|
Post by Hanae on Mar 21, 2006 15:32:53 GMT -5
I was rereading my copy of TUA and I found something interesting that I had never noticed before. At the bottom of page 26 it says: Beatrice of course, is far past complaining about lost posessions--the very reason, I am certain, that you have dedicated your life to researching the lives of those three poor children. That means TUA is going on at the same time as the series. Does it also mean that Beatrice is still alive? And what posessions is the Duchess talking about?
Please Discuss
|
|
|
Post by twistedbrain on Mar 21, 2006 15:34:41 GMT -5
No, it doesn't mean she's alive(she's definitely dead), but it most likely means there's a connection between her death and the Bauds. Most likely that connection is Olaf.
|
|
|
Post by Hanae on Mar 21, 2006 15:37:43 GMT -5
O, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by twistedbrain on Mar 21, 2006 15:38:30 GMT -5
Sure. Ane the possesions very well may be the curtains and accordian mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 21, 2006 16:06:55 GMT -5
Have you noted that Beatrice would certainly be long past complaining if she was dead? The statement is deliberately ambiguous - interpreted your way, Beatrice could be still alive as of... whenever we next hear of her, basically. Interpreted the way I suggest, she could have died at any point in time prior to the letter - which itself could have been sent at some point during and after the series. I also rather doubt that all of the U.A. takes place at one time period - it's almost entirely old documents, which means that it could have been compiled during the series, or long after, but the documents themselves could come from any point in time.
Edit: The context clearly indicates that the writer of the letter was alluding indirectly to the objects that Snicket kept with the Duchess mentioned in the previous sentence or so, but the statement in question about Beatrice may have been metaphorical - is a life a possession? - or it could have been referring to something that Beatrice kept with the Duchess, or some lost thing of Beatrice's in general. Although it need not even be a possession that she has lost - Beatrice apparently faced great trouble because of a possession lost by Esmé, the sugar bowl, which she thinks Beatrice stole.
So, in summary: The passage is completely ambiguous, which is very enjoyable to read.
|
|
|
Post by SnicketFires on Mar 21, 2006 21:46:19 GMT -5
I thought we had discussed it before, but it doesn't seem to have been. The search feature is unreliable, though. Timeline thread*shrug*
|
|
|
Post by lauren on Mar 22, 2006 4:31:57 GMT -5
Yeah I interpreted that as suggesting she was still alive when that letter was written. It would seem a bit careless of the Dutchess to talk about Beatrice in that manner, in writing to Lemony, when she was dead. However this wouldn't make sense because Lemony was dedicating his books to his dead beloved from the 1st book. Maybe she had not realised Beatrice was dead yet, or maybe her death came shortly after that letter was written but before his first book.
Lost possessions? When I first read this I assumed possessions she may have lost in a fire.
|
|
|
Post by Hanae on Apr 12, 2006 20:41:20 GMT -5
I have always kind of thought she might be alive during the books because Snicket isn't writing the books as they happen. He is writing them afterwards, so she could be alive during the books, but die after.
|
|