|
|
Post by B. on Mar 7, 2016 12:59:52 GMT -5
Given that the last theory submitted was about everyone in vfd being immortal I think the standard of everything you've produced is already incredibly high.
|
|
|
|
Post by bear on Mar 7, 2016 13:41:45 GMT -5
let's not forget "the most well-explained, fully-conceived theory" from preteen fredy lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 7, 2016 15:34:38 GMT -5
What can I say? If I discriminated in the material I accepted, the only theories that'd be posted would be the ones that agreed with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Mar 8, 2016 12:41:16 GMT -5
Ah, the great Quigley mystery. Here is what I wrote on the subject a while ago: Evidence that the Quagmire fire happened before the Baudelaire fire: The 'three semesters' thing [i.e. D and I lived in the Orphans' Shack for three semesters]. It's true that a semester doesn't have to be literally six months, but I take it it is part of the concept that there are just two of them in a year; the 'semesterisation' which a lot of UK universities have gone through recently is a change from a three-term year to a two-term year. It's true that Prufrock Prep, being an absurd establishment, can do anything it likes, but I'd still rather 'semester' meant what it ought to mean. (And the 'half-semester' that the Baudelaires spent there was long enough that they lost count of the days. ) The reference to the Quagmire affair in TUA [Brett, writing immediately after the Baudelaire fire, says that he never beleived the accusations about Lemony over the 'Quagmire affair'] - it's true it doesn't actually say 'fire', but starting fires is what Lemony is usually accused of. Evidence that the Quagmire fire happened after the Baudelaire fire: Quigley's story. At one time it seemed possible that Quigley was lying - and there were other indications of this as well (why didn't he mention hiding in a snowman?) But if so, nothing came of this. A suggestion in the Rare Edition that the logs chopped by the Baudelaires were used to burn down the Quagmire house. Likely real world explanation: Handler changed his mind. Possible in-story explanations: er, Quigley went into a coma after the fire, and only recovered a year and a half later? And the bit about the logs might perhaps refer, not to the Quagmires, but to the mysterious other family which produced the two orphans later recruited by Kit - one of whom might also, as Dante has proposed, have hidden in a snowman. Added note: Dr Sebald's notes for Zombies in the Snow include a picture of three children, obviously siblings of about the same age, two of whom were sent to Prufrock Prep. The chapter is headed 'Where are the Quagmire Orphans now?' This suggests that at this point DH intended Quigley to be the survivor whom Dr Sebald mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Mar 8, 2016 12:45:23 GMT -5
Pretty much all messages written in Sebald code are ridiculous (see the script for "Zombies in the Snow") and sometimes even wrong (Daniel Handler's editor must have corrected words which weren't supposed to be, breaking the intended word count pattern). Are you referring to the code in TPP, said by Frank or Ernest (or Dewey)? When I first heard of it, I was given the impression that it was purposefully wrong, to leave ambiguity over what the intended message was supposed to be (fitting in with the theme of even the reader not being able to tell which Denouement triplet is which). Although a mistake by an editor - or even Handler himself - is definitely possible. I must be missing something here. You've placed the date of the party described in TAA Lemony's ban from being allowed to speak to Beatrice fifteen years before the events of (most of) ASOUE, but the quote from Lemony uses past tense, to refer to a party that happened - as far as I can see - anywhere between a week and two decades before he wrote ASOUE. What places this Masked Ball in year 38? |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 8, 2016 13:24:33 GMT -5
Are you referring to the code in TPP, said by Frank or Ernest (or Dewey)? When I first heard of it, I was given the impression that it was purposefully wrong, to leave ambiguity over what the intended message was supposed to be (fitting in with the theme of even the reader not being able to tell which Denouement triplet is which). Although a mistake by an editor - or even Handler himself - is definitely possible. There's at least one example of Sebald Code in the U.A. where, if you actually count the number of words between ringed words in the message, it doesn't come to ten. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Mar 8, 2016 13:37:19 GMT -5
I must be missing something here. You've placed the date of the party described in TAA fifteen years before the events of (most of) ASOUE, but the quote from Lemony uses past tense, to refer to a party that happened - as far as I can see - anywhere between a week and two decades before he wrote ASOUE. What places this Masked Ball in year 38? The masked ball is placed in year 38 (in the Doctor's view) by the letter to the Duchess in TUA, refusing/accepting her invitation, and clearly written after Monty's death. From that, by interpretation of 'fifteen long and lonely years', it's possible to place the breakup fifteen years earlier. (I don't see any suggestion that the party itself happened fifteen years earlier.) |
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Mar 8, 2016 15:55:17 GMT -5
The masked ball is placed in year 38 (in the Doctor's view) by the letter to the Duchess in TUA, refusing/accepting her invitation, and clearly written after Monty's death. From that, by interpretation of 'fifteen long and lonely years', it's possible to place the breakup fifteen years earlier. (I don't see any suggestion that the party itself happened fifteen years earlier.) Sorry - I made a mistake there. I meant to write that the date of Jacques forbidding Lemony to speak to Beatrice happened fifteen years earlier, not the party. And thanks for the explanation... I hadn't made the connection that the letter in TUA and anecdote in TAA could be referring to the same party. |
|
|
|
Post by thedoctororwell on Mar 13, 2016 11:14:41 GMT -5
A more thorough answer to last week's discussions: Hope you enjoy the read! |
|
|
|
Post by lorelai on Mar 13, 2016 13:55:24 GMT -5
I did enjoy, thank you! I'm not sure you convinced me, but sadly I'll have to come back later and give a proper analysis of your analysis
Till then!
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoctororwell on Mar 19, 2016 17:22:41 GMT -5
A new challenger appears! This one, I think, has probably been proposed on this message aboard in the past. But it's always good to delve into things thoroughly! |
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Mar 20, 2016 8:28:16 GMT -5
Like several things in TPP, I never quite managed to connect the dots myself with Colette's job, so thanks for the post.
Do you think Colette was working alongside Ernest? I doubt it was a "strange coincidence" that she was right down the hall... then again, it seems like it would be very difficult for Colette to find Ernest, and to be sure he wasn't Frank. It's interesting that Ernest would have chosen Klaus to help him with the birdpaper if he knew Colette was there, but this could be to keep Klaus away from Sir and Charles, to implicate Klaus, or because Colette taking Sir and Charles to Room 547 was part of the plan.
If taking Sir and Charles to Room 547 was part of the villains' plan, then they must have known where to find them - it can't be a coincidence that they turned out to be in the sauna that Ernest needed to use. Klaus only knows to take Sir and Charles to the sauna because just before the three concierge bells ring, the Denouement triplet with them at the time mentions it in his explanation of the Hotel's room system ("from the sauna in Room 613, which stands for the promotion of health" - p64; "either Frank or Ernest had mentioned that the sauna was in Room 613" - p105). Now, the triplet did list quite a few specific rooms in his quite lengthy speech, so it could be a minor coincidence; alternatively, if it was Ernest, he might have just had the sauna on his mind as part of the birdpaper plan, so it was the first example he thought of for a room in the 600s. But if it was intentional, then it might have been Ernest making sure Sir and Charles were going to end up in the sauna, where they could be escorted to Room 547; however, that would be quite bizarre as (a) it requires Sir to first ring for assistance from a concierge and (b) if he wants to find Sir and Charles then he could just go to their room. If we pick up the idea of Sir trying to communicate with Ernest in code (like with the "hot wood" comment), then maybe Sir ringing the concierge bell was some sort of coded message to Ernest.
If much of this is even remotely plausible, it could mean that Ernest was the person the Baudelaires spoke to last in the lobby, which we could work backwards from to get the answer (or an answer) to which triplets they met in what order during chapter 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoctororwell on Mar 21, 2016 8:39:04 GMT -5
Nice thinking about the triplets' behaviour in Chapter Three of TPP, gliquey! The scenario you laid out makes a certain amount of sense. A Colette/Ernest collaboration is absolutely plausible.
Also pretty telling is the fact that Justice Strauss is shocked to learn that Violet gave the harpoon gun to Esme... but Dewey isn't. This would imply that Franck actually expected Violet to request the gun because he was in on Dewey's plan; a few dead crows didn't really matter as they were carrying nothing of importance anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoctororwell on Mar 25, 2016 11:58:45 GMT -5
New theory ! Sorry about the double-post. This is an especially disturbing one. |
|
|
|
Post by thedoctororwell on Apr 1, 2016 15:58:30 GMT -5
I'm obsessed with the Duchess! Ain't no Duchess like a distressed depressed Duchess in duress. See ya on Tumblr! |
|
