|
|
Post by Esmé's meme is meh on Dec 20, 2016 9:50:46 GMT -5
 ******************************** From December 19th to January 7th, 667 Dark Avenue invites all the fans of A Series of Unfortunate Events to do a re-reading of The Miserable Mill while we get ourselves ready for the show.
The main idea is to share interesting facts and phrases, stuff we would like to see in the Netflix show, analyse the plot, mention details about the characters and the story, etc.
It would be particularly interesting to have international readers talking about how they translated stuff in their respective languages: words definitions, linguistic games, phrases, intertextualities, etc. We know the ASOUE fanbase is big and vast, and it includes Spanish, French, Portuguese and German readers at the very least.
We'll have a Special Penthouse Day on January 8th to do a live chat session about the book and discuss the most interesting stuff mentioned during these two weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Dec 20, 2016 12:07:45 GMT -5
I've started re-reading TMM, and there's one pertinent question that I can't work out the answer to: is Orwell working in an eye building a coincidence or not? At the end of chapter one, the children / Snicket raise this question of whether or not it has something to do with Olaf, but I don't think the question is ever resolved. The building is described as a normal brown eye, and I find it hard to picture this building hiding the "V.F.D." initials in its design, but at this point in the story, the eye is only connected to Olaf's tattoo and not to V.F.D. Now, we have the explanation that the eye design is just because it's an optometrist's, but I think one has to wonder whether that's the only reason. I think it would be a bit of a coincidence for both of the villains in the story (Olaf and Orwell) to share the same symbol/motif without there being any connection between them. Later, of course, we see that this is the V.F.D. insignia, so does that mean that Orwell was a member of V.F.D.? There's no indication that she is, but no reason that she couldn't be. I'll be interested to see what Netflix do with her character - from the promotional videos we've already seen, it looks like she'll be getting a bit more of a motive and a storyline than in TMM, which I hope will be a big improvement.
(P.S. Zort - you wrote "The Wide Window" in your introduction bit.)
|
|
eskaton
Reptile Researcher
Posts: 30 
Likes: 46
|
Post by eskaton on Dec 20, 2016 13:15:23 GMT -5
I've started re-reading TMM, and there's one pertinent question that I can't work out the answer to: is Orwell working in an eye building a coincidence or not? At the end of chapter one, the children / Snicket raise this question of whether or not it has something to do with Olaf, but I don't think the question is ever resolved. The building is described as a normal brown eye, and I find it hard to picture this building hiding the "V.F.D." initials in its design, but at this point in the story, the eye is only connected to Olaf's tattoo and not to V.F.D. Now, we have the explanation that the eye design is just because it's an optometrist's, but I think one has to wonder whether that's the only reason. I think it would be a bit of a coincidence for both of the villains in the story (Olaf and Orwell) to share the same symbol/motif without there being any connection between them. Later, of course, we see that this is the V.F.D. insignia, so does that mean that Orwell was a member of V.F.D.? There's no indication that she is, but no reason that she couldn't be. I'll be interested to see what Netflix do with her character - from the promotional videos we've already seen, it looks like she'll be getting a bit more of a motive and a storyline than in TMM, which I hope will be a big improvement. In The Penultimate Peril, it's implied that Sir has an established business deal with VFD, supplying them with lumber. My guess is that, rather than being connected to Olaf specifically, Paltryville (and by extension its buildings) is a location of interest to VFD as a whole and is associated with the group in some way. As for Orwell, I'm inclined to believe she's a member of VFD on Olaf's side of the schism, though this is speculation based on admittedly flimsy evidence: IIRC there's an optometrist disguise kit mentioned in the Unauthorized Autobiography that fits Orwell's description rather suspiciously. I suppose an optometrist's look is a pretty generic one, though, so it could jwell be coincidence. It's been a while since I've read all of these books, so there's probably more details I'm forgetting. I have to go for now, but I'll pop back in later with some more general thoughts on the book. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Dec 20, 2016 13:28:59 GMT -5
Well, of course, it's likely that when this was written, VFD hadn't been invented. However, reading VFD back into it, here's what I think:
Orwell is a member of VFD. As well as the eye-shaped office, there is evidence for this in her book, which has thirteen chapters, and is written in a style we see in other VFD books as well.
She is on the villainous side of the schism. However, the villainous side doesn't normally operate as an organisation - Olaf at one point describes himself as an independent operator - but is a rather loose grouping of people each being villainous on their own account. Nevertheless, here she is cooperating with Olaf on a scheme for their mutual advantage.
|
|
Gregor Anwhistle
Formidable Foreman
Volatile Fungus Deporter and Ichnologist
Posts: 115
Likes: 124
|
Post by Gregor Anwhistle on Dec 20, 2016 15:37:42 GMT -5
I agree with Hermes' points about Orwell. I always interpreted the eye-shaped office as a former V.F.D. "safe place" with a volunteer posted as the optometrist (using the disguise kit). Two volunteers if you include the receptionist. If they ever died/had to move, the spot could easily be filled by another volunteer.
Maybe there was strategic value in V.F.D. having a post in Paltryville -- maintaining their business deals with Sir, or perhaps the proximity to the Daily Punctilio archives. And at one point V.F.D. did have a headquarters hidden in the Finite Forest (TUA p. 44).
Moxie's mention of an optometrist in Paltryville with a dubious reputation (File Under, p. 24-5) adds to the idea of a V.F.D. presence.
Much like the penthouse's safety was jeapordized by Esme's presence, I wonder if Dr. Orwell's acquisition of the eye-shaped office suddenly made Paltryville a dangerous place for traveling volunteers.
|
|
eskaton
Reptile Researcher
Posts: 30
Likes: 46
|
Post by eskaton on Dec 20, 2016 15:41:15 GMT -5
Some general thoughts on the book: -One of the things I’ve loved about this series from the start is Snicket’s way of cleverly addressing social issues younger readers may not ordinarily consider, in an easily digestible way, and The Miserable Mill is probably one of the most obvious examples in the series. The Baudelaires (and the reader) grapple with labor ethics and exploitation, as well as the usual recurring themes of ineffectual adults/unreliable authority figures, injustice, and child abuse. Out of the first four books, I find MM particularly demoralizing. This isn’t a criticism; on the contrary, its message is powerfully effective, and makes for a more compelling narrative. -The ubiquity of chewing gum on Lucky Smells property recalls, at least for me, the real-life gum crisis of Singapore, where the excessive littering of spent gum absolutely everywhere caused so many problems with maintenance and transportation that the importation of chewing gum was banned. Maybe Sir eventually banned chewing gum at Lucky Smells and switched to breath mints after Klaus literally gummed up the works. /headcanon - I know this subject has certainly been discussed at length in the past, and this isn’t exactly revelatory stuff, but this is the first time I’ve read MM since I was much younger and on this re-read it really struck me how obvious the nature of Charles and Sir’s relationship actually is early on, even with the ambiguous “partner” shenanigans obfuscating things here (but just barely). I was under the impression that the romantic aspect of their relationship didn’t really start to become obvious until later installments in the series (PP and TBL, and arguably 13 Suspicious Incidents, if only tenuously), I guess because I was older when I read them, and more attuned to queer coding and subtext. However, reading MM now, it’s pretty darn apparent from the get-go what's really going on. Following this train of thought, every time Sir and Charles interact I desperately wish someone would take the latter aside for a long talk about life choices. As far as I’m concerned, Charles survives the eventual hotel fire, finds a decent man who treats him right and lives happily as a librarian and seasonal roadside peach stand operator for the rest of his days. That said, I actually find Sir/Charles to be one of the most compelling relationships of the series. It’s tragic, and tragically realistic, and I sadly recognize so many people I’ve known in these characters. -“‘I’ll tell you why I’m Shirley,’ Count Olaf said. ‘I’m Shirley because I would like to be called Shirley, and it is impolite not to do so.’ ‘I don’t care if we’re impolite,’ Violet said, ‘to such a disgusting person as yourself.”’ Taken out of context, this passage is oddly relevant these days in relation to ongoing social discourse; in a way, it's a microcosm of the way gender identity and related issues are often approached and would not be out of place in, say, a Reddit thread. Suspension of disbelief dept: I’ve come to accept most of the more outlandish elements of these books as a product of their less than reliable narrator, but when it comes to Sunny fending off Orwell’s sword attack with her teeth I just can’t deal. I’d be surprised if this sequence isn’t heavily reworked for the Netflix series. |
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Dec 20, 2016 17:39:55 GMT -5
-One of the things I’ve loved about this series from the start is Snicket’s way of cleverly addressing social issues younger readers may not ordinarily consider, in an easily digestible way, and The Miserable Mill is probably one of the most obvious examples in the series. The Baudelaires (and the reader) grapple with labor ethics and exploitation, as well as the usual recurring themes of ineffectual adults/unreliable authority figures, injustice, and child abuse. Out of the first four books, I find MM particularly demoralizing. This isn’t a criticism; on the contrary, its message is powerfully effective, and makes for a more compelling narrative. This is an excellent point. My favourite example of Snicket doing this is by mocking the fashion industry in TEE, with the ridiculous arbitrary rules of what is 'in' and 'out' when. When we were doing the TWW re-read, I suggested that maybe Josephine's hyperbolic fear could have been another case of this phenomenon (criticising how arbitrary and illogical people's fears are), but out of the first four books I think TMM probably does have the best example of a social issue being addressed through reductio ad absurdum. Someone somewhere said that the series starts to get a bit more ridiculous later on, and I think this social commentary through mocking is a major reason for this. To me, there are plenty of things in ASOUE that are a bit silly, and I think TMM shows some of the first signs of this by depicting a lumbermill where all the employees are paid in gum, and - as you mentioned already - Sunny managing to fight off Dr. Orwell, who has a sword, using only her teeth. |
|
|
|
Post by thathoboravioli on Dec 20, 2016 22:35:04 GMT -5
I honestly don't get why the fans hated this book (or at least didn't like it as much). To be honest, Miserable Mill was fine. I thought The Hostile Hospital was the worst one.
|
|
|
|
Post by theplague on Dec 20, 2016 23:07:50 GMT -5
It almost seems like Netflix is removing the town of Paltryville in this adaptation, with it being burned down. I wonder how they'll depict the optometrist's office then? They also might change the design of it, given the official VFD logo.
|
|
Timmixxa
Catastrophic Captain
how's life
Posts: 63 
Likes: 34
|
Post by Timmixxa on Dec 21, 2016 0:29:20 GMT -5
I don't have a library book being borrowed right now, so I'll have to do notes from memory.
Orwell in the book definitely is villainous and from V.F.D., like people before me have said, but the Netflix version of Orwell is hard to distinguish, because in the trailer, you can see her shooting darts at a target with a picture of Count Olaf on it, but yet, she's working with "Shirley". Chances are "Shirley" is well-disguised, and Orwell doesn't know it's Olaf. There's the possibility of her changing sides to be with the villainous half of the schism, or even (although this is far-fetched) that Olaf had researched hypnosis, and hypnotized Orwell so she could be on the villainous side. But hey, I don't know!
In my opinion, maybe they should reveal the letters V.F.D. at the end of Episode 8 of Netflix ASOUE to give it a good cliffhanger. I would imagine that Orwell would say something about V.F.D. to Olaf before Sir comes up in and she gets chopped up by the saw. Again, I don't know, but what do you think? Is it better, or is it not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Dec 21, 2016 8:53:28 GMT -5
Regarding V.F.D. purely as a name, I think that, given that the insignia and the notion of secret organisations is all over the place in the Netflix series way earlier than it was in ASoUE, then some plot developments may have to be brought forward a bit - but I think the major beats don't really need moving. The initials are first given in TAA; the first word of the organisation's name, in TVV; it takes until TCC for the Baudelaires to realise that the eye insignia conceals the V.F.D. initials, and that probably should be brought forwards given how much they'll have been looking at it, though, and given that it doesn't really accompany any other great revelation, it's just a realisation brought on by exposure (and by Handler only coming up with it around that time). As for the Paltryville optometrist's building, I'm pretty sure the image in the spoiler tag below is Dr. Orwell's office; there are the trees in the background, but also it doesn't match the appearance of Olaf's tower, which has been shown several times. I think this satisfies the condition of the building being in the same shape as Olaf's tattoo. I think the optometrist's office might have something to do with V.F.D., guys. Crazy theory, I know. Now. What I wanted to talk about today was the climax of TMM; I hope I'll have time. Sunny's swordfighting is only the tip of the iceberg; Violet being completely useless because two of the villains are wasting time alternately pulling on her arms to make her armpits sore is just silly; but as far as Klaus's role is concerned, the scene as written flat-out doesn't make sense, physically. Pages 65-66 establish that trees have to be physically pushed into the saw - against the saw, even. This has to be done repeatedly to cut the trees into flat boards. At the start of the climactic confrontation, pages 160-161, Klaus does indeed push the log into the saw - and also away from the saw, when so commandeded, though it's not clear what position he could be standing in from which he could both push the log towards and away from the log. However, after Klaus is unhypnotised, the log continues to be sawn to an increasing depth, apparently on its own, with nobody pushing it! This is presumably why Helquist drew in a conveyor belt, but I haven't seen one mentioned in the relevant parts of the book. One thing that I think is significant is that, despite Helquist's illustrations, it's not clear whether the saw is vertical or horizontal; but Helquist always shows it to be vertical. Either way, though, how exactly does it cut into Charles's feet? It's a narrow sawblade, and Charles is tied flat on his back. Assuming Charles is lying horizontally, the saw should be able to cut only into the sole of one foot at a time, or between his feet. If the saw is horizontal, though, it could cut both Charles's feet at the same time - but doesn't that mean it's actually cutting high above the level of the logs? How could it cut the logs into planks? They'd be too low and it would be too high. If Charles is tied to the side of the saw, it might overcome some of these problems, but that would be rather awkward and would look ridiculous. So Klaus becomes unhypnotised, anyway, and page 169 establishes that Sunny and Dr. Orwell's swordfight is between him and Charles (and Violet), which is why he can't simply walk over to either of them to help. So what he does is he sticks a lot of sticky chewing gum onto the end of a debarker, which is simply a flat rectangle of metal, and when he casts the debarker, holding it still, in the direction of the log, the gum stretches all the way over Orwell and Sunny's heads, and lands on the string tying Charles to the log. Klaus then pulls the debarker and its line of string, and this pulls (no conveyor belts included!) the log out of the way of the saw. Let's analyse this. The gum was so sticky that, rather than detaching from the debarker when thrown, it stretched to a length of what must have been several metres! So sticky that the mere weight of it landing on the log is enough to stick it so firmly that it can be used as a tether to pull this extremely heavy log! The physical properties of this gum are truly remarkable. Also, should not the line of gum that has threaded through the air over Orwell and Sunny's heads then see its slack descend into the midst of their battle, given that it was thrown by Klaus, who is presumably considerably shorter than Orwell? Klaus pulls it straight, so why does the cord of gum not pass between them? I haven't had time on this occasion to read too closely, so if I've missed something, please point it out. But as far as I can tell, the climax of TMM is nonsense. It's beyond cartoonish; it simply makes no spatial sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Teleram on Dec 21, 2016 14:14:51 GMT -5
I honestly don't get why the fans hated this book (or at least didn't like it as much). To be honest, Miserable Mill was fine. I thought The Hostile Hospital was the worst one. Why what's wrong with THH? |
|
|
|
Post by thathoboravioli on Dec 21, 2016 18:40:41 GMT -5
I honestly don't get why the fans hated this book (or at least didn't like it as much). To be honest, Miserable Mill was fine. I thought The Hostile Hospital was the worst one. Why what's wrong with THH? I honestly can't put my finger on it...it just feels like the lowest point in the books. Almost like how I feel about Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix in the Harry Potter books. |
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Dec 21, 2016 19:06:35 GMT -5
I honestly can't put my finger on it...it just feels like the lowest point in the books. Almost like how I feel about Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix in the Harry Potter books. I agree with you about THH (and about OOtP, although GoF was one of my favourite HP books). There are lots of elements from it that I love - the anagrams, the Volunteers Fighting Disease song, the cliffhanger at the end. But it does feel like a low point in the story: I think it's because I don't really like the setting, which is no fault of Handler's but for some reason I find a carnival or a village filled with crows more exciting than a half-finished hospital. There are also smaller things I don't like: Olaf doesn't have a proper disguise or appear in person until the very end, the telegram to Mr. Poe is unresolved and I just don't like Violet's invention with rubber bands. |
|
|
|
Post by Teleram on Dec 21, 2016 20:36:23 GMT -5
I don't think there are any books in the series that I properly dislike, to be honest.
As for The Miserable Mill, it becomes a more intriguing read when you take into account that this is was meant to be the last book in the series for a while- Handler's publishers first ordered only four books, if I'm not mistaken. That could certainly explain the fairly concrete ending, and perhaps to an extent the silly, rushed climax, the Baudelaires trying out each other's talents this early in the series, and the prospect of boarding school seeming more untroubled than it would turn out to be.
I also find it interesting that this book features some weirdly surreal, borderline-supernatural elements like Sir's head and Doctor Orwell's hypnotism that may make a case for Handler planning for the series to get less (relatively) grounded in realism as they go on; the mishmash-of-history setting aside.
|
|
