|
|
Post by gliquey on Jul 1, 2016 16:58:17 GMT -5
On the subject of Olaf and Kit: Olaf in TE is a fascinating, multi-dimensional character, who makes very apt points which the Baudelaires struggle to argue against, shows weakness and even quotes poetry. His kiss with Kit is perhaps the most important element of that character development: he cannot be typecast as a villain who does what he does because he's just evil, because his emotions towards Kit seem real. I don't think it's particularly surprising that Olaf was able to start a relationship with Kit. Intriguing and important, yes, but I wouldn't call it a "mystery". Handler's answer surprised me a little bit - I thought it was something Snicket would say (the flawed narrator with a grudge against Olaf that he is), but perhaps I expected at least acknowledgement of the fact that Olaf is more than a one-dimensional villain. Quite honestly I do find his answer to my other question rather odd. I will have to think a bit more about that. I had to read that answer a couple of times because I also found it a little strange. I think the gist of the message is that while links between his books are usually intentional, he finds no reason to bother categorising what is and isn't canon or what is set in the same universe - the allusion is just a carefully placed Easter egg which shouldn't be taken too seriously. At least, that was my understanding of his response. |
|
|
|
Post by Linda Rhaldeen on Jul 1, 2016 18:34:32 GMT -5
I love Handler's answers; we are all used to him answering as the Snicket persona which, though clever and amusing, is very clearly him playing a part and rarely gives us true insight into his mind. This felt much more candid, like he was answering truthfully as himself and not just as his persona would answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Jul 1, 2016 18:40:06 GMT -5
On the subject of Olaf and Kit: Olaf in TE is a fascinating, multi-dimensional character, who makes very apt points which the Baudelaires struggle to argue against, shows weakness and even quotes poetry. His kiss with Kit is perhaps the most important element of that character development: he cannot be typecast as a villain who does what he does because he's just evil, because his emotions towards Kit seem real. I don't think it's particularly surprising that Olaf was able to start a relationship with Kit. Intriguing and important, yes, but I wouldn't call it a "mystery". Handler's answer surprised me a little bit - I thought it was something Snicket would say (the flawed narrator with a grudge against Olaf that he is), but perhaps I expected at least acknowledgement of the fact that Olaf is more than a one-dimensional villain. I think perhaps he wasn't saying that Olaf is a one-dimensional villain, but rather that as the villainous parts of his personality are so dominant, it's a mystery as to how anyone would ever start a relationship with someone like him; that doesn't mean that he's not complex, but merely that his overriding character is that of a villain, and as such, it's incredible/a mystery that Kit could have begun a relationship with him. It may also have just been a way of saying that he thinks the reasons for their break-up were more obvious and less interesting than the reasons for their having ever started a relationship. That's what I understood his answer to mean, anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by thedoctororwell on Jul 2, 2016 8:31:35 GMT -5
Wow! It's actually rare to watch Handler answer questions about the plot so directly; well, as directly as he can afford to be without ruining his books' amibiguous narrative, anyhow. I'll have to update several articles of my blog with this information...
I'd like to thank the 667 team for offering us this wonderful glimpse into Handler's magic. Giving all of us a chance to contribute was a great initiative.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortinson51 on Jul 2, 2016 8:41:59 GMT -5
This is so great. I feel like we all got a great peak of what is happening inside Handlers brain with these characters.
I am excited about the possibility of a third series hopefully the wait is not to long. My mind is going wild of what the series could be filling in more gaps between ATWQ and ASOUE would be great. Characters from both series having adventures.
I feel like I'm more reserved about the Netflix series now but still hopeful that it will be the best adaptation we could possibly get.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jul 2, 2016 11:35:25 GMT -5
Quite honestly I do find his answer to my other question rather odd. I will have to think a bit more about that. I had to read that answer a couple of times because I also found it a little strange. I think the gist of the message is that while links between his books are usually intentional, he finds no reason to bother categorising what is and isn't canon or what is set in the same universe - the allusion is just a carefully placed Easter egg which shouldn't be taken too seriously. At least, that was my understanding of his response. Well, yes. He seems, in any case, to confirm that the links are real. But his not understanding the question is weird. When he's asked about the connections between ASOUE and ATWQ he doesn't say 'I don't know what that means; as they are different books it's for you to decide what to make of them' (even though it might solve some problems for him if he did): he clearly treats them as part of the same story. So it doesn't seem incoherent to suggest that the adult books are likewise part of the same story. Possibly one source of unclarity is that Adverbs plays with the idea of reality, and is not clearly all set in the same universe itself - there are two scenes which seem each to be a dream from the point of view of the other - so even if every other story is linked with Adverbs, that may not actually put them all in the same world. I also think (and I should stress I'm not in any way criticising Bee and the secret committee, who have done a heroic job putting this together) that the way my questions were combined may have caused some confusion. With the WWBU question obviously I was just asking about thematic connections; clearly it isn't actually set in the Snicketverse. But with the adult books there could be real in-story connections. Well, I will go on believing that the school mentioned in WAP where there was a murder is the one from TB8, and that Joan's girlfriend in WWBU is one of the Andreas from Adverbs. And if I ever get to read WYM I will look for connections in that too. |
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Jul 2, 2016 16:58:24 GMT -5
I had to read that answer a couple of times because I also found it a little strange. I think the gist of the message is that while links between his books are usually intentional, he finds no reason to bother categorising what is and isn't canon or what is set in the same universe - the allusion is just a carefully placed Easter egg which shouldn't be taken too seriously. At least, that was my understanding of his response. Well, yes. He seems, in any case, to confirm that the links are real. But his not understanding the question is weird. When he's asked about the connections between ASOUE and ATWQ he doesn't say 'I don't know what that means; as they are different books it's for you to decide what to make of them' (even though it might solve some problems for him if he did): he clearly treats them as part of the same story. So it doesn't seem incoherent to suggest that the adult books are likewise part of the same story. I think maybe that's because ATWQ & ASOUE are so obviously, definitely and intentionally set in the same world that it's sort of a different question: that is, when people ask about links between ATWQ & ASOUE, they are so deliberately there, and actually are significant parts of the plot, that he can just talk about what characters he wanted to explore more, what plot points, what allusions to later events he wanted to include, whatever he feels like. Whereas, with his other books, they are stand alone books and they're not sold as connected to any of his other books, so maybe he just doesn't understand what people really want to know when they ask about connections between the books? I would assume that's the case, anyway, but I may very well be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jul 3, 2016 11:22:50 GMT -5
Well, I know I'm being silly really, but it did feel as if DH was saying my question was stupid (I know he didn't actually say that, but what he said rather gave that impression), and I'm the only person he said that to, so I'm a bit put out. If he had just said 'I don't write like that; I put clues in, and it's for you to decide what to make of them', that would be fine, but he seemed to be saying more than that, that the question really doesn't make sense, as if it was quite generally impossible to write like that; and if it really doesn't make sense, as a general truth about literature, it shouldn't make sense about ASOUE either.
The relevance of the Nabokov quote is a bit puzzling - one might well reply 'I'm not talking about reality, I'm talking about a book' - but I take it the point is that the writer isn't actually creating a world, with concrete existence; he's showing us a story that someone is telling. I'm not sure this is true of every author - some do imagine their worlds in great detail - but it is surely true of Handler (as of Nabokov). It is perhaps clearest in Adverbs, where there's no answer to the questions just which story is right or which characters are which; also, in a rather different way, of TB8 (though there one might think it is possible to say which story is right). But then I think it's true of the Snicket books as well; especially TUA and TBL, which are giving us different perspectives on the world; but the other books more generally, since DH has said that Lemony is an unreliable narrator (as Beatrice confirms). The story invites us to speculate about the truth - what is in the sugar bowl, who is JS, are the Mortmain Mountains in the north, the east or the west, etc. - but it's not as if there were a true answer, waiting to be discovered; any answer we can make work is a good one. (Though then again, it seems there is an answer to 'what does the S stand for?')
I guess his answer to the GLBT question fits this as well; Charles and Sir are clearly written in such as way as to lead us to think of them as gay, but it's not true in an absolute sense that they are gay, because we don't know about their life outside the book; it's our reading that makes them so. And I think it follows that if we want to read Bruce or the Duchess as gay, with rather less evidence (though not none) we can also do that, and we won't be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 3, 2016 14:12:20 GMT -5
i think he only expressed his confusion about your question in particular because it's the attitude a whole lot of fandoms take toward a creator's works (treating their stuff as being set in a "universe" on the level of Tolkien rather than just in some dubious reality), and so he probably gets similar questions a lot. in other instances he might have given a vague, clever answer to somebody's fandom-oriented question, but in this interview he seems to have "let his hair down" quite a bit because he knows 667ers can't be so easily pleased with those types of answers. so i think it's just as valuable as his other answers to hear him explain his perception of fan interpretations like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jul 3, 2016 16:25:05 GMT -5
Yes, I'm probably being too philosophical. I get what he means as a description of what he's doing, but...
|
|
|
|
Post by Teleram on Jul 6, 2016 1:26:44 GMT -5
Teleram and thedoctororwell: Did Mr. Snicket ever return to Stain'd by the Sea? Did he ever hear from the town’s inhabitants again, or ask his sister what became of Ms. Feint? Handler:Mr. Snicket's story is not done being chronicled, but suffice to say that when he stepped into the Clusterous Forest he was not out of the woods. IMMORTAN HANDLER! HE ANSWERED ME! HE LOOKED AT MY QUESTION AND HE ANSWERED ME! I AM AWAITED IN VALHALLA! |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jul 25, 2016 11:00:04 GMT -5
This is going to be interesting. My immediate reaction: (1) "Snicket", (2) unfortunately not "Sunny" and (3) even a Snicket character couldn't have as absurd a name as "Solitude", could they? I just spotted this! 'Snicket Theodora Markson'. Well, I'm inclined to say that as a first name it's even more improbable than 'Solitude' (which at least resembles a name which is possible in Spanish), but of course it is true that some people use family names as first names. Could it have been her mother's maiden name, making her a cousin of Lemony's? |
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Jul 25, 2016 13:17:32 GMT -5
I just spotted this! 'Snicket Theodora Markson'. Well, I'm inclined to say that as a first name it's even more improbable than 'Solitude' (which at least resembles a name which is possible in Spanish), but of course it is true that some people use family names as first names. Could it have been her mother's maiden name, making her a cousin of Lemony's? Yes, it is quite a long shot, but it would certainly give her good reason not to tell Lemony. Everyone in the Snicket universe seems to be related, especially members of V.F.D., so Theodora being some kind of cousin doesn't seem particularly far-fetched. However, Theodora introduces herself as "S. Theodora Markson" before meeting Lemony, so if it was a proud part of her heritage that she chose to use as a first name, I wonder why she goes by Theodora. Someone shall have to compile a list of every word beginning with "S" used in ATWQ... |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jul 25, 2016 15:37:26 GMT -5
Well, she wouldn't need to have chosen it as a first name herself, her parents could have done that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tryina Denouement on Jul 26, 2016 9:20:00 GMT -5
I just saw this, and I'll have to say that his answers are very interesting, especially the 'advice to past self' one. I'm also thanking him for answering two of my questions.
|
|
Quite honestly I do find his answer to my other question rather odd. I will have to think a bit more about that. I had to read that answer a couple of times because I also found it a little strange. I think the gist of the message is that while links between his books are usually intentional, he finds no reason to bother categorising what is and isn't canon or what is set in the same universe - the allusion is just a carefully placed Easter egg which shouldn't be taken too seriously. At least, that was my understanding of his response.
