|
|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Nov 2, 2009 14:28:32 GMT -5
We all know how Esmé Squalor likes being 'in' and things that are 'in', and how she hates things/people that are 'out'.But I had this idea today while re-reading TEE...
In TEE, Klaus has to research the Squalors' library to find out in which lot of the In Auction Gunther has hidden the Quagmire, and this crazy little paradox crossed my mind.
If books about things that are 'out' were 'in', the things described in the books would all have to be 'out', but if the book were to contain the description of one thing that is 'in', would the book be 'out' by having it?
^^
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Nov 2, 2009 14:39:36 GMT -5
Surely it'd be out for containing descriptions of things that were out, not in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Nov 2, 2009 14:49:35 GMT -5
You didn't get it.I'm saying if books about things that are 'out' were 'in', the book would have to contain only descriptions of things that are 'out' so it could be 'in', but if there was one description of an 'in' item, the book would not be just about 'out' things and therefore would be 'out' as whole.it's disorienting, I know. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Nov 2, 2009 14:50:59 GMT -5
But maybe depending on the time 'out' could be 'in' in which case the books would be 'in' for containing 'out' things. But Esme couldn't possibly keep up with books that were 'in' at the time, she'd lose track and end up with no books at all. Then again, I don't think actually reading the books were ever 'in' for Esme.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Nov 2, 2009 14:53:09 GMT -5
I agree, as the library is described as too 'tidy' and organized, as no other libraries are.
I'm not saying this paradox would exist at the time the Baudelaires lived with Esmé, it's just an interesting thought that crossed my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emma “Emmz” Squalor on Nov 2, 2009 23:10:36 GMT -5
It took me a few reads to understand exactly what you were explaining - and you're right, it is disorienting, lol - but I think I've got it now. You make a very valid point, and I think if books containing things that were 'out' were suddenly 'in', then if the things listed in the books were 'in', then the books themselves would most certainly be 'out'. It might just be my OCD, but it seems to create a nice balance between the inness of the out things and the outness of the in things. Let me know if that makes sense. My apologies if it doesn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Nov 3, 2009 7:48:24 GMT -5
Oh it does make sense, you have nothing to apologize for.^^ It's disorienting, it's like one of those 'I know that he knows that I know that he knows that I know' lines. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Nov 3, 2009 11:03:20 GMT -5
I think that books and magazines documenting what's in and out would probably to some degree be exceptions to the rules of in-ness and out-ness due to the necessity of documenting trends; on the other hand, banning such catalogues for being arbitrarily out would highlight the nonsensicality of the entire fashion system. Perhaps documentation of what's in and what's out is always in (in the same way some on this board have rationalised that crime would always be in), because being in is in, and you need to know what's in to be in and to do that you need something which can tell you what's in, and for containing in information it would be in. I suspect that this sort of thing is in in general because otherwise I can't picture a fashion addict like Esmé being enthralled enough by the academic aspect to be an avid reader of Trout: In France They're Out. Of course, this all assumes that there wouldn't be periods when being ironically out would be in, or something like that. Which I suspect is rather more of a paradox, because if you were being ironically out to be in, you wouldn't be out, would you?
To return to the stated paradox: I think so long as the general trend of the book was in analysis of outward trends, it'd be okay if it mentioned some in things, which it probably would need to for the purposes of comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Nov 3, 2009 18:00:34 GMT -5
Very interesting, Dante, I hadn't thought of that before.I guess it would be valid for said book to contain reference to 'in' things for the purpose of guidance.With so many things 'in' and 'out' simmultaneously, one would have to have some sort of guide to keep up with the trends and stay 'in'.
Neither can I.Esmé probably has good memory, I wouldn't dare say eidetic memoric like Klaus, but she does enumerate a LONG list of 'in' things when she returns to 667 Dark Avenue from her meeting with the King of Arizona.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Nov 4, 2009 12:28:39 GMT -5
Is there not a parallel to this in TVV, where books that mention things that break the rules are themselves against the rules - including the rule book itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Nov 4, 2009 12:49:27 GMT -5
Indeed!Thanks for bringing that up, Hermes.
|
|
