Post by Dante on Oct 10, 2007 15:49:44 GMT -5
Extended Essay[/size] - by PJ
How and why have the characters of A Series of Unfortunate Events displayed moral ambiguity in the 11th and 12th books of the series, and what effects have these had upon the characters and the reader?
The enormous presence of moral ambiguity in Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events is what makes the children’s fiction series so attractive to me. The majority of children’s books are written relatively simply; there is usually either only action, or very blatant character development, such as a clearly stated moral, or characters that are distinguished as “good” or “evil”, protagonists and antagonists. The constantly developing moral ambiguity in the series means that these typical alignments are thrown completely askew, and we have to ask ourselves whether or not a character has acted “good” (morally justified) or “bad” (not morally justified). The ambiguity adds character development, which is a great part of what makes this children’s series so unusually compelling, and is the driving motivation behind this essay.
The story-line of the entire series is simple, at first. Three talented siblings, Violet, Klaus and Sunny become orphaned when their parents die in a fire that consumed their home. As they are minors (Violet being the eldest at 14, Klaus only 13, and Sunny still an infant), they are put under the care of the sinister Count Olaf, who is the series’ recurring antagonist, and is after the children’s vast inheritance fortune. The children escape his clutches, and from this point onwards, the children are shunted from guardian to guardian, as Olaf continuously chases after them, bringing about the Unfortunate Events in the series title. This basic outline, however, only holds true for the first few books. As the series transpires, another plot takes hold; we learn more about a schism of a mysterious organisation known only as V.F.D. The organisation contains two sides, defined simply as “one side that starts fires” (the “bad” side) and “one side that puts them out” (the “good” side). Count Olaf, the prime antagonist, belongs to the fire-starting side, whilst various noble characters in the series, such as the Baudelaire parents, belong to the fire-extinguishing side.
The moral ambiguity in the series, however, becomes increasingly present in the later books, as the characters find themselves in constantly worsening states and their actions become increasingly desperate and morally questionable. This is why I have chosen the latest two instalments: The Grim Grotto, Book the Eleventh, and the Penultimate Peril, Book the Twelfth. The series culminates with the newly released thirteenth book, but the build up of moral ambiguity takes place for the most part in the 11th and 12th books.
I had initially wished to add “plot” alongside the effects the moral ambiguity has upon the characters and reader, in my research question. I ultimately decided not to, once the essay had reached its end. This is because the effects on the plot are somewhat simplistic, and would, mostly be retelling parts of the series. This is in contrast to the effects on characters and readers, which are more intangible, more in need of thought and investigation. The effect on the plot, I reasoned, wasn’t a very vital part to the essay, and so I dropped it. This also helped alleviate some of the pressure of the 4000 word limit.
And now, my research question. The keywords How and Why the characters can be seen as morally ambiguous are relatively straightforward: I will simply present powerful examples of morally questionable actions in the two books, and explain why these actions have been committed.
The keywords in my research question, however, are “morally ambiguous”.
The Oxford Dictionary defines the words “ambiguous” and “moral” as:
Ambiguous - adj.
Obscure; of double meaning; of doubtful classification; of uncertain issue.
Moral – adj.
Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
So, the phrase “morally ambiguous” could be defined with a combination of the two above definitions as:
“Doubtful classification of the distinction between right and wrong.”
In lay-mans terms, moral ambiguity would be described as uncertain ethical conduct, or simply when it is not certain whether an action is “right” or “wrong”.
First of all, I will be covering the “How” and “Why” moral ambiguity is portrayed, beginning chronologically with Book 11, The Grim Grotto.
Moral ambiguity, as I have already said, becomes more heavily present later on in the series. The Grim Grotto, especially, seems to focus on this topic. The character of Fernald is arguably one of the most complex and morally unsure in the entire Series of Unfortunate Events. In the books preceding The Grim Grotto, Fernald (or simply the hook-handed man, as he is called until Book 11) has always been portrayed as an evil, menacing character, one of Olaf’s main henchmen. Indeed, of Olaf’s original crew (first seen in the Bad Beginning, the first book in the series), by the Grim Grotto, Fernald is the only survivor.
But once he is re-united with his sister, Fiona, who has so far been a noble, good character, we learn a lot more about his motives and his character. Up until this point, the story has been very clear as to whom the “good” guys are, and whom the “bad” guys are. As the Baudelaires say: “V.F.D is a noble organization, and Count Olaf is a terrible villain.” But Fernald then reveals that things aren’t as one-sided as they seem to the Baudelaires. “Just as the poison of a deadly fungus can be the source of some wonderful medicines, someone like Jacques Snicket can do something villainous, and someone like Count Olaf can do something noble.”
Fernald has seen good people to bad things, and vice versa, whereas the Baudelaires have only seen people like Count Olaf do bad things, and noble people, such as Dewey Denouement in the 12th book, do good things. This leads Fernald to believe that there aren’t any “good” or “bad” sides. As he says: “People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.” From a moral stand-point, this means that he doesn’t see the two sides of the schism as “good” or “bad”, which means he is free to choose which side he wishes to join, without feeling morally superior or inferior. Fernald possesses one of the two central viewpoints in the novels on moral ambiguity: He believes that people are neither purely noble, or ignoble, rather, they possess qualities of both in varying degrees.
Upon being re-united with his “good” sister, Fiona, Fernald decides to leave Olaf’s crew, and to help the Baudelaires and Fiona escape back to their own submarine. Due to complications, however, the Baudelaires are separated from the siblings, and when they meet again, Fernald has returned to Olaf’s side. As it later turns out, he abandons Olaf, and takes his sister with him. His constantly changing loyalties only underline his moral uncertainty; he doesn’t want to join the Baudelaires, nor does he want to remain with Olaf.
The entire Widdershins family is described as volatile. This is in reference to what side of the schism they seem to take. Fernald Widdershins is portrayed as a malevolent character throughout the entire series, but in The Grim Grotto he also helps the Baudelaires. Captain Widdershins at first seems to be a good character (though we later find out that he once committed arson), but half-way through the novel, he abandons his daughter and crew for some nameless purpose. Fiona Widdershins is no different. She, alongside her father, is a noble volunteer, until she is abandoned by Widdershins, and is captured by Olaf. She is re-united with her brother, and the two of them plan on escaping from Olaf alongside the Baudelaires. Due to complications, however, they are left behind when the Baudelaires return to their own submarine, and in their next appearance, we discover that Fiona has betrayed the Baudelaires, and has joined Olaf’s crew.
Her reasoning for this is the following:
“My family is lost. Aye! My mother is dead. Aye! My father moved away. Aye! My stepfather has abandoned me. Aye! My brother may not be as wonderful as you Baudelaires, but he is the only family I have. Aye! I’m staying with him. Aye!” Later on, however, Fiona and her brother run away from Olaf, but still remain criminals.
Now I’ll move onto the next book I have chosen, namely The Penultimate Peril. Whereas The Grim Grotto focused more on other people, the Widdershins family, being morally ambiguous, the 12th book revolves more around the moral ambiguity surrounding the Baudelaires themselves, as well as some of the newfound ambiguity around Count Olaf. Before, the Baudelaires were good and noble, whilst Olaf was evil and murderous. Now, as the series starts to end, the morality of the two groups begin to waver, and both the Baudelaires and Olaf find themselves questioning the morality of their actions.
At one point in The Penultimate Peril, Olaf and the Baudelaires argue about morality, and whether there are noble people in the world. At this point, many instances of moral ambiguity are referred to.
“Why, look at the idiots standing next to you! A judge who let me marry you, a man who gave up on you together, and a sub-sub librarian who spends his life sneaking around taking notes. They’re hardly a noble bunch.” “Sir is here. Vice Principal and Mr. Remora. And that pesky little reporter from The Daily Punctilio, who’s here to write silly articles praising my cocktail party. And ridiculous Mr. Poe, who arrived just hours ago to investigate a bank robbery.” All of these people Olaf refers to are from the earlier books in the series, so I won’t spend much time on them, except to say that they were all either unpleasant and nasty people, or they were good people with noble intentions who failed to act nobly.
Later in the scene, the Violet and Klaus are confronted with the morality of their own actions when Olaf says:
“And how did you survive me? The Daily Punctilio is full of your crimes. You lied to people. You stole. You abandoned people in danger. You set fires. Time after time you’ve relied on treachery to survive, just like everyone else.” This refers to all of the drastic things they’ve had to do in the past few books in order to evade Olaf. The children aren’t given proper time to consider their actions, as they are interrupted by other people, and the conversation takes a different turn. This alternate view, that there are no truly noble people, is the second viewpoint central to the series.
The children are also questioned about the morality of their actions they performed whilst in their concierge disguises. Violet gave a villain a harpoon gun. Her reasoning for this is:
“I had to perform concierge errands as part of my disguise….and I had to take the harpoon gun up to the roof. What else could I do?”
Klaus says the same thing when it is revealed that he aided the villains by dangling birdpaper out of the window.
“Ernest told me to. I had to obey him as part of my disguise. What else could I do?”
“What else could I do?” Is the same excuse used by Kevin when he is asked why he has led such an ignoble life, as well.
Olaf himself says “What else can I do?” when he is confronted by the Baudelaires. It is at this moment that Olaf shows the first signs of moral ambiguity in the entire series. He is wielding a harpoon gun, and is threatening to shoot the Baudelaires. They plead with him not to shoot, but Olaf threatens to at the count of ten. At 9, he says “What else can I do?”
At this moment, Olaf is in doubt as to whether or not he should murder the Baudelaires in the pursuit of information. Perhaps the nobility of the children surprises him, and he wonders if he was wrong when he earlier said:
“There are no truly noble people in this world.”
He wonders if his actions are acceptable or not. Unfortunately, we do not find out what he would have chosen, as they are interrupted by Mr. Poe, which results in the death of Dewey Denouement. Afterwards, Olaf has reverted to his normal, treacherous self. It is interesting to note, however, that in the thirteenth Book Olaf is shown in a sympathetic light, which reflects back and strengthens Olaf questioning his morality in the twelfth book.
Directly after Olaf’s suggested display of morality, the stand-off is interrupted, and a startled Olaf presses the harpoon gun into the Baudelaires’ hands, and they drop it. The gun fires, and shoots Dewey Denouement, killing him. Although this was clearly an accident, the Baudelaires feel guilty:
“‘In a moment, they’ll all believe we’re murderers.’
‘Maybe we are,’
‘It was an accident,’,
‘but it was our fault.’”
“‘We can’t run,’
‘If we run, everyone will think we’re murderers.’
“Maybe we are.’”
In the end of the book, the Baudelaires choose to aid Olaf, in order to survive, in various different ways. Klaus helps him open a locked door, Violet helps him escape from the roof of a burning building with them, and Sunny sets the hotel on fire, in order to create a signal for her comrades, and to prevent Olaf from poisoning the hotel.
“When unfathomable situations arose in the lives of the Baudelaires, and they did not know what to do, the children often felt as if they were balancing very delicately on top of something very fragile and very dangerous, and that if they weren’t careful they might fall a very long way into a sea of wickedness. Violet felt this delicate balance when she offered to help Count Olaf escape, even though it meant that she and her siblings could escape, too, and Klaus felt this delicate balance when he helped Olaf unlock the laundry room door, even though the sugar bowl was not to be found inside.”
“‘And burned down hotel,’
‘Signal,’
‘We had good reasons,’
‘but we still did bad things.’
‘We want to be noble,’ ‘but we’ve had to be treacherous.’
‘Noble enough.’”
It is also inferred that the Baudelaire’s parents, who had heretofore been portrayed as noble and kind people, had participated in murder.
“‘I guess the sub-sub librarian hasn’t told you the story about your parents, and a box of poison darts. Why don’t you ask him, orphans? Why don’t you ask this legendary librarian about that fateful evening at the opera?’ The Baudelaires turned to look at Dewey, who had begun to blush.”
“‘Tell me what the weapon is that left you an orphan, and I’ll type it in for you.’
‘Certainly I’ll tell you,’ he said.
‘It was poison darts.’”
The combination of Olaf mentioning something ignoble the parents did involving a box of poison darts, and the fact that Olaf’s parents were murdered using poison darts indicates that it was the Baudelaire parents who murdered Olaf’s parents, or were accomplices. This is only speculation, but I have included it here, as the Baudelaires themselves believe it to be true, and so will be affected.
Now, we move onto the effects of the moral ambiguity on the characters and reader, starting with the characters.
The character of Fernald, as I have said, is morally unsure. He used to be on “good” side of VFD, but defected to the bad side after he and his father set Anwhistle Aquatics on fire, possibly because of the Medusoid Mycelium, a deadly fungus. It was at this point, or so I infer, that he realised that the noble side of VFD wasn’t quite as noble as he thought, as they had been cultivating the poisonous fungus to use as a weapon. This is where he first came up with his theory that
“People aren’t either wicked or noble.”
This theory is only strengthened by the Baudelaires, who at first seemed noble, but have also committed villainous acts. As he remarks:
“…I saw the ruins of that fire in the hinterlands - a fire we started together. You’ve burned things down, and so have I.”
He also remarks that:
“…and someone like Count Olaf can do something noble.”
Olaf, who throughout the series has only acted ignobly, is revealed to have done something noble. The effect of all these people who are “good” (or “bad”) doing “bad” (or “good”) things is that Fernald doesn’t make a clear distinction between good and bad, and so himself doesn’t strive to be good, or bad, either. He is morally neutral, which allows him to do something bad, such as becoming Olaf’s henchman, as well as doing something good, such as helping the Baudelaires escape his clutches.
Fernald’s moral ambiguity has subtle effects on most characters, but the greatest effect is upon Fiona, his sister. Before being abandoned by her step-father, and being re-united with her brother, she sees herself as “good”. As she says to her brother:
“This is your chance to do something noble. You don’t have to remain on the wrong side of the schism.”
Yet she defects to Olaf’s side of the schism, and uses the following reasoning:
“‘Sunny’s right,’ Violet said.
‘Don’t do this, Fiona. There’s still time to change your mind, and stay on the noble side of the schism.’ …
‘You wouldn’t abandon your sister! Aye! You risked your lives to save Sunny. How can you ask me to abandon my brother?’
‘Your brother is a wicked person,’ Violet said.
‘People aren’t either wicked or noble.’ Fiona said.
‘They’re like chef’s salads.’”
It is interesting to note the similarity with what Violet says to Fiona (“There’s still time to change your mind, and stay on the noble side of the schism”) and what Fiona says to her brother, in an earlier scene (“This is your chance to do something noble. You don’t have to remain on the wrong side of the schism.”). The two siblings answer with: “People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads.” This symbolises the change of Fiona’s own thoughts about morality to that of her brother’s.
Fiona and Fernald’s defection as well as the criminal activities of the Baudelaires fortify Olaf’s own belief that no one is noble, which he uses to justify his own immorality.
“‘Ha! Count Olaf said. ‘You can’t rely on associates. More comrades have failed me than I can count. Why, Hooky and Fiona double-crossed me just yesterday, and let you brats escape! Then they double-crossed me again and stole my submarine!”
On the Baudelaires, he says:
“The Daily Punctilio is full of your crimes. You lied to people. You stole. You abandoned people in danger. You set fires. Time after time you’ve relied on treachery to survive, just like everyone else. There are no truly noble people in this world.”
In The Grim Grotto, the concept of moral ambiguity was introduced, but in The Penultimate Peril, it was expounded on, with the Baudelaires themselves questioning the morality of their actions. This is brought about by the various influential characters in the series, mainly Fernald, Fiona, and Olaf. Fiona’s betrayal of them, for one, influenced them dramatically:
“‘How could she leave?’
‘She betrayed me. She betrayed all of us. How could someone so wonderful do something so terrible?’
‘I guess her brother was right,’
‘People aren’t either wicked or noble.’”
Fernald and Fiona’s neutral view of people thereby has effects on the Baudelaire siblings. This brings them to the thought that they themselves mightn’t be entirely noble.
And, as I’ve quoted two paragraphs above:
“Time after time you’ve relied on treachery to survive, just like everyone else. There are no truly noble people in this world.”
This is Olaf’s viewpoint, and the Baudelaires are also affected by it:
“And they did not know if their own observations, errands, and deeds meant that they were noble, or wicked, or somewhere in between.”
Here the Baudelaires’ insecurities, brought about by Fernald’s philosophy are only increased by Olaf’s own mentality. This is also due to the revelation that the Baudelaires’ parents aren’t as noble as they have always seemed, in the eyes of the children. The fact that their own parents – who heretofore have been portrayed as bastions of morality and nobility – have themselves acted ignobly, only serves to drive Olaf’s point home.
I will now come to the last point in this essay, the effect of the moral ambiguity on the readers themselves. It’s my personal opinion that the presence of moral ambiguity makes the characters realistic, and three dimensional. Olaf has always been portrayed as “bad”, whilst the Baudelaires’ parents have been portrayed as “good”. But in The Penultimate Peril, we discover that there is more to these characters than simply this. Olaf hesitates to kill, and we later discover that the parents had ties to the murder of Olaf’s parents.
This reinforces Olaf’s view that there are no truly noble people, whilst it also adds to Fernald’s view that people aren’t either noble or wicked. The unrealistic view of the Baudelaires – that there are fully noble people and fully ignoble people - is easily dispelled by the moral ambiguity throughout the series. This is shown with the Baudelaires’ own actions; they start off as unquestionably moral characters, but as the series progresses, they find themselves committing immoral actions, and wonder whether their reasoning therefore was good enough. The Baudelaires are shown to be occasionally ignoble. This is the embodiment of the two views presented in the series. It also makes the characters more real, in that they develop, they change, which ultimately makes the novels interesting to read.
But the author never states whether Olaf or Fernald is right. He merely shows us a plethora of contrasting characters which possess different, and often ambiguous moral status, and thereby lets the readers make their own decisions about what they think is right. The moral ambiguity adds interactivity to the novel; it does not preach to the reader, rather, it lets them decide. The unanswered question of the Baudelaires’ own morality is quite realistic, and because it forces us to think ourselves about whether they are morally justified or not, it makes the characters seem much more real, and we can empathise with them.
I think it is the effects of the moral ambiguity that raise this children’s series into a more complex and interesting series with developing characters that can be read by older readers as well, whilst still pleasing the younger readers. Moral ambiguity, therefore, is an incredibly vital part of A Series of Unfortunate Events, and greatly helps enthral the reader.
In conclusion, to answer my research question, I think that the characters are influenced in various ways by the two central viewpoints about morality in the books, namely, Fernald’s belief that people are both ignoble and noble, and Olaf’s belief that people aren’t truly noble. These affect a large majority of the characters, but most importantly, they affect the protagonists, whose journey through the series can thereby be seen as a metaphorical journey deeper and deeper into moral ambiguity. The children discover that they themselves, as well as the people around them, can act both nobly and ignobly, as a direct result of the influences of Olaf and Fernald, which creates a conflict within themselves, a conflict which, ultimately, is never concluded. This unanswered question, however, adds great depth and character development to the novels, which positively affects the readers by presenting them an accurate, if tragic, view of the world.
How and why have the characters of A Series of Unfortunate Events displayed moral ambiguity in the 11th and 12th books of the series, and what effects have these had upon the characters and the reader?
The enormous presence of moral ambiguity in Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events is what makes the children’s fiction series so attractive to me. The majority of children’s books are written relatively simply; there is usually either only action, or very blatant character development, such as a clearly stated moral, or characters that are distinguished as “good” or “evil”, protagonists and antagonists. The constantly developing moral ambiguity in the series means that these typical alignments are thrown completely askew, and we have to ask ourselves whether or not a character has acted “good” (morally justified) or “bad” (not morally justified). The ambiguity adds character development, which is a great part of what makes this children’s series so unusually compelling, and is the driving motivation behind this essay.
The story-line of the entire series is simple, at first. Three talented siblings, Violet, Klaus and Sunny become orphaned when their parents die in a fire that consumed their home. As they are minors (Violet being the eldest at 14, Klaus only 13, and Sunny still an infant), they are put under the care of the sinister Count Olaf, who is the series’ recurring antagonist, and is after the children’s vast inheritance fortune. The children escape his clutches, and from this point onwards, the children are shunted from guardian to guardian, as Olaf continuously chases after them, bringing about the Unfortunate Events in the series title. This basic outline, however, only holds true for the first few books. As the series transpires, another plot takes hold; we learn more about a schism of a mysterious organisation known only as V.F.D. The organisation contains two sides, defined simply as “one side that starts fires” (the “bad” side) and “one side that puts them out” (the “good” side). Count Olaf, the prime antagonist, belongs to the fire-starting side, whilst various noble characters in the series, such as the Baudelaire parents, belong to the fire-extinguishing side.
The moral ambiguity in the series, however, becomes increasingly present in the later books, as the characters find themselves in constantly worsening states and their actions become increasingly desperate and morally questionable. This is why I have chosen the latest two instalments: The Grim Grotto, Book the Eleventh, and the Penultimate Peril, Book the Twelfth. The series culminates with the newly released thirteenth book, but the build up of moral ambiguity takes place for the most part in the 11th and 12th books.
I had initially wished to add “plot” alongside the effects the moral ambiguity has upon the characters and reader, in my research question. I ultimately decided not to, once the essay had reached its end. This is because the effects on the plot are somewhat simplistic, and would, mostly be retelling parts of the series. This is in contrast to the effects on characters and readers, which are more intangible, more in need of thought and investigation. The effect on the plot, I reasoned, wasn’t a very vital part to the essay, and so I dropped it. This also helped alleviate some of the pressure of the 4000 word limit.
And now, my research question. The keywords How and Why the characters can be seen as morally ambiguous are relatively straightforward: I will simply present powerful examples of morally questionable actions in the two books, and explain why these actions have been committed.
The keywords in my research question, however, are “morally ambiguous”.
The Oxford Dictionary defines the words “ambiguous” and “moral” as:
Ambiguous - adj.
Obscure; of double meaning; of doubtful classification; of uncertain issue.
Moral – adj.
Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
So, the phrase “morally ambiguous” could be defined with a combination of the two above definitions as:
“Doubtful classification of the distinction between right and wrong.”
In lay-mans terms, moral ambiguity would be described as uncertain ethical conduct, or simply when it is not certain whether an action is “right” or “wrong”.
First of all, I will be covering the “How” and “Why” moral ambiguity is portrayed, beginning chronologically with Book 11, The Grim Grotto.
Moral ambiguity, as I have already said, becomes more heavily present later on in the series. The Grim Grotto, especially, seems to focus on this topic. The character of Fernald is arguably one of the most complex and morally unsure in the entire Series of Unfortunate Events. In the books preceding The Grim Grotto, Fernald (or simply the hook-handed man, as he is called until Book 11) has always been portrayed as an evil, menacing character, one of Olaf’s main henchmen. Indeed, of Olaf’s original crew (first seen in the Bad Beginning, the first book in the series), by the Grim Grotto, Fernald is the only survivor.
But once he is re-united with his sister, Fiona, who has so far been a noble, good character, we learn a lot more about his motives and his character. Up until this point, the story has been very clear as to whom the “good” guys are, and whom the “bad” guys are. As the Baudelaires say: “V.F.D is a noble organization, and Count Olaf is a terrible villain.” But Fernald then reveals that things aren’t as one-sided as they seem to the Baudelaires. “Just as the poison of a deadly fungus can be the source of some wonderful medicines, someone like Jacques Snicket can do something villainous, and someone like Count Olaf can do something noble.”
Fernald has seen good people to bad things, and vice versa, whereas the Baudelaires have only seen people like Count Olaf do bad things, and noble people, such as Dewey Denouement in the 12th book, do good things. This leads Fernald to believe that there aren’t any “good” or “bad” sides. As he says: “People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.” From a moral stand-point, this means that he doesn’t see the two sides of the schism as “good” or “bad”, which means he is free to choose which side he wishes to join, without feeling morally superior or inferior. Fernald possesses one of the two central viewpoints in the novels on moral ambiguity: He believes that people are neither purely noble, or ignoble, rather, they possess qualities of both in varying degrees.
Upon being re-united with his “good” sister, Fiona, Fernald decides to leave Olaf’s crew, and to help the Baudelaires and Fiona escape back to their own submarine. Due to complications, however, the Baudelaires are separated from the siblings, and when they meet again, Fernald has returned to Olaf’s side. As it later turns out, he abandons Olaf, and takes his sister with him. His constantly changing loyalties only underline his moral uncertainty; he doesn’t want to join the Baudelaires, nor does he want to remain with Olaf.
The entire Widdershins family is described as volatile. This is in reference to what side of the schism they seem to take. Fernald Widdershins is portrayed as a malevolent character throughout the entire series, but in The Grim Grotto he also helps the Baudelaires. Captain Widdershins at first seems to be a good character (though we later find out that he once committed arson), but half-way through the novel, he abandons his daughter and crew for some nameless purpose. Fiona Widdershins is no different. She, alongside her father, is a noble volunteer, until she is abandoned by Widdershins, and is captured by Olaf. She is re-united with her brother, and the two of them plan on escaping from Olaf alongside the Baudelaires. Due to complications, however, they are left behind when the Baudelaires return to their own submarine, and in their next appearance, we discover that Fiona has betrayed the Baudelaires, and has joined Olaf’s crew.
Her reasoning for this is the following:
“My family is lost. Aye! My mother is dead. Aye! My father moved away. Aye! My stepfather has abandoned me. Aye! My brother may not be as wonderful as you Baudelaires, but he is the only family I have. Aye! I’m staying with him. Aye!” Later on, however, Fiona and her brother run away from Olaf, but still remain criminals.
Now I’ll move onto the next book I have chosen, namely The Penultimate Peril. Whereas The Grim Grotto focused more on other people, the Widdershins family, being morally ambiguous, the 12th book revolves more around the moral ambiguity surrounding the Baudelaires themselves, as well as some of the newfound ambiguity around Count Olaf. Before, the Baudelaires were good and noble, whilst Olaf was evil and murderous. Now, as the series starts to end, the morality of the two groups begin to waver, and both the Baudelaires and Olaf find themselves questioning the morality of their actions.
At one point in The Penultimate Peril, Olaf and the Baudelaires argue about morality, and whether there are noble people in the world. At this point, many instances of moral ambiguity are referred to.
“Why, look at the idiots standing next to you! A judge who let me marry you, a man who gave up on you together, and a sub-sub librarian who spends his life sneaking around taking notes. They’re hardly a noble bunch.” “Sir is here. Vice Principal and Mr. Remora. And that pesky little reporter from The Daily Punctilio, who’s here to write silly articles praising my cocktail party. And ridiculous Mr. Poe, who arrived just hours ago to investigate a bank robbery.” All of these people Olaf refers to are from the earlier books in the series, so I won’t spend much time on them, except to say that they were all either unpleasant and nasty people, or they were good people with noble intentions who failed to act nobly.
Later in the scene, the Violet and Klaus are confronted with the morality of their own actions when Olaf says:
“And how did you survive me? The Daily Punctilio is full of your crimes. You lied to people. You stole. You abandoned people in danger. You set fires. Time after time you’ve relied on treachery to survive, just like everyone else.” This refers to all of the drastic things they’ve had to do in the past few books in order to evade Olaf. The children aren’t given proper time to consider their actions, as they are interrupted by other people, and the conversation takes a different turn. This alternate view, that there are no truly noble people, is the second viewpoint central to the series.
The children are also questioned about the morality of their actions they performed whilst in their concierge disguises. Violet gave a villain a harpoon gun. Her reasoning for this is:
“I had to perform concierge errands as part of my disguise….and I had to take the harpoon gun up to the roof. What else could I do?”
Klaus says the same thing when it is revealed that he aided the villains by dangling birdpaper out of the window.
“Ernest told me to. I had to obey him as part of my disguise. What else could I do?”
“What else could I do?” Is the same excuse used by Kevin when he is asked why he has led such an ignoble life, as well.
Olaf himself says “What else can I do?” when he is confronted by the Baudelaires. It is at this moment that Olaf shows the first signs of moral ambiguity in the entire series. He is wielding a harpoon gun, and is threatening to shoot the Baudelaires. They plead with him not to shoot, but Olaf threatens to at the count of ten. At 9, he says “What else can I do?”
At this moment, Olaf is in doubt as to whether or not he should murder the Baudelaires in the pursuit of information. Perhaps the nobility of the children surprises him, and he wonders if he was wrong when he earlier said:
“There are no truly noble people in this world.”
He wonders if his actions are acceptable or not. Unfortunately, we do not find out what he would have chosen, as they are interrupted by Mr. Poe, which results in the death of Dewey Denouement. Afterwards, Olaf has reverted to his normal, treacherous self. It is interesting to note, however, that in the thirteenth Book Olaf is shown in a sympathetic light, which reflects back and strengthens Olaf questioning his morality in the twelfth book.
Directly after Olaf’s suggested display of morality, the stand-off is interrupted, and a startled Olaf presses the harpoon gun into the Baudelaires’ hands, and they drop it. The gun fires, and shoots Dewey Denouement, killing him. Although this was clearly an accident, the Baudelaires feel guilty:
“‘In a moment, they’ll all believe we’re murderers.’
‘Maybe we are,’
‘It was an accident,’,
‘but it was our fault.’”
“‘We can’t run,’
‘If we run, everyone will think we’re murderers.’
“Maybe we are.’”
In the end of the book, the Baudelaires choose to aid Olaf, in order to survive, in various different ways. Klaus helps him open a locked door, Violet helps him escape from the roof of a burning building with them, and Sunny sets the hotel on fire, in order to create a signal for her comrades, and to prevent Olaf from poisoning the hotel.
“When unfathomable situations arose in the lives of the Baudelaires, and they did not know what to do, the children often felt as if they were balancing very delicately on top of something very fragile and very dangerous, and that if they weren’t careful they might fall a very long way into a sea of wickedness. Violet felt this delicate balance when she offered to help Count Olaf escape, even though it meant that she and her siblings could escape, too, and Klaus felt this delicate balance when he helped Olaf unlock the laundry room door, even though the sugar bowl was not to be found inside.”
“‘And burned down hotel,’
‘Signal,’
‘We had good reasons,’
‘but we still did bad things.’
‘We want to be noble,’ ‘but we’ve had to be treacherous.’
‘Noble enough.’”
It is also inferred that the Baudelaire’s parents, who had heretofore been portrayed as noble and kind people, had participated in murder.
“‘I guess the sub-sub librarian hasn’t told you the story about your parents, and a box of poison darts. Why don’t you ask him, orphans? Why don’t you ask this legendary librarian about that fateful evening at the opera?’ The Baudelaires turned to look at Dewey, who had begun to blush.”
“‘Tell me what the weapon is that left you an orphan, and I’ll type it in for you.’
‘Certainly I’ll tell you,’ he said.
‘It was poison darts.’”
The combination of Olaf mentioning something ignoble the parents did involving a box of poison darts, and the fact that Olaf’s parents were murdered using poison darts indicates that it was the Baudelaire parents who murdered Olaf’s parents, or were accomplices. This is only speculation, but I have included it here, as the Baudelaires themselves believe it to be true, and so will be affected.
Now, we move onto the effects of the moral ambiguity on the characters and reader, starting with the characters.
The character of Fernald, as I have said, is morally unsure. He used to be on “good” side of VFD, but defected to the bad side after he and his father set Anwhistle Aquatics on fire, possibly because of the Medusoid Mycelium, a deadly fungus. It was at this point, or so I infer, that he realised that the noble side of VFD wasn’t quite as noble as he thought, as they had been cultivating the poisonous fungus to use as a weapon. This is where he first came up with his theory that
“People aren’t either wicked or noble.”
This theory is only strengthened by the Baudelaires, who at first seemed noble, but have also committed villainous acts. As he remarks:
“…I saw the ruins of that fire in the hinterlands - a fire we started together. You’ve burned things down, and so have I.”
He also remarks that:
“…and someone like Count Olaf can do something noble.”
Olaf, who throughout the series has only acted ignobly, is revealed to have done something noble. The effect of all these people who are “good” (or “bad”) doing “bad” (or “good”) things is that Fernald doesn’t make a clear distinction between good and bad, and so himself doesn’t strive to be good, or bad, either. He is morally neutral, which allows him to do something bad, such as becoming Olaf’s henchman, as well as doing something good, such as helping the Baudelaires escape his clutches.
Fernald’s moral ambiguity has subtle effects on most characters, but the greatest effect is upon Fiona, his sister. Before being abandoned by her step-father, and being re-united with her brother, she sees herself as “good”. As she says to her brother:
“This is your chance to do something noble. You don’t have to remain on the wrong side of the schism.”
Yet she defects to Olaf’s side of the schism, and uses the following reasoning:
“‘Sunny’s right,’ Violet said.
‘Don’t do this, Fiona. There’s still time to change your mind, and stay on the noble side of the schism.’ …
‘You wouldn’t abandon your sister! Aye! You risked your lives to save Sunny. How can you ask me to abandon my brother?’
‘Your brother is a wicked person,’ Violet said.
‘People aren’t either wicked or noble.’ Fiona said.
‘They’re like chef’s salads.’”
It is interesting to note the similarity with what Violet says to Fiona (“There’s still time to change your mind, and stay on the noble side of the schism”) and what Fiona says to her brother, in an earlier scene (“This is your chance to do something noble. You don’t have to remain on the wrong side of the schism.”). The two siblings answer with: “People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads.” This symbolises the change of Fiona’s own thoughts about morality to that of her brother’s.
Fiona and Fernald’s defection as well as the criminal activities of the Baudelaires fortify Olaf’s own belief that no one is noble, which he uses to justify his own immorality.
“‘Ha! Count Olaf said. ‘You can’t rely on associates. More comrades have failed me than I can count. Why, Hooky and Fiona double-crossed me just yesterday, and let you brats escape! Then they double-crossed me again and stole my submarine!”
On the Baudelaires, he says:
“The Daily Punctilio is full of your crimes. You lied to people. You stole. You abandoned people in danger. You set fires. Time after time you’ve relied on treachery to survive, just like everyone else. There are no truly noble people in this world.”
In The Grim Grotto, the concept of moral ambiguity was introduced, but in The Penultimate Peril, it was expounded on, with the Baudelaires themselves questioning the morality of their actions. This is brought about by the various influential characters in the series, mainly Fernald, Fiona, and Olaf. Fiona’s betrayal of them, for one, influenced them dramatically:
“‘How could she leave?’
‘She betrayed me. She betrayed all of us. How could someone so wonderful do something so terrible?’
‘I guess her brother was right,’
‘People aren’t either wicked or noble.’”
Fernald and Fiona’s neutral view of people thereby has effects on the Baudelaire siblings. This brings them to the thought that they themselves mightn’t be entirely noble.
And, as I’ve quoted two paragraphs above:
“Time after time you’ve relied on treachery to survive, just like everyone else. There are no truly noble people in this world.”
This is Olaf’s viewpoint, and the Baudelaires are also affected by it:
“And they did not know if their own observations, errands, and deeds meant that they were noble, or wicked, or somewhere in between.”
Here the Baudelaires’ insecurities, brought about by Fernald’s philosophy are only increased by Olaf’s own mentality. This is also due to the revelation that the Baudelaires’ parents aren’t as noble as they have always seemed, in the eyes of the children. The fact that their own parents – who heretofore have been portrayed as bastions of morality and nobility – have themselves acted ignobly, only serves to drive Olaf’s point home.
I will now come to the last point in this essay, the effect of the moral ambiguity on the readers themselves. It’s my personal opinion that the presence of moral ambiguity makes the characters realistic, and three dimensional. Olaf has always been portrayed as “bad”, whilst the Baudelaires’ parents have been portrayed as “good”. But in The Penultimate Peril, we discover that there is more to these characters than simply this. Olaf hesitates to kill, and we later discover that the parents had ties to the murder of Olaf’s parents.
This reinforces Olaf’s view that there are no truly noble people, whilst it also adds to Fernald’s view that people aren’t either noble or wicked. The unrealistic view of the Baudelaires – that there are fully noble people and fully ignoble people - is easily dispelled by the moral ambiguity throughout the series. This is shown with the Baudelaires’ own actions; they start off as unquestionably moral characters, but as the series progresses, they find themselves committing immoral actions, and wonder whether their reasoning therefore was good enough. The Baudelaires are shown to be occasionally ignoble. This is the embodiment of the two views presented in the series. It also makes the characters more real, in that they develop, they change, which ultimately makes the novels interesting to read.
But the author never states whether Olaf or Fernald is right. He merely shows us a plethora of contrasting characters which possess different, and often ambiguous moral status, and thereby lets the readers make their own decisions about what they think is right. The moral ambiguity adds interactivity to the novel; it does not preach to the reader, rather, it lets them decide. The unanswered question of the Baudelaires’ own morality is quite realistic, and because it forces us to think ourselves about whether they are morally justified or not, it makes the characters seem much more real, and we can empathise with them.
I think it is the effects of the moral ambiguity that raise this children’s series into a more complex and interesting series with developing characters that can be read by older readers as well, whilst still pleasing the younger readers. Moral ambiguity, therefore, is an incredibly vital part of A Series of Unfortunate Events, and greatly helps enthral the reader.
In conclusion, to answer my research question, I think that the characters are influenced in various ways by the two central viewpoints about morality in the books, namely, Fernald’s belief that people are both ignoble and noble, and Olaf’s belief that people aren’t truly noble. These affect a large majority of the characters, but most importantly, they affect the protagonists, whose journey through the series can thereby be seen as a metaphorical journey deeper and deeper into moral ambiguity. The children discover that they themselves, as well as the people around them, can act both nobly and ignobly, as a direct result of the influences of Olaf and Fernald, which creates a conflict within themselves, a conflict which, ultimately, is never concluded. This unanswered question, however, adds great depth and character development to the novels, which positively affects the readers by presenting them an accurate, if tragic, view of the world.