|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 14, 2019 14:13:31 GMT -5
To understand this text, you will need to read at least this one here: asoue.proboards.com/thread/35893/sugar-bowl-theory-2I will not write a long text showing that the Great Unknown is a marine beast. I’m sure many others have already done this. My mentor, Nirfrido, has an exeptional explanatory video on youtube, for those who understand Portuguese. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4NBKYHXSTw) For most Brazilian fans of ASOUE, this is a fact. It is true that the expression “the great unknown” was also used by Lemony to portray death, or unknown events. But what the Baudelaires saw on Queequeg’s radar sonar was made of matter and capable of reflecting sound waves. Well, I’m going to transcribe here a passage that first shows that the Quaqumires survived the TGU attack. Lemony records in chapter 8 of TE events after the arrival of Kit to Island. If you understood my sugar bowls theory, you will understand what Lemony was talking about: TE chapter 8: “The children traveled in the dark, just as many other people had done before them, from the nomadic travels of the Cimmerians to the desperate voyages of the Quagmire triplets, who at that very moment were in circumstances just as dark although quite a bit damper than the Baudelaires’, and as the children drew closer and closer to the island that had abandoned them … ” So the Quagmire triplets were alive after the TGU attack. But despite that, they were in a dark and very wet place. Now, do not you agree that the mouth of a Huge Marine Beast fits that description perfectly? But this Marine Beast could only have swallowed the triplets and still kept them alive if the beast was controlled by some person. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 15, 2019 10:40:54 GMT -5
I have to disagree (and I'm sure you would expect no less). It's a perfectly valid reading of the text for the Quagmires to be inside a submarine, where their circumstances would by necessity be both dark and much damper as well, since the time is night and their location is underwater. Furthermore, while morbid, the text doesn't even specify that they're alive; note that the "desperate voyages" are specified as being "before" the Baudelaires' current journey, while the dark and damp circumstances are in the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foxy on May 15, 2019 13:26:48 GMT -5
But this Marine Beast could only have swallowed the triplets and still kept them alive if the beast was controlled by some person. I know you've mentioned you think this person controlling TGU is Beatrice with a whistle, but I wonder if it is Lemony with that small bombinating beast. I think he somehow procured it from the lady with the figurines at Caligari Carnival. You have mentioned Beatrice having sinister motives, but in ATWQ we learn Lemony is a murderer, and I think his motives should be called into question. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 16, 2019 16:04:23 GMT -5
I have to disagree (and I'm sure you would expect no less). It's a perfectly valid reading of the text for the Quagmires to be inside a submarine, where their circumstances would by necessity be both dark and much damper as well, since the time is night and their location is underwater. Furthermore, while morbid, the text doesn't even specify that they're alive; note that the "desperate voyages" are specified as being "before" the Baudelaires' current journey, while the dark and damp circumstances are in the present. I have to say that very morbid situations attract me a lot in some theories ... However, it is good that you have stressed that the only other possibility that makes sense is that the TGU is a submarine. This brings us to the field of material things. The Triplets were inside something physical, capable of reflecting sound waves. They could be alive or dead, but they were inside. The Great Unknown who swallowed them was not a concept, not an allegory. But it was an animal or a submarine. We will not put any other possibility about TGU. Thinking only of these two possibilities, how would you answer the following questions: 1 - Why did Windershins show fear of the TGU and then preferred to go to the TGU even though Kit insists that they flee the TGU a lot?
2 - If the TGU was a submarine, why does Kit say that her brother gave the TGU a name? Disregard this question ... I could not formulate it the way I wanted it, and I finally forgot where I wanted to go. 3 - Why a submarine would be so surrounded by secrets? (In my theory, the TGU being a marine beast, the secret is that it is a deadly marine beast capable of being used to kill people, and that would be shameful for the noble side of Schism.) [This question does not serve to prove anything ... I really want to know what your opinion on the subject is, because I do not know what people who believe in the fact that the TGU is a submarine think about it.] 4 - You do not agree that the best answer to the question: "Is the TGU a submarine or a marine beast" is "both?" The TGU is a beast, which uses echolocation capable of carrying people underwater. But this Marine Beast could only have swallowed the triplets and still kept them alive if the beast was controlled by some person. I know you've mentioned you think this person controlling TGU is Beatrice with a whistle, but I wonder if it is Lemony with that small bombinating beast. I think he somehow procured it from the lady with the figurines at Caligari Carnival. You have mentioned Beatrice having sinister motives, but in ATWQ we learn Lemony is a murderer, and I think his motives should be called into question. I do not know if I expressed myself well in my previous theories ... I do not think Beatrice's motivations are sinister. I will make a small relationship that the answer to the question, "Why would this character be able to kill someone?" Lemony kills for a greater good. Beatrice kills for passion. Fernald kills as a precaution. Ishmael kills for revenge. Kit kills for self-defense. Bertrand kills by obedience. Violet, Klaus and Sunny kill by accident. Sir. kills by greedy helplessness. Olaf kills for greed, egocentricity, revenge, sadism, and also for a distorted "greater good" (Olaf thinks it is necessary to destroy VFD, no matter what it costs, because VFD is a great bad of this world). So ... neither Beatrice nor Lemony would have been interested in killing the Triplets, nor the other volunteers who were in the water. I think Beatrice used the TGU to rescue the volunteers. (Besides ... I do not think that mysterious taxi driver is Lemony ... I think it's just a big Red Herring ... It's a weak argument, but I can not imagine Lemony smoking. And that cigarette is not part of an equipment of disguises ... And I do not think noble people would smoke in Lemony's universe, even if smoking is in). |
|
|
|
Post by Foxy on May 17, 2019 6:38:01 GMT -5
I do not know if I expressed myself well in my previous theories ... I do not think Beatrice's motivations are sinister. I will make a small relationship that the answer to the question, "Why would this character be able to kill someone?" Lemony kills for a greater good. Beatrice kills for passion. Fernald kills as a precaution. Ishmael kills for revenge. Kit kills for self-defense. Bertrand kills by obedience. Violet, Klaus and Sunny kill by accident. Sir. kills by greedy helplessness. Olaf kills for greed, egocentricity, revenge, sadism, and also for a distorted "greater good" (Olaf thinks it is necessary to destroy VFD, no matter what it costs, because VFD is a great bad of this world). Thank you for clarifying. That's quite the list! This made me wonder - maybe the beast didn't kill Armstrong Feint after all? And when Lemony learned the bombinating beast could actually swallow people but still keep them alive, he told Beatrice, and that's how she knew she could save the Quagmires and other volunteers with it. But this conflicts with my belief that Armstrong Feint really is dead. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 17, 2019 7:14:29 GMT -5
This made me wonder - maybe the beast didn't kill Armstrong Feint after all? And when Lemony learned the bombinating beast could actually swallow people but still keep them alive, he told Beatrice, and that's how she knew she could save the Quagmires and other volunteers with it. But this conflicts with my belief that Armstrong Feint really is dead. Hangfire is dead !! I'm sure of this ... I may not be sure about several things ... But one thing I'm sure: He's dead! And let them be in peace in hell! I'll quote Lemony to explain how Hangfire died: TCC chapter 1: "... sometimes we discuss frightening and troublesome animals that might be nearby, and this topic always leads to much isagreement on which part of the frightening and troublesome beast is the most frightening and troublesome. Some say the teeth of the beast, because they are used for eating children, and often their parents, and gnawing their bones. Some say the claws of the beast, because claws are used for ripping things to shreds. And some say the hair of the beast, because hair can make allergic people sneeze. But I always insist that the most frightening part of any beast is its belly, for the simple reason that if you are seeing the belly of the beast it means you have already seen the teeth of the beast and the claws of the beast and even the hair of the beast, and now you are trapped and there is probably no hope for you. For this reason, the phrase "in the belly of the beast" has become an expression which means "inside some terrible place with little chance of escaping safely. " So for me ... Hangfire died in the belly of the beast. He was not chewed. It was well explained that his body descended whole, not in pieces, by the throat of the beast. Then, with proper training, that same beast (only much bigger to have grown up) could be used to carry people in the mouth. Having witnessed this scene, Lemony could imagine that the worst place to be is inside the belly of the beast. The training in question used the same principle of training given the eagles: use a whistle to control the animal.
Rest in peace, Hangfire, but not in pieces. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 18, 2019 3:46:02 GMT -5
4 - You do not agree that the best answer to the question: "Is the TGU a submarine or a marine beast" is "both?" The TGU is a beast, which uses echolocation capable of carrying people underwater. I reject the premise of the question, to which I answer with a hearty and simultaneous, "both", "either", and "neither". We are given possibilities for the sake of a personal choice, but that choice is not a canonical one. If ATWQ points us to a biological explanation, TGG points us again and again to a mechanical one. The text intends no solution. Like the sugar bowl, the Great Unknown is an empty symbol for readers to invest with truth; but that truth comes only from outside the text, not inside. That's a reasonable objection, and one that has been aired before. But it's not difficult to come up with responses. For instance, the TPP taxi driver is clearly modelled after the TWW taxi driver, so it's conceivable that Handler hadn't originally planned for the character to be Lemony Snicket; and thus the inheritance of the cigarette was an unfortunate necessity. We might also propose that Snicket was disguising himself as the TWW taxi driver, and thus again was obliged to smoke a cigarette as part of his disguise. We know also that V.F.D. is willing to use objects with the appearance of cigarettes but with different functions, the Verdant Flammable Devices; so why not cigarettes for disguises, or perhaps false cigarettes which don't perform the usual functions of cigarettes? It's possible for us to posit a false cigarette that takes the form of a short metal rod with a glowing light at the end. It's equally possible for us to suggest that Lemony nonetheless suffered from a dependence on a habit which was disgusting to him, as he comes to drink coffee in ATWQ without liking it. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 19, 2019 15:33:05 GMT -5
These are the details I would like to know, Dante. In TGG is there evidence of TGU being a mechanical device? What are they? The arguments you used against the TGU to be an animal, do not apply to these explanations either? |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 19, 2019 16:34:22 GMT -5
These are the details I would like to know, Dante. In TGG is there evidence of TGU being a mechanical device? What are they? I was reminded of some of my classical observations here, but you should also look over the present TGG reread, which is turning up some important observations on the subject: Our first glimpse of the Great Unknown. Almost everything in this book makes it sound like it's a submarine, such as Lemony referring to it as an 'underwater craft' (p85) I wonder if Handler (or Snicket, if you insist) hadn't decided quite how open he wanted this question to be until it came to the very close of the text. The arguments you used against the TGU to be an animal, do not apply to these explanations either? I'm not sure which precisely of my arguments you point towards, but I'll state my position plainly: I believe that there is not intended to be a canon solution to the Great Unknown mystery... but if there was, a submarine would be a better fit. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 19, 2019 16:43:44 GMT -5
I mean the remarks used by some people to defend the argument that the mysterious taxi driver is Lemony. Most of the arguments come from non-canonical ideas, do not you agree? With respect to the TGU, I will study the arguments about it being a submarine with more attention. If I convince myself, I will have to totally change my theory about the sugar bowl. (I hope I'm not convinced ... It was hard work to make the sugar bowl theory as it stands today ...) Anyway, it's good to see that you believe that the TGU is something physical, not just an idea or symbol . That is the most important thing for any theory tha interprets ASOUE more literally. But in case ... If the TGU is a submarine, who would be flying it for so long? Why was Windershins first afraid of the TGU and then preferred to go to the TGU instead of running away from him? And why would the TGU be such a secret that it could not be told to Fiona or other people with young minds? What are your hypotheses about these questions? (Seriously, I'm interested, not against arguing) Our first glimpse of the Great Unknown. Almost everything in this book makes it sound like it's a submarine, such as Lemony referring to it as an 'underwater craft' (p85) I wonder if Handler (or Snicket, if you insist) hadn't decided quite how open he wanted this question to be until it came to the very close of the text. Edit 1: I fully understood the arguments. But the thing is, I believe TGU is an animal used as an underwater craft. And I think this is a key to solving the problem. In fact, of various problems ... The answer to the question: "How can a sugar bowl contain a deadly weapon?" It would be, "Actually the sugar bowl contains the object that controls the real deadly weapon." That would be the same principle as the ATWQ question: "How can a statuette be of interest to a cruel murderer?" and the answer is "Actually the statuette controls the real deadly weapon." But the reading was very fruitful. I agree with what you said about our findings being non-canonical. But unlike you, I believe that the TGU being a deadly animal that can be used as transportation makes the story more interesting, shows that VFD had a deadly plan in progress at the Hotel, explains in a consistent way what it has in the sugar bowl that belonged to Esme, makes a beautiful connection between ASOUE and ATWQ, shows what the mysterious woman did with the sugar bowl, and there is still room to believe that the Quaquimires survived. Believing that the TGU is a beast puts the fight for the VFD animals in evidence, it makes Lemony a trainer of a fierce animal, putting him on the same team as Beatrice and Bertrand who trained lions. So ... Even though it is not possible to prove this theory, I will continue to believe it with all the strength of my heart. Edited 2: Dante. I changed my mind. Now I recognize that you are right, at least in part. And I was wrong, at least in part. I wrote a Thread about this. |
|
