|
|
Post by Very Funky Disco on Apr 18, 2009 4:35:02 GMT -5
In response to the last point, there was also the mention in The Austere Academy that foreshadows Prufrock Prep closing down, and Mrs. Bass getting charged for robbery. This sort of suggests that Mrs. Bass does survive the Hotel Denouement fire, since you can't exactly arrest a corpse.
Also, about the whole narrator deal, I'm not sure if your referring to first-person narrative or third-person narrative type narrators - but, generally, narrators are not actual physical entities. Even with first-narrative stories, there's generally not the whole "I'm writing a book" vibe to the whole thing. I mean, you generally don't expect for books to actually exist in the universe of itself, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 18, 2009 5:19:04 GMT -5
In response to the last point, there was also the mention in The Austere Academy that foreshadows Prufrock Prep closing down, and Mrs. Bass getting charged for robbery. This sort of suggests that Mrs. Bass does survive the Hotel Denouement fire, since you can't exactly arrest a corpse. I've put together a theory which allows for maximum ambiguity in who survives the fire, as I think was intended, and this includes the Prufrock Prep. characters. I'll dig it up when we get to the TPP reread. Query: Lemony Snicket: First-person narrator, or third-person narrator? I'd argue for a bit of both, and which one he is at any particular time determines how much we should question what he's saying. For example, I'd say that Lemony knowing everything the Baudelaires did, while it has a first-person justification now and then, should be taken as solid third-person omniscient narration and not questioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Very Funky Disco on Apr 18, 2009 6:17:11 GMT -5
This is part of why I question if there are, perhaps, two layers of canonicity. Lemony Snicket is somewhat rare in which he is both an omniscient narrator and an actual character who exists in the ASOUE Universe. Furthermore, the ASOUE book series are strongly implied to themselves exist in the ASOUE Universe - adding some sort of recursive canonicity.
That's why I brought up the ESP thing, some time ago.
Generally, books with first-person narration are not implied to themselves exist in the universe of said book - nor is there generally any indication that the narrator is the actual protagonist writing about his/her life, and that said book would necessarily exist in the book's universe.
With third-person omniscient narrators, they usually don't have any sort of solid physical existence within the book's universe - but are generally perceived as a body-less entities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 18, 2009 10:45:40 GMT -5
But why is it especially important to Esme? Because of her reputation? The materials were never leaked to the public - she's never been explicitly connected to Olaf outside of VFD circles so why is she still so angry with Beatrice? Well, that depends on what the sugar bowl contains. You're taking it, I think, that it contains evidence, which is suggested by a passage in TSS (though the crucial passage doesn't include the words 'sugar bowl'); but TPP gives quite a different impression. Since we never know for sure what is in the sugar bowl, we will never know for sure why it's important to Esme. I don't think the picture is enough of a clue; it shows Lemony was on the island; it doesn't show he was there at the same time as, or just after, the Baudelaires. He could have gone there ten years, or whatever, later, to research the events. Because the author wouldn't let her, as that would give away too much too early. In other words, there are degrees of senselessness. It's one thing when people say things that are clearly incoherent; it's another when they just fail to ask things that a normal person in their position would ask. I find it quite easy to swallow the second, especially in a series which is in any case somewhat surreal. Or he is the creation of a confused author. So far as I can see, all the passages which explicitly say something about the time of writing put it some time after the events. The idea that Lemony is just behind the orphans comes from putting together passages in different books, between which Handler could have changed his mind. I don't think you can base a theory about the author's intentions on the discrepancies. A theory about what 'really' happened, to which the author's intentions may not be central, is another matter. However, the early books definitely have a "This happened a very long time ago" vibe about them; it's ssalsaped later on because Lemony's more involved with the story; because Handler wanted to do something different. True, but Lemony's deeper involvement has been going on for some time by now: indeed, Esme's 'as Beatrice stole from me', just a few pages earlier, is a major clue that he and the Baudelaires are connected. I guess so. Clearly some of the books have been published, since Beatrice has read them. My suspicion is that they haven't all been published, because (as per the letter to the editor at the end) Lemony didn't know who Beatrice was when he first heard from her, which makes no sense if he had already written The End. I have a theory (though this, perhaps, goes too deep into fanfic territory) that Lemony was still researching the later books while Beatrice was tracking him, and, in particular, that his trip to the mountains was to research TSS. But the general theory about dating doesn't require that. Also, about the whole narrator deal, I'm not sure if your referring to first-person narrative or third-person narrative type narrators - but, generally, narrators are not actual physical entities. Even with first-narrative stories, there's generally not the whole "I'm writing a book" vibe to the whole thing. I mean, you generally don't expect for books to actually exist in the universe of itself, if you know what I mean. I was thinking of first-person narrators. In older books it is quite common for them to draw attention to the fact that they are writing a book - for instance, Treasure Island, which, if I remember rightly, begins something like 'Squire Trelawney and Dr Livesey have asked me to set down these facts'. (I think in general older books pay more attention the question 'How did this book come to exist?' - Lemony is a bit of a throwback to that.). |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 18, 2009 15:03:29 GMT -5
Well, that depends on what the sugar bowl contains. You're taking it, I think, that it contains evidence, which is suggested by a passage in TSS (though the crucial passage doesn't include the words 'sugar bowl'); but TPP gives quite a different impression. Since we never know for sure what is in the sugar bowl, we will never know for sure why it's important to Esme. Not quite fair. There are several indications that the sugar bowl itself, if not its contents, was Esmé's. A bit of an over-reaction, certainly, but look at what she's missing out on. I don't have any problem with saying that the presentation is not only inconsistent between but also within books. Something which I find extremely dubious, but I'll look at it more closely when we get to TBL. Quite so, this is especially the case, in my experience, with older books; they can be journals, or records of events heard from a friend, things like that. Snicket's heavy presence is initially part of the archaic feel. The use of this sort of superfluous framing device largely dropped off; however, Snicket rather subverts it in that his apparent irrelevance to the plot at first is entirely misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 18, 2009 15:39:36 GMT -5
Not quite fair. There are several indications that the sugar bowl itself, if not its contents, was Esmé's. Oh, certainly. But I think Sora's point was that, even given that it was hers, it's not clear why she attached so much importance to it. |
|
