|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 23, 2009 6:07:51 GMT -5
Good stuff, Hermes, but I can't really think of anything to say in response. This book's rather winding me down, I fear. Just observe my latest chapter runthrough - barely anything there except a long discourse upon the nature of a tree. (Perhaps I should here mention again my favourite anagram of those gleaned by others from TBL - ROOT BEER FLOAT = OLAF: TREE ROBOT.) I'm tempted to make a separate reread thread for that, now... ~Chapter Nine~ This last book seems to have a fondness for motif segments where it can essentially repeat the same word over and over again – there’s “the bears bear hard hard yarn,” there’s the “in the dark” sequence, and there’s the back cover. Clarification that the Baudelaires are in some sense “officially” considered to be volunteers – that is, it says here that the Baudelaires “had joined the organization [V.F.D.] themselves.” So, it doesn’t take much. Not much to mention that hasn’t already been said about the contents of the arboretum. Everything I’ve seen, unless specifically stated not to be, is a continuity nod. I suspect that the existence of the secret space under the roots of the tree has some greater thematic importance, besides the obvious, and I’m going to try and puzzle out what it is. We know that it may once have been more limited, or even non-existent, because Handler’s said that originally some of the information the Baudelaires discover here, they were going to discover at Olaf’s house in the twelfth book. (I wonder if this alteration helped set off the massive shift in purposes that we see in TPP, or if it’s just one small part of the picture.) The tree itself has links to the Tree of Knowledge (of Good and Evil) in Eden, and also various Trees of Life, such as Yggdrasil. So, let me think. Thematically, we have a centre of knowledge and learning right at “the root of the problem,” at the base of a tree which, in all its mythic resonances, is a defining force in the growth of the world. Which suggests, perhaps, that knowledge – which is to say, “experience” as opposed to innocence – is part of the system; it’s something that can’t be escaped, no matter where you hide. And of course that’s something backed up by the rest of The End. As a Tree of Knowledge, or various analogues of same, it’s appropriate that the tree in the arboretum is surrounded by so many crucial items – they are aspects of secrets, which reveal some plotlines and answer some questions (potentially, at least). Going back to the idea of the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” does this tree grant the knowledge the Baudelaires have been struggling with, that of the difference between good and evil? At first it seems unclear; Ishmael, who practically lives in the tree, is of highly ambiguous morality. Since he’s a God figure, granted omniscience by the tree and the items surrounding it, that’s perhaps rather sinister – unless it coincides with another message of the book, which is that power should be pluralist rather than concentrated in just one figure who makes all the decisions, whether they claim it’s for our own good, or because they’re civilised and deserve gifts. However, by the end of the book, the Baudelaires seem to have settled on a plan of action, a way of living in the world; Ishmael, too, has taken definitive action. Which doesn’t exactly resolve any moral questions, or confer the title “good” or “evil” on anything they do, although the Baudelaires seem to have become rather more good and Ishmael rather more evil. But it does suggest that they’ve resolved those things to themselves. I suspect I shall be invited to dwell upon this more later. “Note to self: Why won’t anyone call me Ish?” This is quite funny, but it seems oddly flippant and offhand for Snicket’s style. That is to say, it’s a bit prosaic; a bit too easy. Eh. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 23, 2009 9:12:24 GMT -5
? "This is an enormous periscope, much bigger than the one in the Queequeg. Could this be a reference to another submarine washed ashore? Good thought. We later hear that it was Bertrand's idea to instal the periscope, but that doesn't tell us where it came from in the first place. I like that idea. Before moving on to Chapter 11, I realise that I should have commented on A Series of Unfortunate Events, which is named for the first time in Chapter 10. Thematically I suppose it parallels the actual series in being a book which is dangerous to read, because it brings us face to face with the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind. But in-story, is it a coiincidence, or was it the inspiration for Lemony's title? If so, does this imply that he was on the island before he began the series, or was he just told about it by Thursday or someone? Chapter 11. 'I arrived on a raft of books myself.' Is Weyden a member of VFD? 'You helped her hide them, so you could force those children to read'. This does not fit with what Friday said earlier, that though she had learned to read from the Professor, she had never seen a book. 'I suggest we return to Winnipeg!' I wonder who on the island comes from Winnipeg? Presumably it doesn't mean everyone does. People mentioned in Olaf's narrative: - We have already discussed Monday enough, I think. - Humphrey: could he be the missing H from the family tree? (No reason he has to turn up at all, but I don't think it can be either Hal or Hector, so the fact that there's another H is interesting. I don't think we ever hear of an N, though.) Note that it's the possible VFD member, Weyden, who mentions him. - Bertrand: now, this is interesting. Is he just being mentioned as an example of someone who has orphaned children? Or was he himself adopted by some orphans as a child? (And how does Omeros, of all people - who was probably born on the island - know about him? Oh - Dante - is this what made you think he had an off-island backstory?) - Mr Poe; we have discussed before now the problems of fitting this event into our Mr Poe's life, so it may in fact be another Mr Poe, perhaps his father. It's true that in BBRE Mr Poe is revealed to have hidden something in his hat, but perhaps that's just a family habit. Ishmael seems to have quite an interesting backstory. He renounced violence at the time of the schism - does that mean he was neutral in the schism, or was one of the two sides originally non-violent, gradually falling into violence, as witnessed by the Medusoid Mycelium, the poyzon darts, etc? And now Ishmael falls as well. Also his house was burnt down in a fire he blames Olaf for. (Can we trust Olaf? He denies causing either Ishmael's fire or the Baudelaire fire - when he has not much to gain by the denial - yet he has certainly caused some fires.) And the chapter ends with Olaf's laughter. He does not seem to mind dying himself provided his enemies perish. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 23, 2009 13:47:13 GMT -5
Good thought. We later hear that it was Bertrand's idea to instal the periscope, but that doesn't tell us where it came from in the first place. Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, if the periscope in the Queequeg was made from a pole formerly placed in a Vertical Flame Diversion, the ingenuity of the islanders could probably construct a periscope without having to scavenge one. (Although I agree that it being submarine wreckage seems likely.) Having spent thirteen or more books reading A Series of Unfortunate Events only for the last book to contain a tome of the same title, chronologically for the readers the series precedes the tome, and I wonder if that influences people's answer to that question. Certainly I find it more interesting to think that the titles are accidental parallels - that is, that they could be named independently says something meaningful about the nature of the world the series is set in. However, I can see why other people would find it equally satisfying to think of the island book as providing an origin for the title of the series. If you were prepared to match up every statement in the list in that sequence to a potential islander, you could probably narrow it down to a few spare ones who weren't already getting many lines, but that'd be ridiculous and you can't be sure Handler even had anyone in mind. The "we" does suggest multiple people being referred to collectively. Jonah and Sadie? I think that it would be easiest for Omeros to have come across that information off the island, and it's far from implausible that Omeros was born off the island - he's only the same age as Klaus, who was also born off the island (and then look at Sunny). Also, it seems that the name which can fulfil the statement Olaf made would need to be both a parent to orphaned children and the baby adopted by those children, so Bertrand Baudelaire would be ruled out - although the statement is an obvious nod to Beatrice, anyway, who fulfils the same criteria save for being female. Ishmael's alone now, and I took it in general that he was always that way - that is, there wasn't a pacifist side of the schism, although the hypothetical "laissez-faire" side would probably satisfy that, but instead that Ishmael acted independently in renouncing violence and turning his back (although others may well have done the same thing). There aren't really many references, I think, to him doing things collectively. Also, I always think it's more interesting when Olaf isn't responsible for something he's accused of. Notice that Olaf only denies setting fire to Ishmael's home - he doesn't deny shutting him in a bird cage. I think in the circumstances, though, it would seem likely that one of Olaf's associates set the fire - he didn't personally do it, but he didn't do anything to stop it either, and indeed was probably busy dealing with Ishmael at the time. Perhaps Olaf's come to a demented appreciation of all that's occurred. Ishmael not only falling as a person, as you pointed out, but damning everyone present - the irony would tickle Olaf, especially an Olaf who by now has nothing left except enjoying the destruction of those he hates. Thematically(!!!), I think that it's only right for Olaf's villainous laughter to play over this occurrence - for the Baudelaires, Olaf's evil purposes and his love of violence have coloured all the unfortunate events in their lives, and now it's the same. It also has suggestions of the "laughing god" reference in, I think, THH, in which Lemony and/or the Baudelaires feel as if they are just puppets in a play put on by a laughing god far above. As a dramatic device, also, it makes the whole thing just that much creepier and sick. It really gives you a picture of how far gone Olaf is at this point. Although comic at times, The End's Olaf may even be my favourite. He's sinister and monstrous in ways never before seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 23, 2009 14:29:24 GMT -5
I think that it would be easiest for Omeros to have come across that information off the island, and it's far from implausible that Omeros was born off the island - he's only the same age as Klaus, who was also born off the island (and then look at Sunny). My reason for thinking he was born on the island is this; we're told there is 'a whole generation' who have never known anywhere else; they must be fifteen or less, as no one has been there longer than Ishamel, and Finn, Friday and Omeros seem the only possibilities. Yes, the nod to Beatrice is the clearly the major point (and, if you are alert, perhaps this may enable you to work out who the younger Bearice is and why she is called Baudelaire). But I don't see how Bertrand Baudelaire is ruled out - we know nothing of his childhood; for all we know he was indeed adopted by some orphans who (in line with VFD practice) called him after their father. On the other hand, since Bertrand is actually not the person Olaf is talking about, perhaps only part of this story is true of him, and Omeros is guessing blindly. Well, there is some indication that the 'good' side of the schism was originally non-violent - hence Kit's distress when Gregor started cultivating the mycelium - though Kit later fell into violence as well. Indeed, on one reading this was the cause of the schism - the villains were prepared to 'fight fire with fire' in a way that the volunteers weren't - though once the villains had taken up a life of violence they became corrupted by it, and 'fight fire with fire' degnerated into just meaning 'go around burning things'. In this case Ishmael might be the last survivor of the good side to have remained true to his principles (until now). But other readings are certainly possible, and in that case Ishmael can be seen as a group of his own. (Someone else who is a group of her own is Lulu.) Fair enough - I suppose we have seen him commit enough crimes that we can given him the benefit of the doubt on offstage ones. He has certainly burnt down (sometimes with assistance) Heimlich Hspital, the Caligari Carnival and Hotel Denouement; and BBRE strongly suggests that he burnt down the Quagmire mansion. Perhaps that's enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Sept 23, 2009 15:44:52 GMT -5
'I arrived on a raft of books myself.' Is Weyden a member of VFD? And yet the islanders pronounce a book has never washed ashore- And Weyden agrees? Or I'm assuming he does, provided he doesn't deny it. Of course, he could have been warned not to "rock the boat" like the Baudelaires were, except he falls to peer pressure. I'm sorry- what does BBRE stand for? I like the idea of it being a family habit- because then it opens the possibility that it's something passed on from generation to generation, which follows somewhere along the line, the action came in handy. Of course- that could mean anything, but I recall Handler mentioning something like "begging your dentist to hollow your tooth out so you could smuggle that last document inside it"? So maybe Poe's hat serves the same purpose. Edit: Actually, a different reread on Chapter 14 isn't a bad idea. In the book it's written like a seperate book anyway. Also- and this is just a suggestion; how about a reread- if there isn't one already- on The Bears Famous Invasion of Sicily? Well, Handler's comments on it. I read the book, and there's not too much to actually discuss... but, like I said, just a suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 24, 2009 9:04:07 GMT -5
My reason for thinking he was born on the island is this; we're told there is 'a whole generation' who have never known anywhere else; they must be fifteen or less, as no one has been there longer than Ishamel, and Finn, Friday and Omeros seem the only possibilities. That's a good point, although in such a small community, even two may be... however, that's besides the point. Omeros had to come across the information somewhere; it's up to us, essentially, whether he read it in a fragment of document that washed ashore, or overheard a fragment of someone else's conversation, or was involved in this story long before he came to the island. Sorry, I was thinking of it the other way around - that is, that people were thinking of Bertrand Baudelaire as the first figure, the one whose orphaned children etc., rather than the second, the one who is adopted by those orphaned children. That would work, and I have no objection to that, save for the fact that it isn't, as you say, the case Olaf is referring to. But it may still be true of Bertrand; the whole point of these stories is that they share those details rather than being inaccurate memories. I'm sorry- what does BBRE stand for? BBRE = The Bad Beginning: Rare Edition. We discussed it within Part 1 of the re-read, and the notes from the RE segment can be found in Dastardly Documents. If enough people want to do it separately, it will happen. Although this thread is labelled "Final Part." There's not actually anything to say there, really. Snicket makes a few fairly prosaic allusions to aSoUE, and other than that it's all jokes and maybe the odd recipe. On which note, I've had a busy and tiring day and don't really feel like prolonging it by diving into Chapter Ten. I've had a look anyway, but the only thing I can think of that's important is that Ishmael declares, "No one should lead the life I lead." But they have to - when they become parents themselves, eventually. (It may also be an interesting perspective on God's legendary jealousy against other gods.) I'll be back on form tomorrow with Chapter Eleven. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 24, 2009 9:44:55 GMT -5
And yet the islanders pronounce a book has never washed ashore- And Weyden agrees? Or I'm assuming he does, provided he doesn't deny it. Of course, he could have been warned not to "rock the boat" like the Baudelaires were, except he falls to peer pressure. It's actually Ishmael who says that no book has ever washed ashore - and presumably the others don't question it because those who know about the books are keeping them secret from Ishmael. (And of course Ishmael is keeping books secret from them. O what a tangled web we weave...) (Oh, and Weyden is a woman.) I'd support that. I don't think it matters that this thread is called 'final part'; Chapter 14 is in any case presented as if it were in some way 'after the end'. Chapter 12. Another reference to a root beer float, providing another link with TBL. 'Eventually we're all going to die'. 'Not if you follow my suggestions.' No, Ishmael, the rabbi is right. Whether or not people follow your suggestions, and whether or not your suggestions are any good, eventually we're all going to die. (Might this be part of the Ishmael/God parallel? God in Eden does seem to have promised immortality.) I's actions here are very weird; he is willing at least to risk people's lives, if not to doom them entirely - since it's not clear whether he really hopes to reach Lousy Lane - in order to guard his secrets. Presumably when he began keeping secrets, he really did intend to keep people safe, but now his life as a secret-keeper has corrupted him. Klaus seems to see some connection between horeradissh, wormwood, and the sugar bowl - the sugar bowl reminds him that something might be hidden in a vessel; this in turn brings his attention to wormwood, bitter tea, and Ishmael's story about a hidden antidote. The idea seems to be that if they knew where Ishmael's antidote was hidden, this might help them work out where the antidote they need now is hidden - though it's a different antidote to a different poison. Of course, the antidote they are looking for now is not hidden in a vessel - it's hidden in plain view, in the tree - but the passage may still in some way illuminate VFD practices with vessels. 'they would have liked to live to a very old age, which for all I know they may be doing'. This gives away - if you read carefully - that the Baudelaires do not die in chapter 13; it also shows that L does not know what happened to them afterwards. Note that Bertrand writes rather in the style that many VFD members (Dr Orwell, the code manual writer, etc.) tned to use ('plethora' 'tuberous canopy' 'in utero', etc.). Beatrice in chapter 14 does not write in the same way. I like cwm's suggestion that Beatrice was hiding a small amount in a vess- el for dissacharides, though I still think that this cannot be the vessel for dissacharides. Perhaps the idea is that while sugar bowls can be used to hide antidotes, what the sugar bowl contains is the Antidote - though perhaps only in a metaphorical sense - the thing that ensures that VFD as a whole will not perish. 'Our parents saved our lives in this very room, many years ago, without even knowing it.' On reflection I think that this must be the truly haunting secret. It is quite haunting, when you think about it. 'Tumurchap' - i.e 'two more chapters' - a curious breaking of the fourth wall. ''the Incredibly Deadly Viper was offering them an apple'. This of course has nothing to do with any well-known passages in sacred literature. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 24, 2009 10:00:43 GMT -5
Chapter Fourteen thread on Monday, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 25, 2009 9:44:16 GMT -5
Chapter Fourteen thread on Monday, anyone? Yes, that's fine with me. Chapter 13 - part one. (This chapter has so much that I've decided to split it; and the departure of the islanders makes a good break.) The anarchic/apple-loving girl referred to in the opening paragraph is apparently Ramona - a member of VFD, of course. 'It is impossible to solve any mystery, or find the root of any trouble'. This seems a bit strong; if you keep your mysteries well-defined (e.g. 'What does VFD stand for?') you can solve them. What you can't do is find the all-encompassing answer. Once again we have the emphasis on the fact that you cannot know everything, that answers always bring their own questions. One may think he is laying it on a bit thick. On the other hand J.K. Rowling often gets criticised for not telling us this, and that, and the other (even while she is also criticised for telling us too much, thus restricting the opportunities for fanfic), so I guess Handler is acting fairly in defending himself. I've already expressed my general feelings about this - it is not a subterfuge; the puzzles which were central in the middle books are mostly solved (check the contents of TUA - most of the questions there are answered); the theme of mystery was deliberately introduced, starting, probably, in TSS, and from there he was always moving towards the conclusion that there is much we cannot know. As for the details we are told here - it seems that Bertrand and Beatrice did not meet at school; and the party in the penthouse suite seems to have happened a long way back, before the Baudelaire parents met, and hence, I would guess, before Jerome bought the penthouse (if it's the same penthouse). So it probably isn't the same party at which L and B stole the sugar bowl. 'The end of a brave and noble sibling' - I think there had been speculation that one of the Baudelaires would die, and this could be read that way (though if you had read the previous chapter carefully you would know they couldn't). Not so, as we find. Yes, this does give away that Olaf will die, which is perhaps unfortunate, though I think it was rather to be expected. The change of heart by all the islanders is rather odd (and a bit too like a narrative convenience?). One may hope that when the snake brought them the apple, this helped some of them recover their spirit. While Friday appears not to be related to Fiona, there is a definite parallel between her and Fiona here; she deserts the Baudelaires out of loyalty to her family. 'Klaus quickly grabbed an apple form the stockpot, and the young girl leaned out form the boat to touch his hand'. Has anyone considered Klaus/Friday as a pairing - not during the timeframe of the books, of course, but later, supposing they both survive? I think it could work rather well (given that Fiona - and Isadora for that matter - have Gone, and are Not Coming Back). 'our parents ... didn't want to shelter us from the world's treacheries' This does not seem to be entirely true; they did indeed not tell them about VFD etc. (though they did encourage them to acquire relevant skills). As I said earlier, they seemed to be seeking a middle way - as the orphans themselves do with Beatrice, from whom they also conceal some things. Whether they exactly found it I'm not sure - the Baudelaires might have been better prepared if they had known more; so might Beatrice when separated from them. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 25, 2009 10:06:15 GMT -5
Don't have time to comment on anything as I'm about to go out, but here's my reading of Chapter Eleven:
~Chapter Eleven~
Actually, while the chapter illustration gives away the harpoon gun firing, it doesn’t really give any idea who fires it, especially since the hand in question looks too young to be Ishmael’s. I guess what’s significant about the illustration is what it doesn’t show – not just who’s firing it, but it also shows that Olaf is definitely not the one who fires it. And so it becomes quite tense… although it was always going to be either Ishmael or one of the Baudelaires; the other castaways just aren’t important enough.
The rented canoe with holes in it is a reference to TCC.
Ishmael’s astonishingly poor attempts at chivvying the sheep seems like it might mean something in addition to being an unavoidable joke. I guess it parallels how he hasn’t actually been very good at keeping the islanders from keeping secrets at all.
“Count Olaf was right.” I just mention this to show how perspectives can differ – to Erewhon here, Count Olaf has been a reliable source of information rather than a scheming villain. And she isn’t wrong to think that, either, simply because in this situation he was correct. Hence the quote.
I find it incredibly tempting to write fanfiction of the various islanders’ histories.
An old associate of ours, RockSunner, suggested that Ariel mentioning having been imprisoned for years and disguising herself as a young man is a reference to the difference of genders between characters named Ariel in Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Disney’s The Little Mermaid. In the former, Ariel was male, and had indeed, I think, been imprisoned (in a tree!!!) for many years.
The schism sequence suggests we should model any imagining of the original schism in V.F.D. on the events that transpire in this chapter. There is a problem with that, though – namely, that both sides on the island schism are right, or at least, not wrong. Their difference is one of opinion. Admittedly, however, this does lead to violence, and one can conceive of it leading to institutionalised violence against each other. But we don’t see this result, whereas all we see of the V.F.D. schism is the result in which one side commits serial arson against the other.
It’s interesting that Olaf, in effect, stops the schism. I guess that shows he really is capable of giving the orders around here… if only briefly. He truly is the king of Olaf-Land – for when the harmonious island community disintegrates into a violent and angry crowd, Olaf is truly at home there, and the master of everything they’re feeling.
Page 250, Count Olaf: “Oh, Ish…” In the entire novel, Olaf is the only one who calls Ishmael “Ish.” The only one. I take this to signify that Olaf is the only one who really knows Ishmael – knows him as a person, understands his history. There is another possibility, however. Everyone else on the island, at first, seemed to obey Ishmael’s every word – except to call him Ish. Olaf, meanwhile, openly defies Ishmael’s every word, so perhaps it’s fitting that the only suggestion he obeys is to call him Ish? It’d also be a good way of mocking him, too
Olaf’s story-telling sequence mirrors Ishmael, which is significant – both Olaf and Ishmael have long histories, have seen and done a great deal. The two share that similarity – and an ambiguous morality, because the Baudelaires at various points in this book fail to decide whether or not either of them can be truly trusted. There is a difference, however; Olaf’s fielding similarities to multiple other stories, whereas Ishmael was only dealing with a long series of coincidences associated with the Baudelaire history.
Incidentally, it seems that the old man Monday was trying to blackmail was a friend of Olaf’s. The political scandal may even have been related to their robbery of a sealing schooner… although it’s hard to imagine Olaf having much patience with bird-watching. Even in TPP he got Esmé to do it for him.
It’s interesting that Ishmael abandoned his weapons during the V.F.D. schism – because that’s when everyone else would have been taking up weapons, Olaf probably included.
Also, the recurring emphasis on Olaf’s false pregnancy is quite disturbing, but is getting to the point where I have to see it as important. Well, for one thing I suppose it’s ironic that the “birth” of the contents of Olaf’s stomach unleashes death instead of life, and I suppose that also represents the only kind of future Olaf is capable of creating. Contrast with Kit’s pregnancy.
I wonder what the cotton-candy machine did to merit being fired at with the harpoon gun. A crucial item might have been dropped in it, perhaps.
And I’ve already talked about Olaf’s laughter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Sept 25, 2009 15:44:36 GMT -5
The rented canoe with holes in it is a reference to TCC. Gosh - hadn't noticed that. Its amazing how much there is in the series - this book especially - that you have to read over and over again to spot. So, it looks like L tried to get wrecked on the island but failed - perhaps that was when he was picked up by the barge where he got a good dinner. It's still likely he reached the island sooner or later, though. Do. It will be worth reading. That's how I read it - Monday was trying to blackmail the old man about the events he had been involved in along with Olaf, and so came to Olaf for information. In exchange, perhaps, she gave O information about Ishmael. Except that, if you accept the TPP dating of the schism, Olaf was probably a child at the time. (He might have taken up weapons as a child, I suppose. But he probably didn't joint the bad side until later.) |
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Sept 25, 2009 16:00:15 GMT -5
Chapter Fourteen thread on Monday, anyone? Yes, Monday's good. Like Hermes said, Chapter 14 is more like something that takes place after The End. Yeah, I got my stories confused. I just read another book where someone's surname was Weyden. No Chapter Ten? That's a good idea, I'd definently read it. What intrests me is that, in a way, the islanders are even willing (on various degrees), to obey Olaf, as long as they have a leader to tell them what to do. I'm sure though, at the time, the islanders are quite confused between the cocunut cordial, Ishmael's confession, the Baudelaires "betrayal", and the weapon when the colony has so strictly forbidden them. Well, I wouldn't call them coincidences, just because, as you say, there is a long series of them. Too many to be called coincidences, in my opinion...but I understand your point. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 25, 2009 16:06:45 GMT -5
I was very busy yesterday, and couldn't find the energy to properly break down Chapter Ten. But I did read it and couldn't find much important. If that is the case, then perhaps I shall look in my files, and see if... It's also possible the bird-watching could've been directly involved with some of V.F.D.'s birds - an early attempt to capture the crows or the eagles, perhaps. Far from distractions and matters of state... I suppose that'd be the best place for that knowledge - somewhere safe to sea, guarded by a dark shape lurking beneath the ocean surface. |
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Sept 26, 2009 3:02:54 GMT -5
Ooh. Now I'm intrigued.
thanks for your PM by the way
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 26, 2009 4:36:54 GMT -5
~Chapter Twelve~
Another great character-based chapter illustration. Please do more, Mr. Helquist!
It seems to me like it might also have been constructive, canonically, for the sequence about thumbtacks in root beer floats to have been replaced with a sequence about bottles of ink in root beer floats.
Given that the harpoon and/or broken fragments of helmet also pierced Olaf’s torso, it seems like it should’ve been quite painful for him to pull the harpoon out with “one dramatic gesture.” But he’s just that cool.
“Nothing’s safe forever, thank goodness.” Part of the message being expressed by this book is that being safe is also very boring, and that to lead a fulfilling life you need to be open to the risk of danger. So again, Olaf’s not wrong here, although he’s phrasing it in an extremely villainous way.
“Even without his commonplace book, Klaus could recite a poem about the fungus that was first recited to him by Fiona shortly before she had broken his heart.” Not all that shortly – but this basically expresses one way of reading time in the series. A break of, what, eight chapters or so (off the top of my head) only counts as “short.”
“Eventually we’re all going to die.” “Not if you follow my suggestions.” Hermes has pointed out that this, of course, is nonsense – but since Ishmael’s a God figure, this could be a reference to the Judeo-Christian canon, in which if we follow God’s suggestions, we will indeed live forever.
So what exactly is Ishmael up to here? He seems to be continuing to try and keep the islanders from ever visiting the arboretum, in which case it seems like he’s still trying to “protect” them from the secrets and strife that have washed up on their shores. If that’s the case, he’s probably trying to dope them up to the point where they’ll follow his own suggestions, which I guess are the plan to get to the Opportune Odours horseradish factory. It’s hard to see how that’s a good plan, but at this point Ishmael seems determined to preserve his role, even if it means descending into villainy.
“Now get out of my tent.” I wonder if this is not just an expression of disgust, but also a veiled hint to the Baudelaires to get to the arboretum, where they’ll find an antidote at least for themselves? I’m also tempted to bring in the political metaphor of tents, but I guess Ishmael disagreeing with the Baudelaires ideology is kinda obvious here.
IMPORTANT: Klaus suggests that the horseradish could be disguised in another one of the spice jars. “Of course, in case we are banished, Beatrice is hiding a small amount in a vess—” Time for my “vess(el)” theory! The idea of the horseradish being hidden in a separate container has been planted. Also, since the horseradish is in case the Baudelaire parents are banished, its hiding place is obviously going to be somewhere accessible to them post-banishment. So what is the “vessel”? The sealed pot of beans aboard the Beatrice, of course! I’ll wager that there’s a small amount of horseradish at the bottom of that jar, hidden under a much larger heap of beans. The Baudelaires sealed the jar and took it with them when they left, in case of emergencies. Of course, the Medusoid Mycelium was ultimately sealed in the Gorgonian Grotto, so they never needed to break open that jar, and from then on we can’t make any judgements on why nobody ever opened the jar later because we don’t know what happened to the boat.
“Gentreefive” – Genesis 3:5. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
“Tumurchap” is also another nod to the existence of Chapter Fourteen.
|
|
Wot, no chapter 14?
