|
Post by joker on Apr 22, 2006 9:42:35 GMT -5
OOOOkay. I have this REALLY FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR Fetched theory, and itpopped into my head and I can't stop thinking about it. What if----the family tree is a map? Not a map as in street map- a V.F.D map. The map of the underground passageways. B, as someone said earlier in the thread, is a dead trunk. Baudelaire's manision is dead wood (basicly) isn't it? If the is the AUTOBIOGRAPHY, Lemony mentioned in the EE he had a map with lots of keys and boxes, right? Well, maybe he submitted this map. The B trunk leads to C. We never know what the Buads. went under in the passageway! They might have gone under C Snicket's house. Then it goes to E, which is 667 Dark Avenue. Then it branches to J, K and then in another branch L! It might just be the passageways, and they could branch out to all of V.F.D's homes! I really doubt it. I'm just tryinmg to come up with ideas that no one can think of to match the family tree. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 22, 2006 9:48:06 GMT -5
I'm just tryinmg to come up with ideas that no one can think of to match the family tree. Thoughts? I think that's a good idea. New ideas - plausible new ones with decent evidence, anyway - are what I like to see if they can further our research. As you said, it is a little farfetched. However, I liked it. You can make a lot of arguments for it, and it's got a lot of credit for it. Plus, I see no reason why V.F.D. might not try to disguise their very maps as something completely different to cause confusion (which the Family Tree certainly has done).
|
|
|
Post by joker on Apr 22, 2006 10:07:03 GMT -5
Thank you! Yes, it certainly has caused confusion. Hmm, now I can't think of anything else it can be! Its so mysterious, it must hold secrets for it to be this puz---I have it.
The sugar bowl. It could be inside the sugar bowl!!!! It holds whereabouts for members, has names, lists, realtivis and realtions on V.F.D members and bad guys (fire starters) has more than enough cclues, why not? Olaf would want to get it hands on it to learn where the members are!!!! It's perfect!
|
|
|
Post by Hanae on Apr 23, 2006 13:42:29 GMT -5
jtb2 that is a pretty good theory, however I'm not sure I believe it.
|
|
|
Post by TheManager on Apr 23, 2006 16:55:54 GMT -5
Dear Readers, What if, A is for Aurther Poe, B is for Betrand, C is for Chas, D is for Dante, e if for Esme, F is for Fiona, G is for Gregor, H for Hal, I for Ike, J K L is for the Snickets, M is for MWABBNH N is for ? and O for Olaf?
|
|
|
Post by Hanae on Apr 23, 2006 19:39:05 GMT -5
Umm I disagree with the a for Arthur and B for Bertrand because I don't think that they are related.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 24, 2006 2:34:40 GMT -5
The problem with a lot of these theories which just plug names with the right initials into the slots is that a lot of the time, the combination doesn't make any sense. You have to really think them through and ask why F. would be Fiona or B. would be Bertrand or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by TheManager on Apr 24, 2006 14:01:53 GMT -5
Dear Readers, It was just a joke. Soryy if insulted anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 24, 2006 14:13:56 GMT -5
I did wonder when "D for Dante" came up. Although I wasn't so vain as to assume you were referring to me rather than the famous Italian poet who once loved a woman called Beatrice.
|
|
|
Post by Strider on Apr 24, 2006 14:20:33 GMT -5
I know what it is. A is arthur (or someone else who is the Baudelaire's mother), B is Bertrand, C is for Chas, D,E,F are the Denouement Siblings, G is Gregor, h is Hal, I is Ike, J,K,L is the Snicket Siblings, M & N is most definately MWBBNH and WWHBNB's names, And O is obviously Olaf. That is it. I know it. It's so obvious by the Suspicious Characters tree.
|
|
Antenora
Detriment Deleter ![*](//storage.proboards.com/253263/images/KgCqSplSkZMQmgAhTLyO.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/253263/images/KgCqSplSkZMQmgAhTLyO.png)
Fiendish Philologist
Put down that harpoon gun, in the name of these wonderful birds!
Posts: 15,891
Likes: 113
|
Post by Antenora on Apr 24, 2006 14:29:24 GMT -5
How exactly does the Suspicious Characters chart make it obvious? Bertrand wasn't even on that, and if memory serves the Snicket siblings weren't there either. And if the tree's arrangement indeed represents families or some VFD heirarchy, it doesn't make much sense to have the Denouements above the Snicket siblings, Olaf, Hal, and so on--they're the same age or younger than those people, so they couldn't be those people's recruiters, let alone parents.
|
|
|
Post by samreen on Apr 24, 2006 15:56:32 GMT -5
My guess is that there are people on the tree that we havent heard of, or a very minor character that we havent noticed. If you use the characters that we're all familiar with, the tree doesnt make sense.
|
|
|
Post by joker on Apr 24, 2006 18:35:33 GMT -5
Yes, taht is a good point- - how do we even know H is for Hal or Hector? M and N- mwbbnh and wwhbnb? I'm not saying that the possibility is gone- it isn't, it could very well much be them - but we've gotten so used to these theories and now that I realize it, now we believe they're real, and they could be anyone! Not just those two, but who knows? White Faced Women? PI.G? Bald man? Larry from the Anxious Clown? B might even be Bruce! It could be anyone! So, yes, you have a good point.
|
|
|
Post by Strider on Apr 25, 2006 11:16:27 GMT -5
But we can safely assume that C is most definitely Chas.
|
|
|
Post by freeeagle on May 1, 2006 20:36:11 GMT -5
f you use the characters that we're all familiar with, the tree doesn't make sense.
I don't agree. There are holes in every theory. Using familiar characters is always a bit better because we know more about them, and can therefore make more sensible connections. Knowing Snicket, he'll tie it all together brilliantly in some way that none of us would expect.
But we can safely assume that C is most definitely Chas.
Really? I never would have guessed! (Note the sarcasm.)
|
|