. For example, in chapter 1 of the UA, readers find a letter written by Lemony to Dr. Charley Patton. In this letter Lemony states that he himself was a child a few years old when he was captured by VFD. Lemony claims that the song known as The Little Snicket Lad is wrong to claim that he was caught as a baby.
However, in 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket Daniel Handler informs readers: "Secret 7: When he was a baby, Lemony Snicket was kidnapped by a secret organization." This is an example of a contradiction between what Lemony claims and what the evidence shows. In this case, 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket has more credibility. Evidently, knowing this raises questions about the other differences between what Lemony states in the letter to Dr. Charley Patton and the song The Little Snicket Lad. Questions like 'Could Lemony have been kidnapped twice? Does not he remember the first time he was kidnapped because he was still a baby? "
I have spoken of this subject only as an example of how my research on the Baudelaire case works. We learned in Brazil in literature classes that when a reader perceives that he stands before an unreliable narrator, he must question every statement made by the narrator about matters he could not be certain of, or that he would be able to tell a Intensive lie. Then it is necessary to use the mechanisms left by the author to indicate the correct direction.
I believe that the claims of the 13 major ASOUE books need to be compared to the documents found in The Beatrice Letters, UA, 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket and ATWQ.
From this, I have created some theories that may seem very strange. However, I was careful to substantiate the strange aspects of the theories. Of course every aspect of my theory can be explained in another way. In my conversation with Dante, I realized that you have done a great job creating very good theories about ASOUE, and I would never criticize your work. But I said something to Dante, which he found interesting and I will transcribe here:
"I would like to say again how fun it is to talk to someone who really understands how I feel about ASOUE. For a long time I did theories alone. And I've never had anyone to argue about them the way we're doing. But I think that was good, because we could form different patterns of thought. When several people come together to form a theory, there is a kind of "mass fishery" and one ends up being influenced by the other. This is not bad at all. But it is good to have other people researching independently without even knowing the research of other people, so in the future the result may be quite different, and two distinct thought patterns may complement each other.
"
And Dante says:
'I won't hide the fact that I completely disagree with your theories. But I do think that they are ingenious, and I feel that my mind has been broadened a bit by reading such inventive interpretations.
"
So from the next thread I would like to start explaining about my most controversial theory, which can be said in the form of a question: "Was Lemony lying about Beatrice's death?"
But to be able to explain this theory, it will be necessary first to explain other theories.
1 - Was the 13 books of ASOUE written many years after the events described in the books involving Violet, Klaus and Sunny?
2 - Where did Lemony Snicket get information that would be impossible to discover by simple observation or interviews with others, such as the dialogues between Violet, Sunny and Klaus when they were alone?
3 - Did Lemony get away on the ship Prospero twice, once soon after the cancellation of his marriage and again after publishing some of the ASOUE books?
4 - Could it be that the Masked ball in which Lemony was dressed as a bullfighter happened many years after the fire of the Baudelaire mansion?
5 - Is it possible that there was a Great Hiatus of ASOUE publications between books 3 and 4 in Lemony's universe?
6 - Could it be that someone other than Kit Snicket is the true recipient of the secret letter hidden in Book 10?
I have some other theories, of course.
I only ask you to be open-minded to such theories,
consider as the fruit of an independent research on the Baudelaire case. These same theories have led me to my current theory about the sugar bowl and who the real JS is. Just like Dante, you do not have to agree. I only wish the Great Public knows my work. If possible, call this set of theories "The Strange Interpretation of Jean Lúcio From Brazil."
Regards,
Jean Lúcio, from Brazil.
