|
Post by lsandthebooks on Aug 20, 2019 20:47:29 GMT -5
I was reading the Austere Academy, and I saw a really interesting line:
How could Lemony know that they never went back...? You can't predict what someone will do in the future.
But in the Reptile Room there's this paragraph (I hope I wrote it down right):
So...if they didn't die, how could Lemony know all of this? The Baudelaires must be in prison or something. Or are there any other explanations?
The Daily Punctilio did report the kids as being criminals, and Mr. Poe mentions throughout the series that the kids need to come with him, so they can deal with the police...
This would also explain why Beatrice Jr got separated from the Baudelaire kids, and it even explains why Lemony keeps refusing to speak to Beatrice Jr: He doesn't want to tell her that the Baudelaires got separated from her because they're criminals who went to prison (in The End, Lemony says the Baudelaires kept secrets about their past from Beatrice Jr).
Plus, you can do interviews in prison (like Violet going to Briny Beach for the 3rd time, why does the Bad Beginning Rare edition only mention her going and not Sunny and Klaus too?), have a job (like Sunny doing cooking classes on the radio), and of course, lying in bed all day (Klaus and his regrets)...
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 20, 2019 20:58:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 21, 2019 2:43:39 GMT -5
The idea that the Baudelaires end up in prison is a fairly novel one, but I find myself surprisingly taken with it; the way you tell it, it's quite a tidy theory. For what it's worth, the books are inconsistent about when they were written in relation to the events told; the early books take the position that Snicket is writing years later, but in the later books, the story is presented as thought Snicket is not far behind them. It's likely that Daniel Handler's conception of Snicket's role in the books evolved as the series progressed.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Aug 21, 2019 11:29:24 GMT -5
I find it totally believable that the Baudelaires went to prison, but I'm doubtful of the idea that Lemony knows this; The End has passages which seem to imply that he does not know what happened to them.
(I think the 'when is L writing?' issue is more complex than 'early books long after, later books just behind'. There are things in the later books that suggest he is writing long after the events as well, e.g. in TSS Ch. 3 'Teh tracks made by the tires of the car have vanished long ago...' etc. The only direct indication that he is just behind the Baudelaires is in TUA, where it appears that the first two volumes, at least, were published while the unfortunate events were still going on. TSS and TGG include passages which don't imply this by themselves, but do when later books are taken into account, as they show Kit as still alive and the Hotel Denouement as still standing. But it may be that when DH wrote them he hadn't worked out just what was to happen in the final books.)
|
|
|
Post by Foxy on Aug 21, 2019 12:02:02 GMT -5
That would be interesting if they were in prison... I think when he writes about Klaus lying awake, he isn't talking about him during the day, but rather being unable to sleep at night. I always wonder about that third trip for Violet back to Briny Beach. For what it's worth, the books are inconsistent about when they were written in relation to the events told; the early books take the position that Snicket is writing years later, but in the later books, the story is presented as thought Snicket is not far behind them. I kind of always got the feeling with the letters to his kind editor, though, that he really was just behind them, investigating events which had just happened. But I agree with you, the narration is inconsistent.
|
|
|
Post by lsandthebooks on Aug 21, 2019 14:12:03 GMT -5
The idea that the Baudelaires end up in prison is a fairly novel one, but I find myself surprisingly taken with it; the way you tell it, it's quite a tidy theory. For what it's worth, the books are inconsistent about when they were written in relation to the events told; the early books take the position that Snicket is writing years later, but in the later books, the story is presented as thought Snicket is not far behind them. It's likely that Daniel Handler's conception of Snicket's role in the books evolved as the series progressed. I'm glad you like it! Also you reminded me, that I think this also would solve the riddle of how Lemony knows so much about the Baudelaires: He could have interviewed them many times while they were in prison. That's how he knows exactly what they said in private conversations with each other, what their escape plans were, and pretty much every detail that's in his books. But, I do wonder why Lemony didn't try and paint a more innocent picture of them? The Hotel Denouement fire probably resulted in lots of deaths, and was ultimately set by the kids. Or the Caligari Carnival fire too, was partially their fault. And the Baudelaires committing arson would technically put them on the fire-starting side of VFD right? Especially since many volunteers would have died in the Hotel Denouement fire. So why would anyone in VFD help them get out of prison now...? Lemony confirming that they did commit those crimes, makes the Baudelaires be automatic enemies of VFD. I can't figure out why Lemony would do that. All Lemony had to do was say that everything was Olaf's fault by leaving out some of the details... Or, do you think I'm wrong and the Baudelaires are still seen as being loyal VFD volunteers?
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 21, 2019 15:13:55 GMT -5
I think in all likelihood the Baudelaires have a mixed and controversial reputation, both with the general public and what remains of V.F.D. While they were innocent of many of the crimes imputed to them, they were guilty of enough, and found it all too easy to passively go along with whatever terrible crime they were asked to participate in. Lemony has always wanted only one thing: The truth. For better or for worse. The truth about the Baudelaires doesn't exonerate them fully; but it's also the truth about the world that formed them, and I think that would count for a lot with V.F.D.
|
|
|
Post by Foxy on Aug 22, 2019 12:18:15 GMT -5
I think this also would solve the riddle of how Lemony knows so much about the Baudelaires: He could have interviewed them many times while they were in prison. That's how he knows exactly what they said in private conversations with each other, what their escape plans were, and pretty much every detail that's in his books. That's ingenius! I thought Count Olaf lit the match at the hotel? But they were accomplices. I think in all likelihood the Baudelaires have a mixed and controversial reputation, both with the general public and what remains of V.F.D. While they were innocent of many of the crimes imputed to them, they were guilty of enough, and found it all too easy to passively go along with whatever terrible crime they were asked to participate in. This sentiment makes me think of peer pressure, only it wasn't peer pressure, it was pressure from the adults in the series.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 22, 2019 15:27:41 GMT -5
I need to recognize that Lemony's appreciation for the truth is really high. Still, Lemony clearly states that he himself believes that lying is sometimes good and necessary. (TRR) The duality of these two ways of thinking allows me to deduce which specific lies Lemony told. When Lemony lies, he does it only if it is good and NECESSARY. This is evident in the way Lemony acted when he was on SBTS. Therefore any claim that Lemony intentionally lied must be followed by a plausible justification for credibility. I really believe Lemony Snicket would be able to lie to protect Beatrice's life and health if she survived the fire in her house. And as I say in my texts, there is very strong evidence in LSTUA that this is exactly what happened. The mask ball in question is of course the same ball described in TAA. Lemony had worn the bullfighter suit only once in his life, which was that night. This event is so important that the 13 Secrets leaflet makes a point of highlighting. That ball is the key to one of ASOUE's mysteries. In addition, the letter Lemony sent to R at the Orion Observatory was sent with the TMM manuscript. I argue this not only because of the letter to the editor found in TWW, but also because of the reference to gum papers. This detail makes this delivery unique. Daniel Handler has left many clues that we need to believe that Beatrice survived for many years in order to understand the universe of ASOUE. Of course, he only thought of all these details when he published LSTUA. But still, he certainly thought about it. He "corrected" the inconsistencies through a clearly untold story that partly contradicts the clearly told story. But that's the fun of having an unreliable narrator on hand. Despite being books for children, LSTUA proves that Daniel Handler had a complex view of his universe.
On the theory of imprisonment, I can say that this theory is based on some premises of my theories. The first is that most of the information Lemony possesses could only have come from Baudelaire siblings themselves. Lemony says he did not talk directly to the Baudelaire siblings about his research. Therefore, I defend the idea that Lemony read about this in the island book. After all, the book is called ASOUE, so ... That's where Lemony came up with the idea of calling the book itself that he was going to write ASOUE. It is interesting that Lemony wanted to write about his own life, as can be seen in LSTUA, on page 177. However, Lemony was unable to complete the work. Lemony might even be investigating the Baudelaires at the time of the events. He could be the mysterious taxi driver. But he published the books years later. Another basis of the theory is that Lemony is an unreliable author. Lemony, being a narrator and perpetrator, may lie intentionally or may be mistaken in some situations. These possibilities can never be taken from the equation when you deal with narrators who are characters. But in LSTUA, there are almost no narratives. So there are no unreliable narrators because there are no narrators. In addition, Daniel Handler himself states in the introduction that there is no evidence of fraud in LSTUA. Thus, although in a personal note Lemony cites as a possibility a photo was altered using a computer, who would you rather believe: In Lemony or Daniel Handler? This personal note was written by Lemony, as just a possibility. In addition, all additions that exist in the document are clearly visible. These additions are not attempts at fraud, they are only subsequent remarks recorded in the document. Then that's it. If you believe Lemony wrote the books after the events recorded in them, you need to believe that Lemony lied or mistaken in talking about Kit as alive at the time TGG was being written. I defend the idea that this was an intentional lie, because if Lemony had information from the Baudelaire siblings, they certainly recorded (or reported) Kit's death. In that sense, Lemony would be lying to the general public of his universe intentionally. I defend the idea that this intentional lie was told to protect Beatrice, who at the time of book publishing was pretending to be Kit. If you reread the secret letter in TSS, you will realize that that letter could easily be addressed to Beatrice.(Note: In THH it is clear that brothers and sisters are also people fighting for the same cause, not just the children of the same father or mother.) But don't forget the detail that Hotel D needed to be rebuilt with the cable car that took the Baudelaire siblings to the beach. That's why Lemony talks about the letter about Hotel D. And of course, the sugar bowl he refers to in the letter was another sugar bowl. It was something that contained information, unlike Esme's sugar bowl that contained some kind of lethal weapon. Something almost as bad as the deadly fungus we fear so much, according to Kit's words in TPP
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 22, 2019 16:14:28 GMT -5
But in LSTUA, there are almost no narratives. So there are no unreliable narrators because there are no narrators. In addition, Daniel Handler himself states in the introduction that there is no evidence of fraud in LSTUA. Thus, although in a personal note Lemony cites as a possibility a photo was altered using a computer, who would you rather believe: In Lemony or Daniel Handler? False. The introduction employs multiple nested narrators, and Daniel Handler is not the narrator who argues for the autobiography's authenticity (which even then he states may not be a true record).
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 22, 2019 16:44:25 GMT -5
I said " almost" the introduction is a small part that has narrators. I'll check who claims that LSTUA is not tampered with and will come back later. (I can't compete with your textual knowledge Dante ...)
Edit:
Well, I have to recognize that Dante is right. The narrator who reports that the documents are valid is also a character, and as such may be mistaken or may be lying intensely. Unfortunately we know nothing about the nature and identity of such a narrator, so it is impossible to make inferences about his motivations or the validity of the information he gives.
In fact, rereading the introduction, I could see that the history of the introduction itself has evidence of being false. Which would make Daniel Handler an unreliable narrator, which makes everything even more confusing.
Thus, the discussion on the validity of documents found in LSTUA should be broader than the claims found in the introduction. I fully agree. I can say that these discourses should be based on internal evidence (disregarding the introduction) and external evidence. The only external evidence that can be counted as 100% reliable, in my view, is the pamphlet 13 Shocking Secrets You'll Wish You Never Knew About Lemony Snicket. As far as I can understand, so far, this is the only canonical document related to ASOUE that has been published solely by people of our universe, not people of Lemony's universe. Rereading the introduction, I could see that the Daniel Handler giving the introduction is also a character, not the Daniel Handler of our universe. After all, he communicates with people from a fictional universe. Daniel Handler in the introduction is as real as Brett Helquist from chapter 11 of the LSTUA. Leaflet 13 secrets points to LSTUA as: "the most misunderstood source of information on the author evaluable in this country." While this statement is not a determination that the documents were not fraudulent, such a statement shows that there is useful information on LSTUA. In summary, I can say this: LSTUA has pieces of a puzzle that when assembled form a slightly different story from some statements found in ASOUE's books. Because these stories are the fruit of the mind of the true Daniel Handler, I can say that both stories are canonical, although they contradict each other in some respects. As Hermes once said, this kind of situation is possible because it concerns fictional universes. As a theorist, I can say "The story put together through LSTUA has more credibility than the story told in ASOUE's 13 major books." As an argument, I can say: "Autographed documents, even if there is a possibility of fraud, have more credibility than narratives." But in making these claims, I am using the prism of a real-world investigator. In fictional universes, such a statement simply is not necessarily true. At the moment, in order not to topple my house of cards as a whole, I need to resort to the following trick: My whole theory is based on the premise that the contents of the documents found on LSTUA were not rigged. This premise can be questioned by anyone validly. But likewise, I can validly question the truth of Lemony Snicket's statements in ASOUE's 13 books.
Recognizing this, I can say that there will be two ways of thinking ASOUE: one that believes in the truth of Lemony Snicket's statements in ASOUE's 13 books, and one that believes in the truth of the documents found in LSTUA. Of course, some information found on LSTUA validates some information from Lemony in ASOUE's 13 books. These intersection points should be assumed to be highly valid by people who believe in both ways of thinking. For example, all the events narrated in the 13 ASOUE books directly related to Baudelarie siblings are validated by Lemony's statement in a personal note on LSTUA that he would write the truth about Baudelaire siblings. This gives theorists on both sides a bit of stability.
These two ways of thinking need to coexist going forward, until Daniel Handler speaks on which of the two ways of thinking is correct.
I would like to ask Daniel Handler a single question. (Does anyone know how to contact him?):
My question would be, "In the Duchess of Winnipeg's Masked Ball where Lemony Snicket was captured dressed as a bullfighter, the phrase he said to Beatrice was 'Count Olaf is dead'"?
Would Daniel Handler answer a question we asked? After all, we are the 667 Dark Avenue: Answering the Wrong Questions.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 23, 2019 9:11:52 GMT -5
Would Daniel Handler answer a question we asked? After all, we are the 667 Dark Avenue: Answering the Wrong Questions. We on 667 have before now had opportunities to interview Daniel Handler or otherwise ask him questions, though I am bound to say that he rarely delivers straightforward answers.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 23, 2019 9:29:31 GMT -5
Could we try one more time? Could you do it for me? You know, I'm sure Daniel Handler has an emotional attachment to events at Masked Ball. I am sure that the differences between the Ball portrayed in the Netiflix series and the events reported in the book were requested by Daniel Handler to point out that this Ball was not the same Ball described in the books. Lemony's outfit was not bullfighter, the Ball was not at the Duchess's mansion, and it was explicitly said that that ball was held years before the birth of Violet, Klaus, and Sunny. And of course the message was different. Lemony wasn't trying to hide from the security guards. All these details are necessary to ensure that the prom shown in the series is not the same as described in the books.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 23, 2019 12:56:16 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of direct contact with Daniel Handler, and nor do I possess the gall to employ it in such a fashion. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't even do it for the sake of my own questions.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 25, 2019 17:10:38 GMT -5
I sent a letter to Mr. Snicket before yesterday. I sent it to the address on Lemony's official website. I submitted the question, with my contact email, my physical address, and a way for him to contact me anonymously on my YouTube channel. Does the letter reach Daniel Handler's hands?
|
|