|
Post by Dante on May 18, 2009 13:38:08 GMT -5
...Prufrock Prep burning down? Are you sure you're not confusing your chronologies, S? I don't recall anything being established beyond the fact that it was shut down. Now you mention it, you're quite right; I don't recall any allusion to the building being burnt. Places being gleefully burnt to the ground on- and off-screen is something that only really comes into play around THH. I'm satisfied that it results from the article being pulled before it could be completed. This seems the most probable explanation, given the neat way it's been blurred. Very good. I'd always found that particular couplet rather baffling myself. I don't think it really counts as a retcon if it doesn't actually contradict the previously established facts. It's perfectly possible - and indeed, one of my favourite completely minor details that nobody ever remembers - that the Punctilio reported Monty's death as an accident, and I wholeheartedly embrace it as an example of a later construction that is good. Don't forget Gustav Sebald! Doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by cwm on May 18, 2009 14:06:59 GMT -5
I think we have established beyond all doubt that Gustav Sebald, unless capable of returning from the grave, is not the same Gustav who is Monty's lab assistant.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 18, 2009 14:07:40 GMT -5
[/i] We've had this discussion many many times about the numerous 'masked balls' referenced in ASOUE, but really which one are we talking about? Is she apologizing about the ball over fifteen years previous? Has she not spoken to Lemony over this entire time? [/quote] As I was not here for the previous discussions, can you enlighten me? What is the evidence for a masked ball held fifteen years previously? So far as I can see there are two suggested dates for the ball - which may in fact be because there were two balls - just before the Baudelaire fire, and at some time during the events of ASOUE, while Olaf was searching for the reptiles (so after TRR and, on the basis of later evidence, before TSS). A lot of people seems to find the line puzzling, but I find this puzzling. Beatrice is past caring about lost possessions - this is a poetic way of saying she is dead, given point by the fact that the Duchess has just been talking about Lemony's lost possessions. This is why Lemony has devoted his life to researching the lives of her children - unable to do anything more for her, he is devoting himself to the interests of her offspring. It is put in slightly cryptic terms, of course, since Handler isn't going to write 'Hey, Beatrice was the Baudelaires' mother!' for all to see. I would think, the trial of those suspected of burning the Winnipeg mansion down. According to chapter ten, the book was written to hide secret documents. I don't think it's always the tape of Arthur and Eleanora; in chapter three Jacques (if it is he) says he will hide part of the building committee transcript there. Could well be; that's an interesting thought. There are references within the series to Lemony being thought dead (Jacques consulted Lulu about whether he was alive, and Kit at the end seemed to think he was dead.) If you believe, as I do, that the writing of (most of) the series happens some time later, this must relate to a report of his death different from that we hear about in chapter 1. Lemony’s capture at the masked ball doesn’t ever seem to have been of particular significance, although I think some of you have linked it to Lemony’s apparent imprisonment in offhand remarks in the series? I've suggested it could be so linked, if we suppose the masked ball happened after the Baudelaire fire. (Clearly the imprisonment Lemony describes happened some time later; he was at liberty while writing the first few books, but in prison around the middle of the series). However, I think the ball must have happened before the fire (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), so this won't work. Yes. This is, I think the first suggestion we get of the sugar bowl as an item of ongoing significance. (THH points to its theft as an important event, but does not suggest people are still looking for it today.) Is Lemony's map (I take it you mean the one in TEE) called an underground map? I had always taken this to refer to Winnipeg. Or at least Lemony thinks it is. He may not be very well up on the capacities of computers.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 18, 2009 14:29:06 GMT -5
There, see? The Edit button is your pal. Is Lemony's map (I take it you mean the one in TEE) called an underground map? I had always taken this to refer to Winnipeg. Answer: No, but it depicts the underground, so I always assumed it referred to Lemony's map because it was the only known map we had, especially where vague references to "the city" are concerned. Winnipeg is a valid alternate interpretation - the Duchess of Winnipeg is a hereditary title apparently of significance to V.F.D., and it's far from implausible that her family would therefore have a map of the city they reside in. I don't consider that to be a natural response to the text.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 18, 2009 19:01:35 GMT -5
Dante: Sorry about the double post - I was sure there was an intervening post, but this must have been an illusion.
I had taken 'underground map' to mean 'underground railway map'; I felt an iconic image, like the London Underground Map, is the sort of thing that might reasonably be displayed on a napkin. But on reflection, I think 'underground' isn't normally used in that sense in North America. So now I'm not sure what to think.
OK, some comments of my own.
I think it's significant that right at the beginning of this book we are faced with possibilities of inaccuracy and deception. First the introduction, with the mystery of where the papers come from. Then in chapter 1 the false report of Lemony's death, and the inaccurate account of his birth (together with a note calling attention to the unreliability of photographs). Then in chapter 2 the possibly forged letter from the Duchess. I think this should lead us to be wary of everything we read.
This is not to say, though, that the book contains no valuable information. It introduces us to a lot of things that are later confirmed in the series - the VFD emblem, 'The World is Quiet Here', Sebald code. Most importantly, perhaps, it's the first place we hear of the schism (even if it gets the date of it wrong). Still, I think caution is required.
Introduction.
I don't think I can add anything to what people have said about the main puzzle, the chain of narrators. But I think the pages at the end of the introduction raise some interesting points.
The fact that Lemony has corrected the table of contents, and has left notes to the editor regarding the editor's notes, suggest he had access to the manuscript at quite a late stage, while it was being prepared for publication. If he is the doorman, that would help to make sense of this. On the other hand, one might also think that the doorman was responsible for the apparently villainous annotations that have been made in a few places, especially as they seem to be made in charcoal. As Dante points out, the doorman writes in the same style as Olaf's cow-associate in chapter 9; might they be the same person? To add to the confusion, the villainous annotator's handwriting seems indistinguishable from Lemony's.
Even though Lemony objects to the chapter-titles, in fact each chapter generally does contain something relevant to the question asked, as well as to the substituted question. (That's not to say it answers it - though sometimes it does, in a rather oblique way.)
Chapter 1.
Why was Mr Snicket's death published in the newspaper? Unlike most of the questions this is never answered, either here or later. One might well think that he would have reason to fake his own death, to escape from his pursuers; but on the contrary he seems anxious to deny it.
The obituary is interesting, since it seems to say there was a gap between Lemony's sacking from the Punctilio and his exposure as a member of VFD (presumably a scandal because most people associate the name 'VFD' with the bad side). Since the period during which he was writing anthropomorphic treatises is said to be one of unrequited love, presumably his breakup with Beatrice came before that (although we know it was caused, in some way, by an article in the Punctilio). On the other hand, since this report itself comes from the DP, perhaps we should take no account of it.
One might also wonder what 'anthropmorphic treatises' means. The Lump Of Coal and The Latke Which Couldn't Stop Screaming might be called anthropomorphic, since they give inanimate things human qualities - but they are not very long, as the treatises are said to be.
Lemony says he will give a photograph as proof of his age when he was taken, but then says that if he can't find one he will substitute a photograph of another boy of the same age - which, of course, proves nothing. This introduces the theme of inaccurate photographs which is going to run throughout. (E.g. the Prospero is not the same ship in all the pictures - and in none of them does it resemble the ship in the diagram, which is the same ship we saw in TRR. Not all the Sebald photographs feature the same snowman. Etc.)
I have a theory, though a rather fanficcish one, to account for the uncertainty about Lemony's age when he was taken; I think he might have pretended to be younger than he was, like Sunny in TSS, in an attempt to stop them taking him - saying 'Goo ga ga', and crawling even though he could walk.
One point that I think Dante raised earlier - I think we can be fairly sure the Snickets are members of VFD, because, as Sir is later to reveal, they live in a green mansion.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 19, 2009 6:23:59 GMT -5
Why was Mr Snicket's death published in the newspaper? Unlike most of the questions this is never answered, either here or later. One might well think that he would have reason to fake his own death, to escape from his pursuers; but on the contrary he seems anxious to deny it. Now, did I read a theory once that V.F.D. placed the obituary in order to give Lemony a chance to come out of hiding and/or leave the country? "When there is no way of knowing, one can only imagine" Oh, incidentally, I’ve heard it suggested that R., as Duchess of Winnipeg, is a reference to Susan Rich, Handler’s editor, who is Canadian… I think. Might all be a bit of a stretch, but I thought I should report it. ~Chapter 3~ Interestingly, the pages of the Building Committee transcript appear to be singed. Notice that the pronoun “I” actually represents another J. One L is Lemony, one J is presumably Jacques and the other K is presumably Kit. D is Daniel Handler. The Rs are probably the Duchess of Winnipeg (the Vice Chancellor?) and the fictional character Ramona Quimby. Note: Handler really likes the Ramona Quimby books, and regrets the fact that Beverly Cleary supposedly doesn’t like aSoUE. People have tried to read character names into the neophytes, but trying to read too many characters into the initials is probably a bad idea… The entirety of page 39’s “We are entering people’s homes” paragraph has been used for an extremely dubious theory which can be known as the “V.F.D. training” theory, which suggested that the entirety of aSoUE was a set-up to train the Baudelaires for initiation into V.F.D. Wouldn’t that be utterly horrible? My take on this was that it wasn’t deliberate, but once their series of unfortunate events was over, the Baudelaires would be unofficially more than qualified for entry into the organisation. The top of page 41 makes one wonder if Olaf ever read this transcript, which could be where he got the idea for his plans for TAA. The “an interesting idea” note is regarding the automobiles used to store secret messages, though, which is more relevant to the fake R. So what are we supposed to conclude from this with regards to Chapter 2 – that the fake R. wanted Lemony to think that she had forgotten the details of this particular code? Or what? Also, it’s been suggested before now that we might be able to locate extra Sebald messages if we use the erroneous eight-word-gap version. “The sugar bowl secret could slip their mind entirely” – should’ve made them slowly read thirteen-plus books teasing the secret and then never revealed it. If they ever heard it from then on, they sure wouldn’t forget. “We stopped inscribing the insignia on the outside of our buildings a very long time ago, and we haven’t used green wood as construction material for quite some time.” So does this suggest that the possibly non-existent green mansion in the Introduction survived for so long, somehow? If it does exist, perhaps it was in villainous hands – putting V.F.D.’s eye insignia on the front doors is a clear attempt to include Olaf’s house, unless he did it himself as some kind of sick parody. “I first met all of you – except for L, of course” – does this suggest that K isn’t Kit? Some of you came up with a theory about this in another thread, I think, to the tune that if Jacques and Kit are twins, then they never strictly speaking first “met” anywhere. It’s an odd one, though. (Looking it up, this was Elle’s theory. Fine work.) The reference to the Versailles Post Office has led some to believe that “the city” is Versailles. Oh, any idea which headquarters the building photographed at the start of Chapter Three us? I assumed that it was the “abandoned shack” in the northwest region of the Finite Forest, for some reason. “E and O, neither of you are welcome at this meeting.” Given how polite and formal this is, I wonder if Olaf and Esmé’s true villainy had yet quite emerged. Then again, they did just confess to betraying the organisation, and volunteers often are very polite. “Actually, I prefer to be called T.” One that’s not been accounted for, save that it’s presumably the disguise Olaf is using at the time. There’s a “T” in “Count Olaf,” of course, and the THH false name “Tocuna” (with “Flo”) begins with a T, although that’s a female name. “Take a look at this!” … “Put that back in its box immediately!” Handler’s on record saying that this was a match or a lighter. The implication here is that the schism occurred as a result of Olaf’s demands – some agreed and joined him, others separated entirely. This suggests that either V.F.D. felt extremely threatened, or that they weren’t unreasonable demands, and yet it’s hard to deny that many of the volunteers-turned-villains are, well, villainous. TPP places the timing of the schism earlier than this, though – I’ve suggested that this in fact represents this generation’s worsening of the schism, as Kit does say that it worsens with each generation. One wonders whose copy of Ivan Lachrymose: Lake Explorer got the crucial half-transcript. It’s meant to be under someone’s bed, so that clearly alludes to Josephine, even if it’s not meant to be anyone in particular in real terms. Shame the Baudelaires never read through any of her rescued papers aboard the Queequeg. Look at the notes on pages 50 and 51 – the handwriting isn’t dissimilar, but the item used to write is. And given the presence of the V.F.D. note, the page 51 photographs must have been taken specifically for the book, although they’re rather odd and amateurish pictures (in the sense that they utilise the bare minimum of materials – they’re like a youngster’s reconstruction of the actual scene). I’ve suggested that the photographs on page 52 are of a young Daniel Handler – not in-context, but as an in-joke.
|
|
|
Post by cwm on May 19, 2009 10:07:09 GMT -5
Interestingly, the pages of the Building Committee transcript appear to be singed. Presumably after being rescued from a fire. Since the transcript was finished, we can probably safely assume that Olaf did *not* proceed with his threat to burn down the V.F.D. headquarters. At the very least, he did not do so during the meeting, since that would involve somebody continuing to take the minutes whilst the building was burning down. So either the building was burnt down at a later date, or the fire which has singed these notes is a different fire and the minutes were moved to a new location. (EDIT: Actually, it could be possible that Olaf burnt the building down right after the minutes stopped being taken, I suppose.)
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 19, 2009 11:23:07 GMT -5
One other thing about the introduction - I wonder who is responsible for the rejected chapter titles?
Lots of interesting stuff in Dante's comments on chapter 3, but I'll wait until I come to that chapter to comment.
Chapter 2.
The question 'Is this letter authentic?' is an example of the pun on 'letter' which is to become important in TBL.
Is the letter authentic? It doesn't seem to me impossible that it is, and that the mistakes are deliberate ones intended to make a point - Lemony does ask 'is she trying to tell me something?' It's striking that the Duchess had, at the building committee - and perhaps also in her letter to Kit, it that's authentic - drawn attention to the possibility of the very mistake which is made here. The villainous annotator also seems interested in this connection, since he has underlined those passages, but it's hard to know just what to make of them.
If the letter is false, why was it forged? Most of what it says is probably true, even if it is a forgery, as it consists largely of details intended to establish its authenticity. It doesn't seem to say much that would actually be a useful deception. Perhaps it's meant as cover for someone who is impersonating the Duchess (the real Duchess being dead). Or perhaps the author does in fact know where the sugar bowl (or whatever Lemony is looking for) is, and is trying to conceal that.
The bit about Beatrice seems to me most naturally to mean that she is the children's mother - and I'm sure in retrospect that it does mean that; but Dante's alternative reading - that he is concerned about the children because they are in danger of a similar fate - is also plausible, and stops the passage being too much of a giveaway. (Although there are many clues to Beatrice's identity scattered through the series, I don't think they stand out if you don't approach it in a clue-seeking spirit.)
'the police... might have deduced that you were attending the party after all'. This seems odd; if they arrested him at the party, how can they have failed to notice he was attending it? Unless it was someone other than the police who captured him - it does say 'your capture', not 'your arrest'. (Though I have a feeling there's a reference to an arrest somewhere else.)
|
|
|
Post by cwm on May 19, 2009 13:02:54 GMT -5
Possibly Lemony's editor. Daniel Handler is a member of V.F.D. in ASOUEverse, so he'd probably know the importance of not answering these questions.
Something I've always been confused about: have the contents of the chapters been edited by Lemony to avoid answering the original questions?
EDIT: I was just re-reading this at dinner and something came to me.
The obituary includes 'a word which here means'. This is something we've only ever seen V.F.D. members such as Handler and Lemony use. Could the obituary be an article by a V.F.D. member working for TDP to make everyone *think* he's dead so he can safely skip the country, with the typical TDP inaccuracies deliberately inserted to put people off the scent?
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 19, 2009 15:13:07 GMT -5
Possibly Lemony's editor. That makes sense. But are the questions not answered? I think some of them are. 'Is there anything a concerned citizen can do if he or she wants to help the Baudelaires' seems to be answered quite explicitly - 'No'. Chapter 8 does give us at least one reason why Mr Poe is not as helpful as he ought to be. It's not, I think, so much that the answers to the questions are (always) concealed, as that they are not the point - the purpose of the manuscript is not to answer them. Well-spotted! That confirms something Dante mentioned. It does leave it a bit puzzling, though, why Lemony himself insists he is not dead - but perhaps that can be put down to a breakdown of communications among VFD members.
|
|
|
Post by cwm on May 19, 2009 15:16:11 GMT -5
Maybe they couldn't communicate with Lemony to tell him they were arranging for news of his death to be published, or didn't want to take the risk, and hoped that he'd pick up on the meaning of the obituary via the 'word which here means'?
|
|
|
Post by Sora on May 20, 2009 0:31:43 GMT -5
This line was actually used by myself and other followers of the "K is the Baudelaires' Mother" belief as justification that there was more than one K who knew Lemony personally in the canon. We all know this is false now of course, but however the question remains why this K would personally know Lemony first but no-one else? .
I thought this too, it seems the only plausible headquarters.
Time for another Sora [glow=red,2,300]time-line paradox[/glow]. Keep your eyes out folks, these are frequent throughout this book. Now, here is my theory why this all might work together neatly or why this transcript would make no sense whatsoever:
If we consider the timing and arrangement of characters in the transcript, the events described here must take place, at the very least, before TVV.
The events must also take place after the point in time when which Lemony was fired from the Daily Punctillio - hence the reference to Geraldine Julliene's column that replaced Snicket's.
The reference to not having used 'green wood' for quite some time suggests that the events here take place after the Baudelaire parents purchased and moved into their mansion (unless of course the mansion was already a VFD meethouse that was just substituted for a home), which we know to be made out of green wood.
If R is at this meeting than the meeting must take place well before, or at least a year to be fair, before the writing of R's letter to Snicket. If the letter was forged as suggested by Snicket, than this issue could be excused.
Now, what really interested me here, and led me to towards me placing the events of this transcript at some point in the ASOUE timeline - was the fact that while Daniel Handler and other laissez faire characters are at this very important meeting - Beatrice and Bertrand are not. No B's are at this meeting, even though we know that at least Beatrice for sure was a part of VFD. We also know that because Lemony had frequented the Baudelaire mansion before the events of TBB (see rare edition notes at the end of TBB:RE), the parents had not foregone membership for the benefit of their children. So why are they not here?
These events must take place after the relationship between Olaf and Esme had been established - which we can more or less can reason was not in the far past, but fairly recent- right before, or just at the start of the series.
The S who has visited Prufrock Prep holds the greatest mystery to concreting this timeline, because while it could be Sally Sebold - who are the example students that she could have taken her ideas about sleep deprivation from? The unidentifiable twins taken by K? Why would she be on a mission at Prufrock Prep? And if it was Sunny they are referring too , and the 'report' are the miscellaneous complied quotations and interviews of fellow students that Snicket undoubtedly based TAA on, than time-line wise, what are Lemony and R and K and the rest of the jambourie doing here together, when all Snicket has suggested for the past and future books is that they are well apart? And why would O and E be committing this crime now, with little antagonism (at least initially) from the meeting's members?
And adding Dante's quote further into the mix:
What does the actions of O and E signify? That someone else is betraying VFD to Olaf's minions and that VFD members are just excessivly polite to villians? Or that these events take place after a previous schism but with further tearing from the revolt of Olaf and Esme(who may or may not be a member, you decide)?
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 20, 2009 4:59:30 GMT -5
Of course, if Beatrice had been present at the meeting, that would involve giving her actual characterisation, and the series on the whole, particularly before The End, is careful to avoid ever quoting Beatrice or describing in any objective and unambiguous fashion what sort of person she is. The only exception I can think of is "Where is Count Olaf?"
POWER EDIT!
~Chapter 4~
Nice touch – the “From the desk of Lemony Snicket” header has had “the desk of” pencilled out, such that reads “From Lemony Snicket.”
Oh golly, I’m sure looking forward to tackling this chapter. “…could not possibly have happened at the same time.”
Interesting that “Dr.” Sebald is a film director. Has he high academic qualifications in film direction, or does he dabble in multiple fields?
“…another member of V.F.D. has been captured by our sneaky, greedy, and moody enemies.” Notice the curious use of “captured” – rather than, say, “killed.” Allow me to suggest that it is in this sense that Lemony was “captured” at the masked ball, i.e. by V.F.D.’s enemies, but such chaos was the masked ball plunged in that the police were then called to investigate events, including the possibility that the notorious Lemony Snicket was in attendance. Just a few offhand thoughts.
Lemony appears to place remarkable trust in Dr. Sebald’s communication abilities. If Dr. Sebald were delayed for a meeting, he’d send a message through a play?! And would be able to insert these messages even while trapped and requiring help?! This preternatural messaging ability, very much the sort of thing you don’t examine too hard, may explain certain time paradoxes involved with Dr. Sebald.
Numerous links to TRR in the passage that follows – Swarthy Swamp, Zombies in the Snow, Dr. Montgomery. The theory goes that Monty never learnt the Sebald Code, and so Gustav was partly on hand to translate for him and presumably undertake other volunteer matters that Monty was too ensconced in herpetology to attend to. On the other hand, it’s evidently not well-known that Monty couldn’t decipher the Sebald Code, so perhaps nobody ever knew? This may be significant later.
“I was to return these passages to [Dr. Sebald] nineteen hours ago – now that I am convinced that Dr. Montgomery never learned the Sebald Code” – so, what’s the arrangement here? I am going to assume that Lemony needed the coded pages from Dr. Sebald for researching TRR, and in reading them he realised that Dr. Montgomery can’t have known the Sebald Code, or things would have gone very differently.
Why are the dairy Lemony’s second-to-last hope for publication of the tales of the Baudelaire orphans? Are they going to send out books with all their cheesemaker correspondence? Or is Lemony just that reluctant to go to a publishing company owned by Rupert Murdoch?
The “or steal it…” note seems to indicate that the charcoal writer has designs on the cheesemakers, which perhaps ties into his or her annoyance at Lemony’s refusal to divulge their names in Chapter 1.
The alternative autobiography titles are quite insightful, but only in a general sort of way. “The Story of a Man, a Woman, and an Organization” doubtless indicates Lemony, Beatrice, and V.F.D.; the following one, substituting for Organization “Several Matches” indicates a more direct link, i.e. one of them setting fire to things, but it’s okay – Beatrice died in a fire, and Lemony was accused of setting many fires. The next title, replacing “Several Matches” with “Another Man,” presumably refers to Olaf. “The Story of Three Siblings, At Least One of Whom Is Dead” I vaguely recall some people disputing in the past, but it must refer to Jacques. Also, I really like the fact that the penultimate title breaks the pattern and goes for something a little more clichéd.
Incidentally, we’ve had at least one other excerpt from a Sebald film or play, but that’ll have to wait for Week 12.
For reference: “Attention hidden in the snowman is a survivor of the fire meet us in the town where this film takes place bring the three children your new assistant is not one of us beware.” The message, we may reasonably assume, is aimed at Monty, because Sebald Code, as I point out above, works by magic. So, let’s get to business. “a” survivor is a little suggestive, but not exactly illegal if there is just one survivor. “the” fire indicates that the fire in question should be obvious. “the town where this film takes place” – a real Alpine village, or a constructed one, or another snowy town masquerading as it for the purposes of a film? As for Monty’s new assistant, Stephano, not being a member of V.F.D., and how Dr. Sebald or his informants would have known this… perhaps the taxi-driver was a volunteer and saw through Olaf’s disguise.
“What a relief it was to learn that you are alive and that Dr. Orwell is dead! For years I suspected the opposite…” One of the most random statements in the series. What is the connection between Sally Sebald and Dr. Orwell? I doubt we’ll ever know. It does place this letter after TMM, if it matters, and it also must be later than the previous letter in the chapter, since it is well-known by now that Gustav Sebald is dead.
And the naming of Gustav Sebald as “Gustav” does indisputably create a link to the TRR character, but, as has been pointed out many times over the years, this is quite impossible, as Gustav was killed before Olaf became Uncle Monty’s new assistant. Besides, why would Gustav Sebald have sent a Sebald Coded message to a man he must have known did not know the code? So it’s true that the two can’t be the same – but then, why “Gustav”? Why? Any suggestions whatsoever? To preserve the connections to TRR in this sequence? Just to confuse us? …Probably both those.
Obviously, several of Dr. Sebald’s films are references to the series, e.g. “Leeches in the Lake”, “Hypnotists in the Office”, “Realtors in the Cave” (“The Littlest Elf”?). I also suspect “Vampires in the Retirement Community” to be a very sly joke. “Gorillas in the Fog” is a reference to Gorillas in the Mist, a real film.
Lemony’s letter to Sally Sebald contained details about the survivor, but of course we don’t know what!
For Young Rölf to be Olaf, as implied by the possibly-mistaken use of “Omar” to refer to the actor, would require Zombies in the Snow to be a very old film. My comrade has suggested that Dr. Sebald’s films had new dialogue dubbed in to fit the occasion. Olaf begins an anecdote in TCC about how his acting talents were first discovered by a young director.
All the images here are blatant stock photographs, or conceivably monochrome versions of more family photos of those who worked on the book. Consider the bizarre implication that Gustav Sebald is a small child as an in-joke purely.
The survivor was hidden in the snowman, which was left standing for several days until Dr. Sebald realised his message had not been received. Who is this survivor? Why would the fire they come from be so obvious to Dr. Montgomery? A Baudelaire parent, Olaf, Quigley – none of these fit. Well, a Baudelaire parent might conceivably, but it’s a bit late to think that.
Oh, and the three children – siblings of about the same age. A boy marked with a question mark, and a boy and a girl who are labelled “Sent to Prufrock Preparatory School.” These are commonly interpreted as the Quagmires. I, on the other hand, think that the two on the right are the two children taken from Prufrock Prep. by Ms. K. in Chapter 8, the “replacement orphans” for the Baudelaires.
Is Sally an amateur volunteer? She signs off by quoting the V.F.D. pledge rather than the usual “With all due respect.”
|
|
|
Post by cwm on May 20, 2009 9:41:57 GMT -5
Monty's lab assistant is the son, father or other relation of Gustav Sebald, and the name is a family tradition?
The idea that the version of Zombies in the Snow which Uncle Monty sees is an old film with new dialogue dubbed in is defeated by the statement that 'Gustav left [the snowman] standing for several days after he was done filming". Again this creates the unlikely situation that ZitS was released in cinemas days after filming wrapped.
Also, how did he know that Monty would go and see ZitS at all? Was it because he knew about Dr. Sebald, but not the Sebald code?
So much emphasis is placed on 'the survivor'. I wonder if Handler meant for it to be revealed as Olaf, visiting the Baudelaires' parents on the day of the fire, but simply couldn't fit it into the narrative anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 20, 2009 10:32:08 GMT -5
Chapter 3. Who is here? J=Jacques Snicket, L=Lemony Snicket, K probably=Kit Snicket, using Elle's proposal to get round the problems this might cause. R=the Duchess of Winnipeg, D=Daniel Handler. The second R (a child)=Ramona Quimby; I've seen it suggested that the second L (also a child)=Laura Ingalls; and I'd like to propose that the second M (who also comes across to me as a child, though a slightly older one)=Matilda Wormwood. (And yes, this will create problems for anyone trying to find a real-world date for the events.) This leaves M. (in the chair), S. and the second J. J. might be Josephine, but surely she would correct someone's grammar if she were there. I suspect it is the person we are later to meet as captain of the Prospero, in which case we don't know his first name. We are told of a report by S. about Prufrock Prep, which makes me wonder if it is the Prufrock Prep librarian - again, first name unknown. As for M., it's unlikely to be Monty - this M. surely knows Sebald code; in the light of The End it might be Miranda, but I doubt she had been invented at this point. Given the family tree at the end of TUA, could it be Olaf's brother/sister? I agree that the initials of the neophytes probably aren't significant - a couple of them might be people we know, but then again, they might not. Is this the schism? It clearly isn't the schism as described in TPP, which happened when many of those present were infants. But even if we accept the later dating of the schism, suggested by Jacques' letter later in TUA, there's a problem. Geraldine Julienne is about to reveal the whereabouts of the headquarters in her column 'Secret Organisations You Should Know About', which she started after Lemony was sacked from the Daily Punctilio. But Olaf was already active as a villain at the time of Lemony's sacking. So the first split in VFD must already have happened. I'm inclined to accept Dante's proposal that this is a kind of sub-schism - though it may still be what Jacques is referring to in his letter to Jerome (and also in his report about Fernald in TGG?) I'm not sure whether we have to intepret it in terms of some people siding with Olaf, though - it could have led to a division of opinion about how to deal with Olaf, with some people choosing to fight fire with fire, while others took a more high-minded view. When does this happen? I agree with Sora that it must be later than Lemony's sacking, and earlier than TVV at the latest, as Jacques is still alive. Within that time I find it hard to place it. A couple of speculative thoughts - might these events have been what led Lemony to send the warning telegram to Beatrice in TBL? In that case it comes very firmly just fifteen years before ASOUE. On the other hand, if we suppose that Jacques is referring to this in his letter to Jerome, and we take seriously the claim that it is recent, it should come quite shortly (perhaps a year or so) before that - unfortunately that is also hard to date (though within the ASOUE timeframe seems to me the most likely). And then the Fernald thing, which must have been a few years earlier, adds to the complication. I find it rather hard to fit this story in with other things we know about VFD headquarters. The Mortmain Mountains HQ, as we know from later books, has been in operation for a long time, since Kit and Dewey were recruited, and remained in use until recently. Perhaps there's a distinction between global and local heaquarters? Also, how does 667 Dark Avenue as a VFD headquarters fit in? Unless, possibly, this meeting is taking place at 667 - the bit about 'the lobby of the building two doors down from this one' would fit in with this - and it was as a result of these events that it was sold to Jerome. 'The sugar bowl secret could slip their minds entirely. This could lead to grave misunderstandings during coded communication'. So it sounds as if the sugar bowl - or bowls - have something to do with codes. (But as this comment is already too long, I'll leave my fuller thoughts about sugar bowls till later.) So who did infiltrate? Geraldine has presumably been getting information, through Esme, from Olaf. But where did Olaf get it? He's already alienated from VFD. I suppose it's possible the headquarters hasn't changed since he left, but it changes a lot, so this would be surprising. Has he been hiding behind puppet theatres regularly? Or is someone on the inside informing him? The top of page 41 makes one wonder if Olaf ever read this transcript, which could be where he got the idea for his plans for TAA. Surely he heard it from behind the puppet theatre. (Unless this is, as some have suggested, a reference to TAA; but I find that unlikely) You would think so, wouldn't you? But has one ever been found? Given that the Versailles Post Office has a notice saying 'Versailles Post Office', in English, I don't think this can be Versailles, France. It is probably a village of Versailles, somewhere near the city. I'm beginning to think handwriting is irrelevant, since notes which are supposed to be written by Gustav Sebald and by Sir are in similar writing. However, charcoal does seem normally to indicate the villainous annotator. The index confirms that it is Handler. This is a bit odd, since you might well think it referred to someone being recruited at the same time as the meeting - but D. was at the meeting. Still, that's what it seems to be. (And one wonders how old D. is comparison with the other characters, if Jacques was involved in his recruitment.) If we consider the timing and arrangement of characters in the transcript, the events described here must take place, at the very least, before TVV. Agreed. Agreed. I would have thought that the mansion was inherited. I would guess that R's letter to Snicket was written some years after the events of ASOUE, so no problem there. Well, it's a meeting of the building committee, not of the whole of VFD, whose members must number in the hundreds. I suspect L's visits to the Baudelaire mansion took place a long time ago, before B and B were married (which makes sense if it was inherited); but on the other hand, the poison darts story, and I think some others, do imply they were involved in VFD after their marriage. (Though if, as I have suggested, this comes just before Lemony's telegram to Beatrice, they may be away because they are on the island.) Well, a relationship of some sort existed between O and E at the time of Lemony's sacking, at least fifteen years ,and probably more, before ASOUE. It may not have been romantic, but I'm not sure it's romantic here either. So I think we can firmly conclude that we have no idea when this happened. And now I know why VFD uses initials. The saving in work is noticeable.
|
|