Post by Dante on Sept 1, 2004 6:29:22 GMT -5
Well, things seem pretty slow at the moment, with the only things on anyone’s mind being waiting for the Grim Grotto, so it’s time to bring up a few theories that I’m pretty sure haven’t been discussed before, or views on current theories that have not yet been expressed. Remember, I was browsing this place for months before I joined, so I’ve got a pretty good idea of which ideas have been done to death and which haven’t.
Geraldine Julienne
Quite a few people seem to think that she’s in V.F.D. The only real evidence for that is that, in the U.A., it was revealed that she was, at one point, preparing to write about V.F.D. in her “Secret Organizations You Should Know About” column, implying that she knew something about V.F.D. However, in her very fangirl-esque letter to Esmé (U.A., 119-120), she confesses that, “Sometimes, in order to make the column more exciting, I write rumors or things I make up, instead of facts.” Also, in the V.F.D. Building Committee transcript (U.A., page 33-47) in which the article us mentioned, one of the Js (remember, there were two, because I was a pronoun, and there are two Js called out on the roll call) says “But how did that terrible reporter discover our location? We stopped blah blah blah etc.” If Geraldine Julienne was in V.F.D., then this comment would not have been made at all, or be followed with replies such as “Well, she is a member, and so knows our codes, disguises, and comes to meetings and such. Yes, I’d say it’s pretty obvious how she found out our location”. To conclude, Geraldine Julienne is not a volunteer – it seems to me more likely that Esmé and Olaf (Esmé in particular, since Geraldine seems to be a fan (and is probably a member of the Esmé Squalor Fan Club (U.A. page 164))) are feeding her false information about the Baudelaires (a direct example of this can be seen in Book 9 (page 272) “Olaf told me that the Baudelaires are responsible [for the burning of Caligari Carnival]!”, and in the beginning of the U.A. (page 5), Lemony writes that “The Daily Punctilio bases its articles on innuendo, a word which here means “people who call up newspapers and tell them things that aren’t necessarily true.””). She’s just an idiot blinded by her admiration for Esmé who got suckered into doing the evil bidding of some vile arsonists. Mr. Poe’s a sucker too, as is Eleanora – although it’s hard to argue that they’re not up to something, what with “You-Know-Who” (U.A., page 139) and the mysterious item in Mr. Poe’s top hat when he met the Baudelaires at the beach (B.B.R.E., page 172) (poisonous plant? Sugar Bowl?).
K. Snicket
While I don’t want to go near the true identity of the Baudelaire mother, I’m perfectly happy to come up with arguments for who isn’t her. (The following section contains numerous assumptions, but the conclusion is a logical one.) In Book 9, in Lulu/Olivia’s archival library, the Baudelaires find a photograph of themselves at Damocles Dock, which was from someone with very messy handwriting who was called either R. or K (page 140). It seems a reasonable assumption to make that Quigley’s photograph of the Baudelaires in (S.S., page 157, 168-169) is a copy of the same picture, since it shows the same scene (although, looking at the scenery, it may have been the same location, but taken at the end of the book). Now, K. would probably be in a better position to give such a photograph to Jacques, since she’s his twin. Also, R. is a duchess (U.A. page 30 and probably other places too), and so probably wouldn’t be in a position where she could get things to Jacques quickly. Also, in her role as a duchess, R. has probably been taught how to write very neatly indeed. Therefore, I think K. probably took that photo. Can you see where this is going yet? Just for the record, I don’t have a clue how Olivia got that photo – it seems like it was probably sent to her by K., but why? I don’t know. Anyway, let’s take a leap of logic and say that K.’s V.F.D. talent is photography, which is very helpful as evidence (although it can be doubtful – see U.A. index). And now, let’s think about that photograph on page 13 of the Snicket file (H.H., page 108 and others). It features Lemony Snicket, Jacques Snicket, and the Baudelaire parents, standing outside 667 Dark Avenue. One of the major arguments that K. is the Baudelaire mother is that this could be a family shot – the Snickets with the Mr. Baudelaire, soon to be K.’s husband and Jacques’ and Lemony’s brother in law. However, we seem to have forgotten everything that the U.A. taught us. What was the first chapter called? “Who took this?” It seems to me that the answer may well be K. Snicket, the photographer, making the Baudelaire mother someone else. On an end note to this section, let’s take a guess at K.’s name. I reckon that Lemony will take the comedy route and pull a Homer J. Simpson on us. Kay Snicket, anyone? Really final note: Ms. K. = K. Snicket. There’s no other logical conclusion.
The Survivor in the Snowman & the Three Orphans
Many people think that the survivor in the snowman (U.A., Chapter 4) was Quigley Quagmire, presumably based on the fact that there’s a photograph of two boys and a girl in the Sebald section (specifically page 70), and one boy and one girl are labelled “Sent to Prufrock Preparatory School” and the other boy is labelled “?”. These are assumed to be the Quagmires, and that’s a fair assumption to make. But, as others have pointed out, they don’t have black hair, the girl looks quite different to the boys, and one of the boys looks shorter, younger than the others. These are not the Quagmires. On a tangential note, even though “…could not possibly have been at the same time.” (U.A., page 204-205) gives us some leniency with timelines (some believe the quote is an acknowledgement of chronological inconsistencies in the book) , the blatant twisting of time that would be required for Quigley to have been on the set of “Zombies in the Snow” is too much unless we accept all-out time travel – I won’t explain the difficulties here, they’re quite obvious. Besides, it’s my belief that “…could not possibly have been at the same time.” refers to difficulties with the fifteen-year gap and the Prospero which some have pointed out, and which I am too tired to repeat. Besides, Quigley would have mentioned it. The survivor in the snowman was probably the survivor of the Baudelaire fire, otherwise that section of the secret message would not have been relevant to Monty, who the message was aimed at. To be honest, this clashes fiercely with my own opinion of who the survivor of the Baudelaire fire is, although I won’t put forward that theory just yet. Back onto the main message – some say that the picture is of the Snickets. The ages fit, I suppose – Jacques and K. are twins, with Lemony being the youngest – but what of the question mark, and the Prufrock Prep. reference? That doesn’t fit at all. I think that the picture is of a third set of orphans who have not yet been introduced. This is backed up in Nero’s letter (U.A., page 129-131) to Mr. and Mrs. Spats (another two people who we know far too little about) in which he claims that Ms. K. drags off two “replacement orphans” for the Baudelaires by their ankles. “Like all orphans, the two kidnapped brats were so stupid that they didn’t even look scared as Ms. K. carried them away. Their faces were very serious, as if they were embarking on an important mission of some kind.” This is clear V.F.D. recruitment, which gives a clue as to why they had their picture in the Sebald section. Maybe the Baudelaires will meet them or the missing boy later – they need more friends than just the Quagmires.
U.A. Index Mistakes
Nearly every page reference in the U.A. index to something in Chapter 10, “What can be hidden in a book” is wrong by one or two pages. Not relevant, but I thought I’d mention it. That section must have been rearranged prior to publication, and the index not corrected.
Daniel Handler
In the index, “Handler, Daniel” points to vii-xix, 52. vii-xix is the entire introduction with the confusingly large number of contributors. This suggests that, within the context of the book, that the whole section was made up to fool any enemies as is suggested on xv. Page 52 is the page with a letter to a J. concerning possible recruitment of a child. It also contained pictures of a young child. This suggests that, either within the context of the book, the letter was from Handler, or outside the context of the book i.e. in the real world, those are pictures of Handler when he was very young (maybe).
(Continued in next post...)
Edit: Changed "hasn't" to "haven't".
Edit Again: Third set of orphans, not fourth. The Snicket siblings don't count because they're grown up.
#nosmileys#nosmileys
Geraldine Julienne
Quite a few people seem to think that she’s in V.F.D. The only real evidence for that is that, in the U.A., it was revealed that she was, at one point, preparing to write about V.F.D. in her “Secret Organizations You Should Know About” column, implying that she knew something about V.F.D. However, in her very fangirl-esque letter to Esmé (U.A., 119-120), she confesses that, “Sometimes, in order to make the column more exciting, I write rumors or things I make up, instead of facts.” Also, in the V.F.D. Building Committee transcript (U.A., page 33-47) in which the article us mentioned, one of the Js (remember, there were two, because I was a pronoun, and there are two Js called out on the roll call) says “But how did that terrible reporter discover our location? We stopped blah blah blah etc.” If Geraldine Julienne was in V.F.D., then this comment would not have been made at all, or be followed with replies such as “Well, she is a member, and so knows our codes, disguises, and comes to meetings and such. Yes, I’d say it’s pretty obvious how she found out our location”. To conclude, Geraldine Julienne is not a volunteer – it seems to me more likely that Esmé and Olaf (Esmé in particular, since Geraldine seems to be a fan (and is probably a member of the Esmé Squalor Fan Club (U.A. page 164))) are feeding her false information about the Baudelaires (a direct example of this can be seen in Book 9 (page 272) “Olaf told me that the Baudelaires are responsible [for the burning of Caligari Carnival]!”, and in the beginning of the U.A. (page 5), Lemony writes that “The Daily Punctilio bases its articles on innuendo, a word which here means “people who call up newspapers and tell them things that aren’t necessarily true.””). She’s just an idiot blinded by her admiration for Esmé who got suckered into doing the evil bidding of some vile arsonists. Mr. Poe’s a sucker too, as is Eleanora – although it’s hard to argue that they’re not up to something, what with “You-Know-Who” (U.A., page 139) and the mysterious item in Mr. Poe’s top hat when he met the Baudelaires at the beach (B.B.R.E., page 172) (poisonous plant? Sugar Bowl?).
K. Snicket
While I don’t want to go near the true identity of the Baudelaire mother, I’m perfectly happy to come up with arguments for who isn’t her. (The following section contains numerous assumptions, but the conclusion is a logical one.) In Book 9, in Lulu/Olivia’s archival library, the Baudelaires find a photograph of themselves at Damocles Dock, which was from someone with very messy handwriting who was called either R. or K (page 140). It seems a reasonable assumption to make that Quigley’s photograph of the Baudelaires in (S.S., page 157, 168-169) is a copy of the same picture, since it shows the same scene (although, looking at the scenery, it may have been the same location, but taken at the end of the book). Now, K. would probably be in a better position to give such a photograph to Jacques, since she’s his twin. Also, R. is a duchess (U.A. page 30 and probably other places too), and so probably wouldn’t be in a position where she could get things to Jacques quickly. Also, in her role as a duchess, R. has probably been taught how to write very neatly indeed. Therefore, I think K. probably took that photo. Can you see where this is going yet? Just for the record, I don’t have a clue how Olivia got that photo – it seems like it was probably sent to her by K., but why? I don’t know. Anyway, let’s take a leap of logic and say that K.’s V.F.D. talent is photography, which is very helpful as evidence (although it can be doubtful – see U.A. index). And now, let’s think about that photograph on page 13 of the Snicket file (H.H., page 108 and others). It features Lemony Snicket, Jacques Snicket, and the Baudelaire parents, standing outside 667 Dark Avenue. One of the major arguments that K. is the Baudelaire mother is that this could be a family shot – the Snickets with the Mr. Baudelaire, soon to be K.’s husband and Jacques’ and Lemony’s brother in law. However, we seem to have forgotten everything that the U.A. taught us. What was the first chapter called? “Who took this?” It seems to me that the answer may well be K. Snicket, the photographer, making the Baudelaire mother someone else. On an end note to this section, let’s take a guess at K.’s name. I reckon that Lemony will take the comedy route and pull a Homer J. Simpson on us. Kay Snicket, anyone? Really final note: Ms. K. = K. Snicket. There’s no other logical conclusion.
The Survivor in the Snowman & the Three Orphans
Many people think that the survivor in the snowman (U.A., Chapter 4) was Quigley Quagmire, presumably based on the fact that there’s a photograph of two boys and a girl in the Sebald section (specifically page 70), and one boy and one girl are labelled “Sent to Prufrock Preparatory School” and the other boy is labelled “?”. These are assumed to be the Quagmires, and that’s a fair assumption to make. But, as others have pointed out, they don’t have black hair, the girl looks quite different to the boys, and one of the boys looks shorter, younger than the others. These are not the Quagmires. On a tangential note, even though “…could not possibly have been at the same time.” (U.A., page 204-205) gives us some leniency with timelines (some believe the quote is an acknowledgement of chronological inconsistencies in the book) , the blatant twisting of time that would be required for Quigley to have been on the set of “Zombies in the Snow” is too much unless we accept all-out time travel – I won’t explain the difficulties here, they’re quite obvious. Besides, it’s my belief that “…could not possibly have been at the same time.” refers to difficulties with the fifteen-year gap and the Prospero which some have pointed out, and which I am too tired to repeat. Besides, Quigley would have mentioned it. The survivor in the snowman was probably the survivor of the Baudelaire fire, otherwise that section of the secret message would not have been relevant to Monty, who the message was aimed at. To be honest, this clashes fiercely with my own opinion of who the survivor of the Baudelaire fire is, although I won’t put forward that theory just yet. Back onto the main message – some say that the picture is of the Snickets. The ages fit, I suppose – Jacques and K. are twins, with Lemony being the youngest – but what of the question mark, and the Prufrock Prep. reference? That doesn’t fit at all. I think that the picture is of a third set of orphans who have not yet been introduced. This is backed up in Nero’s letter (U.A., page 129-131) to Mr. and Mrs. Spats (another two people who we know far too little about) in which he claims that Ms. K. drags off two “replacement orphans” for the Baudelaires by their ankles. “Like all orphans, the two kidnapped brats were so stupid that they didn’t even look scared as Ms. K. carried them away. Their faces were very serious, as if they were embarking on an important mission of some kind.” This is clear V.F.D. recruitment, which gives a clue as to why they had their picture in the Sebald section. Maybe the Baudelaires will meet them or the missing boy later – they need more friends than just the Quagmires.
U.A. Index Mistakes
Nearly every page reference in the U.A. index to something in Chapter 10, “What can be hidden in a book” is wrong by one or two pages. Not relevant, but I thought I’d mention it. That section must have been rearranged prior to publication, and the index not corrected.
Daniel Handler
In the index, “Handler, Daniel” points to vii-xix, 52. vii-xix is the entire introduction with the confusingly large number of contributors. This suggests that, within the context of the book, that the whole section was made up to fool any enemies as is suggested on xv. Page 52 is the page with a letter to a J. concerning possible recruitment of a child. It also contained pictures of a young child. This suggests that, either within the context of the book, the letter was from Handler, or outside the context of the book i.e. in the real world, those are pictures of Handler when he was very young (maybe).
(Continued in next post...)
Edit: Changed "hasn't" to "haven't".
Edit Again: Third set of orphans, not fourth. The Snicket siblings don't count because they're grown up.
#nosmileys#nosmileys