|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on May 7, 2018 12:50:15 GMT -5
Though the movie may have tainted my views on this, I always assumed as a reader that Count Olaf was definitely not related to the children, and the "third cousin four times removed" thing was just a scam he had played on Poe. I have even entertained the thought that the reason Poe wasn't too sure if it was "third cousin four times removed" or "fourth cousin three times removed" was because Olaf himself wasn't too sure what he was going with, and told him two conflicting things over the course of their conversation.
Then one fine day I came by this forum, and discovered a surprising number of people, including Ye Honorable Snicket Sleuth, seem to take it for granted that he is, in fact, a relative of the Baudelaire line1, in quite the way Poe described. The persistence of this idea seems… odd, to me. And the Netflix series does lend a lot of credit to the con idea: Poe becomes aware of Olaf's existence through Olaf's own ridiculous disguise Yessica Haircut, and never even looks for any evidence of Haircut's outlandish claims before he places the children with Olaf (a fact he late rcomments on).
So why do all of you believe Olaf was a relative? Is it the O. on the family tree in the appendix book? Because the interpretations I've seen pin down that O. as a sibling of Uncle Monty, and even allowing for Volunteers' chronic inability to recognize basic disguises, I should think Monty wasn't quite so thick enough as not to recognize his own brother. The illustration of the tree also shows a noose hanging form that branch, suggesting O. might have committed suicide (or been hanged for some offense, who knows). Point is, probably not Olaf.
NOTES:
#1: Though if true, it does allow for a different pet theory I've developped, which is that not only was Olaf a relative, he was actually a Baudelaire by birth — and rejected the surname after it became associated with the disgustingly fire-fighting Bertrand and Beatrice within V.F.D. circles. Which would explain why his surname is never mentioned anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 7, 2018 16:14:43 GMT -5
There is no evidence that the relationship is anything but a genuine one, any more than there is any evidence to throw the relation of any of the guardians to the Baudelaires into question. Retroactively, it is not unreasonable to propose, as what amounts to fanfiction, that there was more to it; but in TBB itself it is clearly a fluke of Mr. Poe's shaky reading comprehension which places the Baudelaire children in Count Olaf's care. There is no indication in the text that the man himself interfered in the selection process in any particular; and if he had, he would doubtless already have had a plan to steal their fortune, before the point in the text where he and the hook-handed man exchange words about how he presently doesn't (p. 54); further to this, on the Baudelaires' arrival (p. 23), Olaf makes another statement which clearly demonstrates that he at that time has no understanding of the legalities surrounding any use of the fortune.
So far as the Family Tree goes, there are a number of points surrounding it which throw any easy reading of it into question. The view on 667, as I recall it, leaned more in the direction of considering M. and N. to be at best unknown siblings of Olaf who had not appeared in the text (save, potentially, as the man with a beard but no hair and the woman with hair but no beard).
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 7, 2018 16:51:21 GMT -5
In the movie, it was explicitly said that none of the 'relations' was really related to the Baudelaires: since nothing like that was said in the books, it's natural to assume they are. Though, as becomes clear in due course, they are also linked through VFD, it's not surprising that they will be related, as members of VFD would naturally tend to intermarry.
I think the 'O' in the family tree is Olaf, both because there is a noose around his branch, and because this allows the tree to be read as linking the three families (Snickets, Anwhistles and 'Olafs') who have the single eyebrow. On the other hand, that doesn't actually settle the question either way, as it links him to the Snickets, not to the Baudelaires. The Anwhistles are certainly linked to the Baudelaires, but they might be related to the Baudelaires through one parent, and to the Snickets and 'Olafs' through the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on May 7, 2018 16:55:54 GMT -5
There is no evidence that the relationship is anything but a genuine one, any more than there is any evidence to throw the relation of any of the guardians to the Baudelaires into question. Retroactively, it is not unreasonable to propose, as what amounts to fanfiction, that there was more to it; but in TBB itself it is clearly a fluke of Mr. Poe's shaky reading comprehension which places the Baudelaire children in Count Olaf's care. There is no indication in the text that the man himself interfered in the selection process in any particular; and if he had, he would doubtless already have had a plan to steal their fortune, before the point in the text where he and the hook-handed man exchange words about how he presently doesn't (p. 54); further to this, on the Baudelaires' arrival (p. 23), Olaf makes another statement which clearly demonstrates that he at that time has no understanding of the legalities surrounding any use of the fortune. Truly? It baffles me to think he wasn't expecting them at all. I am quite aware he did not have a plan, but I've seen discussion here on 667 that painted this picture of events: the Baudelaire mansion is burned down (with or without Olaf's involvement, but if so it wans't premeditated); Olaf learns of it; and, knowing they will be of some use (either to get the fortune or just to further his vengeance agains the Baudelaires), he immediately gets his hands on the children, without having fully thought through what he was going to do with them. But it was never in doubt that it was on purpose he had lured them into his guardianship. |
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on May 7, 2018 17:15:40 GMT -5
I think the 'O' in the family tree is Olaf, both because there is a noose around his branch, I'm very curious to hear your reasoning there. In the opening post, I actually considered the noose's presence as evidence against the tree's O. being Count Olaf. My reasoning was that it would either indicate a suicide (not Olaf), a person hanged for their crimes (also not Olaf), or a hangsman ( still not Olaf). If a symbol was to be put on the branch to symbolize Olaf, wouldn't some matches, or perhaps some theatre prop (the Stephano false beard, perhaps?), have been more fitting? |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 7, 2018 17:21:38 GMT -5
I would take it to mean that he is a murderer, so deserves to be hanged. Very likely he was still alive when the tree was drawn (as, of course, he was certainly alive in-story when it was published) so it could not refer to his actual death. (Whereas if we take it to refer to a mysterious sibling of Monty who was hanged, it is a clue going nowhere. Of which, admittedly, there are a few - e.g. the snowman - but let's not multiply them unnecessarily.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lemonmeringue on May 7, 2018 19:39:06 GMT -5
Actually, I very much think he is a distant relative. However, I am not too sure from what side of the family. Personally, I think it would suit him better to be related to Beatrice, but on the other hand, I always thought he was Bertrand's ant-burning cousin. In fact, when I first read about this boy, I thought it was a sort of clear hint, saying "of course, this is Olaf, who else?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 8, 2018 3:07:27 GMT -5
Actually, I very much think he is a distant relative. However, I am not too sure from what side of the family. Personally, I think it would suit him better to be related to Beatrice, but on the other hand, I always thought he was Bertrand's ant-burning cousin. In fact, when I first read about this boy, I thought it was a sort of clear hint, saying "of course, this is Olaf, who else?" Unfortunately, the obstacle raised to that particular and otherwise-satisfying theory is that the very next page establishes the ant-burning cousin as female: "Her father's ant-burning cousin sounded like a dreadful person, but if she had suddenly appeared on the sailboat Violet would have given her a big grateful hug." (TWW p. 181, emphasis mine). I suspect that, were Handler to revise the books now, he would probably adjust that particular detail. |
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on May 8, 2018 4:32:41 GMT -5
Actually, I very much think he is a distant relative. However, I am not too sure from what side of the family. Personally, I think it would suit him better to be related to Beatrice, but on the other hand, I always thought he was Bertrand's ant-burning cousin. In fact, when I first read about this boy, I thought it was a sort of clear hint, saying "of course, this is Olaf, who else?" Unfortunately, the obstacle raised to that particular and otherwise-satisfying theory is that the very next page establishes the ant-burning cousin as female: "Her father's ant-burning cousin sounded like a dreadful person, but if she had suddenly appeared on the sailboat Violet would have given her a big grateful hug." (TWW p. 181, emphasis mine). I suspect that, were Handler to revise the books now, he would probably adjust that particular detail. Unless he has a very clear idea who that person is and it's someone else entirely. Such as: Esmé? The Woman with Hair but no Beard? |
|
|
|
Post by lemonmeringue on May 8, 2018 6:55:19 GMT -5
Aaagh, I forgot that! I was too focused on Olaf - you're right, that doesn't work out. But in that case, I think Olaf is Beatrice's cousin.
|
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on May 9, 2018 19:22:50 GMT -5
This is an interesting idea and I see no reason why it should not be true. Personally, I've never really considered that this was Olaf lying about being related to the children, as the relation is so distant anyway (but this could be purposeful, to make it harder for Poe to disprove that they are related in that way). Olaf getting confused over whether he's going with 3/4 or 4/3 strikes me as slightly more of a Netflix Olaf think to do than a Book Olaf thing, but Book Olaf does still make mistakes like this - what first springs to mind is the contradictory things he says as Stephano in TRR. Truly? It baffles me to think he wasn't expecting them at all. I am quite aware he did not have a plan, but I've seen discussion here on 667 that painted this picture of events: the Baudelaire mansion is burned down (with or without Olaf's involvement, but if so it wans't premeditated); Olaf learns of it; and, knowing they will be of some use (either to get the fortune or just to further his vengeance agains the Baudelaires), he immediately gets his hands on the children, without having fully thought through what he was going to do with them. But it was never in doubt that it was on purpose he had lured them into his guardianship. Yes, I agree with this. Whether or not Olaf had any sensible or realistic plans to get the children's fortune before he organises The Marvelous Marriage, surely he must know that getting their fortune is his end goal. Either he is handed the opportunity on a plate (someone else causes the fire; Poe contacts him) and leaps at the chance, or he causes the sequence of events (interfering with the selection process, or setting the fire with knowledge that he is the closest relative according to the law). So I don't see this as evidence towards Olaf being a blood relative. |
|
verballyfundaffodil
Reptile Researcher
I'm rerereading the series now, solving mysteries--I think I'm a Very Fine Detective.
Posts: 11
Likes: 4
|
Post by verballyfundaffodil on Jun 8, 2018 22:18:13 GMT -5
I believe that the "O" in the Snicket family tree is actually Olivia Caliban. This is because in The End (page 174) Kit says that Mrs. Caliban's first name is Miranda, which fits with the "M" branch in the tree. Olivia and Miranda share the same last name, are around the same age, and it is possible for them to have a sibling with an initial of "N," so I think that they occupy the "M," "N," and "O" section of the Snicket family tree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jun 9, 2018 1:16:59 GMT -5
Of course, it's not clear if Caliban is her maiden name or her married name, though because of her title as Mrs. Caliban it's perhaps more likely to be the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foxy on Jul 26, 2018 9:20:44 GMT -5
but in TBB itself it is clearly a fluke of Mr. Poe's shaky reading comprehension which places the Baudelaire children in Count Olaf's care. I apologize for going slightly off-topic, but Dante could you further elaborate on Mr. Poe's shaky reading comprehension? I have never picked up on this before, and I am interested in knowing more. As far as Olaf being related, I always believed he was. What seemed strange to me is the children not having any closer relatives, regardless of geography. No grandparents, aunts, uncles, or cousins seem to be mentioned. They have never heard of any of the relatives with whom they are sent to live, which I do not find surprising because their parents wanted to hide V.F.D. from them, and those particular relatives are a part of V.F.D. But don't they have any other closer relatives? |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jul 26, 2018 15:43:21 GMT -5
but in TBB itself it is clearly a fluke of Mr. Poe's shaky reading comprehension which places the Baudelaire children in Count Olaf's care. I apologize for going slightly off-topic, but Dante could you further elaborate on Mr. Poe's shaky reading comprehension? I have never picked up on this before, and I am interested in knowing more. Possibly a little unfair a description on my part, as the only point in the series I can remember where he overtly misreads something is in TGG, where he assumes the initials J.S. must refer to Geraldine Julienne (p. 317). But when the series gives Mr. Poe statements like "Normally, I approve of more traditional family structures, but this is really quite convenient, and your parents' will instructs that you be raised in the most convenient way possible" (TVV p. 14), one can't help but feel that he is misreading who the convenience is meant to be due to - not least in relation to TBB, where exactly the same clause is cited (p. 15) with the Baudelaires' advantages in mind. Then there's his more-or-less equivalence of "closest relative on the family tree" with "closest geographically" (also TBB p. 15); and, more notoriously, the way "...your parents' will is very specific. You must be adopted by a relative" (TBB p. 160) falls by the wayside a mere four books in. I wouldn't trust the man to interrogate a text particularly rigorously. |
|
