If the Baudelaire kids die at the end, what was the point?

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

I really need to let you interpret the ending in your own way, because that was the author's goal. I have absolute conviction that they are alive, based on the letters of Beatrice Jr. But other people have the absolute conviction that they are dead. And others, like Dante, have the absolute conviction that the ending was purposely left open and without definitive answers. So we better not argue violently on the subject to avoid schisms. It is sufficient to understand that there are contrary opinions on the subject, which ultimately favors Dante's argument.

[Dante]

Everyone dies at the end, but even so, people seem to regard their lives as having some meaning or purpose. It's a curious thing, but there it is. In any case, even the histories of dead people can furnish some useful illustration of essential truths about society, justice, and the human condition.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

As I am an ASOUE theorist, what I can suggest to you, Isandthebooks, is that you try to remove the emotional burden of the story and see what the consequences are for both scenarios. For example, if they died off the island, what would be the explanations for Beatrice Jr's letters. On the other hand, if they survived, what would be the explanations for the TBL poster. Thinking about both scenarios, I think you will come to a conclusion of your own.

[Dante]

It's also worth considering whether the presence of the Great Unknown in the final illustration is literally indicating the presence of the figure, or whether it's there entirely to act as a symbol for the unknown fates of the characters after the story's conclusion. Of course, there may be no difference between a literal and a figurative manifestation of this entity.

[Foxy]

I think even if the children are dead, he still wanted to write the books to clear their names. Although ironically, by writing the books, he perhaps implicated them in their crimes even further.