Are the Baudelaires overly moralistic?

[bandit]

I've started reading The End again, and I vaguely remember feeling this way before, but especially now I find myself becoming more and more exasperated with the constant moral concern the Baudelaires have about how Count Olaf should be dealt with.

Of course, the Baudelaires trying not to emulate Count Olaf's treachery in their fight against him has been a recurring theme throughout the series (e.g. their plan to kidnap Esmé in TSS), but it comes out most when we finally encounter adults who aren't fooled by Olaf in TE. I understand that moral ambiguity is supposed to be a big issue of the series and whatnot, but at some point I start to feel like it's being forced by DH.

When Olaf is locked up in a birdcage on the coastal shelf, and the Baudelaires still want to raise objections, their emotional reaction seems almost more implausible than the punishment-- over a long period of time, they have personally witnessed Olaf murder their loved ones multiple times and they still are fretting over having a proper trial and making sure everything is fair. This is when they also know that Olaf has two lethal weapons on his person (harpoon gun and medusoid mycelium) and he is a volatile man who could seriously do someone harm at a moment's notice.

Do you think the Baudelaires have become caricatures of protagonists in their constant unease about "true justice"? Do you think DH expected readers to share the same (seemingly) intense sympathy for Olaf, or could he have foreseen the matter's excessive boundaries?

[Dante]

I don't really think it's a matter of sympathy so much as intense unease about the fairness of the justice available. They weren't sure about Count Olaf being burned at the stake in TVV, either; you can hate someone and still not want horrible things to happen to them, and spending the rest of their lives in a cramped cage on a flooding coastal shelf is pretty much a death sentence, and the Baudelaires do not approve of death.

With that said, I do think Daniel Handler pushes the "murder" angle on Dewey's death way too hard; there's no way that should constitute murder, but everyone, including the narrator, treats it as such.

[gliquey]

Considering they recently set a large, busy hotel on fire with very little justification, I think trapping a mass murderer in a birdcage should be the least of the Baudelaire's moral concerns. By TVV, I can understand that they don't want Olaf burned at the stake - especially at the hands of such awful people - but by TE, I'm finding it harder to agree with their thoughts about Olaf. I would have pushed him overboard.

However, I'm not sure if Olaf's punishment is intended as a death sentence, whatever it logically appears to be. Decision Day is approaching, but perhaps Ishmael intended to force Olaf aboard the outrigger rather than to kill him when the coastal shelf was flooded. In any case, I'm fairly certain the word "death" is never mentioned in relation to the situations of Olaf, the Baudelaires or Kit so I think the target audience would be expected to see that there was a serious problem for everyone on the coastal shelf, but not that Ishmael was intending to kill Olaf or the others.

As for Dewey's death, it's certainly not intentional murder by the Baudelaires but it's understandably hard for others to see it that way. Nevertheless, Snicket should definitely be standing up for the Baudelaires.

[MisterM]

I don't recall exactly, as its bee a while since i read the books, but i think the who moral ambiguity thing' kid of wraps itself up i TSS only to pop back up in TPP (unless im confusing myself here?) so i'd definitely say that handler tired to force it back into the story in some way

[Hermes]

Actually the moral ambiguity theme plays quite a large part in TGG as well. I may be biased here by having read TGG before TSS, but I never saw TSS as a resolution; at that point the Baudelaires resist corruption, but after this there is till room for them to go down the slippery slope.

[bandit]

Yes, TGG has all the business about Fernald and Fiona and why seemingly virtuous people would want to help Olaf. Although, just as in the case of Dewey's death, I think Snicket might put too much of one opinion forward when referring to the events. Throughout TPP and TE, when Fiona is referred to in the narration, there's always something said about how she was another betrayer who succumbed to Olaf's villainous ways, even though she gave a reasonable excuse in TGG that you'd think was supposed to leave the matter up in the air.

[Dante]

Fiona's actions were also a very clear mirror to those of the Baudelaires', and of course they also end up going off with Olaf in the very next book.

[fangirlinthetardis]

I must admit you do have a point. It does seem strange that the Baudelaires have so much concern for this guy who murdered their parents (but of course, it could have been Esme). But I think they were maybe experiencing a flashback to Sunny being trapped in the cage and that effected their opinions on the matter.

To me, the whole point is that the Baudalaires have done wicked things in their time but they always had a reason and they couldn't find a reason to put Olaf in the cage.

[Dante]

I quite like that as an explanation. I would also suggest that the Baudelaires try only to do something wicked if they believe the alternative is even more wicked, in its nature or consequences.

[gliquey]

I think perhaps their young age and confusing experiences can account for some of it. Logically, to me (even at the age of 8), the things they seemed to be worried about morally never struck me as even slightly dubious. But given the people they had to look up to, the strange universe were in and the warped morals they were exposed to, one can understand a lack of actual rationality behind their behaviour (e.g. objected to locking Olaf in a cage solely because Sunny was in a cage once).

The scene in TSS where they abandon their plan of trapping Esme has me mentally yelling "no, what are you doing?" every time. There was no moral issue with that at all. Violet and Klaus' baby sister was in immediate danger; she had been kidnapped by a group of known murderers and criminals, one of whom had previously expressed thoughts that show he wouldn't give a second thought to killing Sunny if he knew he could get the fortune from Violet/Klaus (Olaf first came up with the idea of killing 2 of them and keeping 1 alive in TVV, I think).

Their plan was pathetic. They dragged Esme back up the slope because they had no other choice; the fact Klaus came up with the sugar bowl bluff and somehow managed to get them all out alive was realistically implausible and only occurred because... well, they were main characters and Handler couldn't kill them off. The original idea - kidnap Esme and offer to trade her for Sunny - seemed like a reasonable idea and was not in any way morally wrong. They were going to trap her in a pit for a short period of time, and they would have treated her much better than the villains treated Sunny. There was no cruelty or severe suffering caused by their plan, and in return their chances of getting Sunny back increased massively. Why did they abandon this? Because of a quoted phrase from an archaic philosopher that had something to do with monsters? Because of an abstract sense of the moral high ground? Because they thought V.F.D. wouldn't like them if they 'fought fire with fire'? This scene just never makes sense to me. If the plan was 'chop off Esme's thumb and send it to Olaf', yes, there's a moral issue there, but not when they just want to separate her from Olaf until he agrees to give Sunny back.

[Dante]

Is it possible, gliquey, that while you view the context in which an action occurs as affecting its moral balance, the Baudelaires do not? In other words, for them, tricking someone into falling into a pit and using them as a bargaining tool is always equally bad regardless of the wider situation and motivation?

[gliquey]

Jul 27, 2015 2:31:23 GMT -5 Dante said:

Is it possible, gliquey, that while you view the context in which an action occurs as affecting its moral balance, the Baudelaires do not? In other words, for them, tricking someone into falling into a pit and using them as a bargaining tool is always equally bad regardless of the wider situation and motivation?

It's quite possible that they think that, although I would consider that to be an overly idealistic view of things.

For instance, I feel comfortable swearing around my friends sometimes but would not feel comfortable swearing at a 6 year old. Is the action of uttering a taboo word always equally bad, regardless of context? No. I don't know anyone who would say it is. On the one hand, in some situations swearing helps alleviate pain or express strong emotions. Many great works of literature utilise profanity for all kinds of different reasons. On the other hand, when directed at a person it can be incredibly rude and can cause someone to become upset, angry, annoyed or unhappy. Saying that context doesn't affect an action, that there is a set value for everything and that context is irrelevant, seems to me to be overly simplistic and quite idiotic. That doesn't mean the Baudelaires don't think that anyway; they're children, and they live in a universe that seems to have lots of different, slightly illogical, morals. We have protagonists who spout rubbish like "He who hesitates is lost" and "Give people what they want". Nobody's perfect and the Baudelaires might not take either of those philosophies seriously, but it still shows the sort of dumb ideas that are strewn throughout the series.

[doetwin]

Totally. I was also frustrated by the examples you gave in TSS and TE. There's also a scene from TAA that really bothers me:


“If you were smart,” Genghis(Count Olaf) said, “you would have borrowed the silverware of one of your friends.”

“We never thought of that,” Klaus said. When one is forced to tell atrocious lies, one often feels a guilty flutter in one's stomach, and Klaus felt such a flutter now.

Yeah. How dare Klaus do something so horrific as lie to Count Olaf. I mean, he's done nothing to Klaus, aside from strike his face, lock his sister in a cage, try to marry his other sister, murder his uncle, murder his aunt, and hypnotize him.

TSS is when I started to get really annoyed. There's a saying that probably most of us heard growing called "Two wrongs don't make a right." Basically, it means that you should never do wrong to someone just because they have done wrong to you. Now, I agree that you should never harm someone who has harmed just for the sake of getting back at them. However, I don't think there should be any problem with harming someone in order to prevent them from causing further harm. Violet and Klaus weren't planning to capture Esme in order to get back at her; they were doing it in order to get their sister back. I was disgusted that they decided out of capturing a vile woman even for their baby sister. Esme made the choice to join Count Olaf, and there wouldn't have been any problem with Violet and Klaus letting her pay the consequences for that. If one of my loved ones in danger, I'd have no problem harming the people involved in order to rescue them.

TE takes it to a whole new level. At the beginning, when they're on the boat, the children seem to show just as much concern for Count Olaf's well-being as their own. There was one scene after the storm that absolutely revolted me.

Klaus leaned down to peer closer to Olaf, but the villain still did not stir. “It must have been terrible,” he said, “to try and ride out the storm with no kind of shelter whatsoever.”

Then, the Baudelaires think that it was somewhat cruel to leave Olaf behind after threatening a 7-year-old girl with a gun. You've already talked about the cage. As soon as Ishmael proclaims he's going to shoot Olaf in the stomach, the Bauderlaires protest. The first time I read the book, I thought they were protesting against it because they thought it would be morally wrong to shoot Count Olaf. But on second thought, I wonder if they were protesting because they knew the Medusoid Mycelium would be released. Even if the latter's true, they still try to save Count Olaf by giving him an apple, although this was partially because they needed him to help Kit Snicket. But then, after he died, they dug him a GRAVE. He's the reason that they're wanted criminals stranded on as Island and the reason a lot of their loved are no longer around, and they're giving him a burial? WHY?

[bear]

um. the point is that the baudelaires do resort to very serious villainy, but for some reason they still reserve some hyper-moral perspective when dealing with count olaf.

[gliquey]

Feb 26, 2017 19:55:13 GMT -5 doetwin said:

Then, the Baudelaires think that it was somewhat cruel to leave Olaf behind after threatening a 7-year-old girl with a gun. You've already talked about the cage. As soon as Ishmael proclaims he's going to shoot Olaf in the stomach, the Bauderlaires protest. The first time I read the book, I thought they were protesting against it because they thought it would be morally wrong to shoot Count Olaf. But on second thought, I wonder if they were protesting because they knew the Medusoid Mycelium would be released. Even if the latter's true, they still try to save Count Olaf by giving him an apple, although this was partially because they needed him to help Kit Snicket. But then, after he died, they dug him a GRAVE. He's the reason that they're wanted criminals stranded on as Island and the reason a lot of their loved are no longer around, and they're giving him a burial? WHY?

You make a good point about Olaf threatening Friday; I think sometimes because Olaf's dialogue is often jokey (e.g. in that scene he calls the island "Olaf-Land" repeatedly), and I know he is fictional, I underestimate some of the threats he gives out. But really he is a serious danger to the characters he encounters and the Baudelaires should be worrying about what plots he will hatch when left to his own devices rather than feeling sorry for him.

I thought that the Baudelaires protested against Ishmael shooting Olaf because of the Medusoid Mycelium, but your other possible interpretation is interesting. It could be both reasons, but I think the fungus would be their main instinctive concern.

The line about the children laying flowers on Kit's grave and then looking mournfully at Olaf's made sense to me in context but you make a very convincing argument; he has ruined their lives and taken the lives of many people who they were close to, so they should feel relieved they no longer have to constantly worry where he is and what he will do next, rather than sorry about it.