|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Jan 8, 2010 14:54:19 GMT -5
I think the reason R. has such a mysterious nature is that throughout the entire series and supplements, she's always off-screen. She seems to connect all or most the events in ASOUE, without actually being there. As for the "K." rather than the "R.", I think the vagueness of the message- "This may be helpful" (or something like that) sounds like something R. would do, while Kit would be more likely to elaborate, but then again if you take R.'s handwriting from TBL, you'll find it very distinguished and easy to read (not likely to be confused with a K.). Though it is very possible, probable, even, that either of the two could be in a rush and not take the time to, say, make the signature of the letter more legible. I agree. Plus, what about Widdershins' disappearance? Was it or wasn't it 'R' who convinced him and Phil to abandon the Queequeg and come with her? Their disappearance in mid-book in TGG is disturbing and disorienting at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jan 8, 2010 15:10:03 GMT -5
I actually don't see another possibility as likely as it being R.; the other characters just don't fit the description. Who ever it was was a woman, knew Widdershins and the Queequeg's whereabouts, was presumebly involved in V.F.D., and was able to swim against the tide. Since we really don't know much about R., except that she's a Duchess, I think she'd fit this description nicely, or at least better than another character I can think of would.
|
|
looneylad
Catastrophic Captain
Ta-daaaaa!
Posts: 62
|
Post by looneylad on Jan 8, 2010 15:10:38 GMT -5
For some reason I feel like their disappearance should have been resolved more thoroughly. There were many mysteries in the books that remained mysteries after the series resolved, but I always felt like the mystery of Widdershin and Phil's vanishing, and the mystery of the swimming lady, should have been given an answer. I don't mind not knowing what's in the sugar bowl, or other details like that, but I thought for sure Snicket was using the "swimming lady" as a character or to foreshadow something, not just as a plot device to remove two adults from the story.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jan 8, 2010 15:23:16 GMT -5
I think it was less removing two adults from the story than it was emphasizing that any character could vanish from the chronicles at anytime. In a way, I think it was foreshadowing; except not so much the swimming lady than the disappearences and deaths of other characters: the Quagmires, Kit, Olaf, Dewey; I think this was Lemony's way of connecting all the events into one long story.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 8, 2010 15:34:12 GMT -5
The real problem with Widdershins's removal from TGG is that it is made clear in the following two books that he is still active, and not doing anything particularly interesting. By The End he's even back in the Queequeg! The motive for his removal thus begins to look either very mysterious - or just a lazy plot device. And the latter looks disturbingly probable when you consider that Phil is never even mentioned again.
Was it R., or wasn't it? In retrospect, I think probably not. Lemony seems to have a lot of time for R., judging from a few little moments in the U.A., but he didn't think much of the removal of Widdershins and Phil: Widdershins "was wrong to abandon the Queequeg, no matter what he heard from the woman who came to fetch him." The use of "fetch" there makes it sound as if Widdershins was meant to be somewhere else rather than chasing after the sugar bowl... I now wonder if his eventual return to the Queequeg was down to him reassessing his priorities.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jan 8, 2010 15:55:08 GMT -5
The problem is, there isn't any other character (I can think of) that would fit all the characteristics I mentioned earlier. If not R., who? But then, it doesn't necissarily have to be a character from the series. It could equally be an entirely new person that isn't mentioned at all except for this instance. Still, I see that Lemony just throwing her in- whoever "she" is- isn't as likely than for him to bring back a former character, or someone from the supplements.
|
|
|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Jan 8, 2010 16:05:42 GMT -5
The answer to the that mystery will only come in a possible sequel series to ASoUE, if we're lucky enough. I also considered the possibility of the swimming lady being the woman with hair but no beard, but she's an enemy and would be the last person to convince Widdershins to leave with her abandoning the search of the sugar bowl and Fiona. I also considered Esmé Squalor, but her presence at the Carmelita eliminates her as the possible swimming lady. R is the only plausible explanation; since Kit later went to meet Widdershins in TPP and then come away from him, it could not have been her, as she appeared later at Briny Beach, ready to take the Baudelaires to Hotel Denouement in her cab.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 8, 2010 17:31:18 GMT -5
To be honest, my support is really on "completely new character" - not anyone else we've ever met, unless it's someone wacky mentioned offhand like Monday. R. strikes me as the sort of person who's too busy with her ceremonial duties as duchess to go swimming about beneath the ocean. The two spheres of activity aren't really related.
|
|
|
Post by Tiago James Squalor on Jan 8, 2010 18:11:42 GMT -5
To me, it could just as easily not be R as it could be her. 50-50 probability, I'd wager.
|
|
looneylad
Catastrophic Captain
Ta-daaaaa!
Posts: 62
|
Post by looneylad on Jan 8, 2010 18:21:30 GMT -5
I'm starting to think that maybe Handler didn't have an identity in mind for the swimming lady. I kind of feel like she was just a plot device.
I kind of feel the same way about The Great Unknown now. Like, seriously, it was just a nice way of wrapping up the loose storylines of the supporting characters who weren't caught in the fire at Hotel Denouement. Everyone was just captured by The Great Unknown, which may or may not be death.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jan 8, 2010 19:32:47 GMT -5
To be honest, my support is really on "completely new character" - not anyone else we've ever met, unless it's someone wacky mentioned offhand like Monday.R. strikes me as the sort of person who's too busy with her ceremonial duties as duchess to go swimming about beneath the ocean. The two spheres of activity aren't really related. Then maybe one of R.'s representitives, or something like that? Still, I think whoever it was was descibed too well to be a completly new character. Offhand or wacky seems more likely to work.
|
|
|
Post by Cafe SalMONAlla on Jan 8, 2010 22:04:48 GMT -5
I agree, looneylad. In my opinion, the fire at the hotel and The Great Unknown were simply a way to wrap up all these characters that Handler had created, possibly without previously considering their final fates. And, yes, the swimming lady probably was just a plot device. Maybe Handler thought she'd work as a good distraction. I find it unlikely that the lady is R. With all due respect.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 9, 2010 3:46:34 GMT -5
Actually, I think Handler associates enough characteristics and plot elements with the Great Unknown for it to have some clear meaning; the name alone suggests that it represents death, although whether or not that's also what it represented in TGG is another matter (but that's a discussion for another thread). I think Handler probably had some idea why Widdershins and Phil were removed, it just may not have been very well defined. I think some of these characters and ideas that never actually show up on-screen exist in a state of flux; Handler doesn't set a definite stance on who or what they are until they show up on the page and actually need to have an identity.
|
|
|
Post by tigerseye on Jan 9, 2010 6:06:43 GMT -5
I belive that the swimming lady also had no real identity in the books. There are so many mysterious characters within the series which have little identity so I do not believe that Lemony Snicket had another identity for the woman other than using her as a plot point. I have mentioned in other threads that I believe Lemony Snicket likes his books to be talked about so he leaves many options so unclear and without enough evidence to come to a solid answer because he likes discussions like this one to happen about his series of books. That's part of what makes him such a great writer.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Jan 9, 2010 13:19:09 GMT -5
I still think her description is just too defined for her to have no identity. If she had been mentioned in the passing, I wouldn't read that far into it. However she seemed to be singled out- Lemony specified her gender, her location- I think she must have been used for something somewhere.
|
|