|
Post by lsandthebooks on Sept 14, 2019 21:10:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 15, 2019 2:49:33 GMT -5
I think that the Bombinating Beast contains a certain amount of shared creative DNA with the Loch Ness Monster; they're both local cryptids, both sea serpents of somewhat dubious existence, with debate over whether they were ever real or just the subject of legend. Both are local masots and icons, used as symbols in the local community, heavily merchandised. If you'd asked if the Bombinating Beast was the Loch Ness Monster, then in a way, I think you'd be right. (As to whether the Great Unknown is the Bombinating Beast, that is of course the subject of considerable debate about authorial intention and the logical implications of such a decision.)
But is the Great Unknown the Loch Ness Monster? I'm not particularly sure I understand the question. Is the Great Unknown, which is as good as explicitly stated to be a metaphor for mystery, the unfathomable, and death, a famous non-existent monster from Scotland? Either figuratively or literally? No, of course not.
|
|
|
Post by Foxy on Sept 17, 2019 12:44:03 GMT -5
I love that the caption of the picture is "Is the loch ness monster just a big eel?" You can totally ask the same question of the Great Unknown and the Bombinating Beast. Is it just a big eel? I never thought of that before.
I think maybe Snicket had the Loch Ness monster in mind when he wrote his books, and that might be why they are similar. He likes to use other fictional characters and allusions in his writing, so why not?
I'm not convinced BB and TGU are the same, because why wouldn't Snicket just tell Kit TGU is the BB? But she says in TE that he calls in TGU.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Sept 17, 2019 13:50:23 GMT -5
Well ... excellent question Foxy. I don't know if Kit really didn't know what TGU really was or not. After all, the TGU emerged from the water, and she kept eye contact with the TGU to know that the TGU emerged from the water. To emerge means to get out of the water. What Kit didn't know was whether the TGU had killed or rescued people. That is one of the reasons that I believe the gigantic question mark animal can carry people in its mouth. I believe Kit knew that ability. The question was whether this ability had been used or not. The word Kit used to refer to the death of people was "swallowed," meaning she knew that this entity was an animal capable of swallowing people. The word "swallow" is related to getting in the mouth and then down the throat. It is a used word related to living beings. So that's what I believe. But I also believe there was another entity that was a submarine, which in a sonar appeared as a question mark.
|
|
|
Post by Foxy on Sept 18, 2019 6:50:33 GMT -5
I think "swallow," although usually a living-being action involving food, can refer to non-living entities as well. But all I can think of to illustrate my point are Bible passages, like "death has been swallowed up in victory."
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 18, 2019 7:22:31 GMT -5
The word "swallow" is frequently used figuratively, but in this case I think we should examine the original English text:
(The End, pp. 303-305)
Although the phrase "rising out of the water" is used, Kit otherwise consistently uses vague terms to describe the (uncapitalised, take note!) great unknown; it's a mysterious figure, a question mark, a thing - but never a submarine or a sea monster, as you might expect. To me, there are three possible conclusions you can possibly draw from this: One is that "rising out of the water" should not be taken literally; the second is that Kit is deliberately trying to avoid revealing the great unknown's secret; the third is that Kit never got a good look.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Sept 18, 2019 11:38:02 GMT -5
I choose the alternative "Kit Is Deliberately trying To Avoid Revealing The Great Unknown's Secret". After all, Kit knew what was inside the sugar bowl and was not specific about it. She just said the only thing worse than the sugar bowl fall into the hands of Olaf was the mm fall into the hands of Olaf. Apparently she knew the nature of what was inside the Sugar Bowl and decided not to tell.
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Sept 18, 2019 15:05:17 GMT -5
no
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Sept 18, 2019 19:36:20 GMT -5
Thanks to Mister M's strong argument, I changed my mind. It really makes no sense what I said. Kit doesn't seem to be hiding information ... Not even about the sugar bowl. In fact, she was one of the people who talked most about the Baudelaire sugar bowl. She just didn't say it anymore because the Baudelaires didn't directly ask what the hell was inside the sugar bowl. Likewise, she seems to be completely honest and openly speaking on the island. If she says she doesn't know if the Baudelaires were swallowed or rescued by that thing, it's because she really doesn't. And as Dante explained very well, she used words to refer to the TGU that could apply to both a submarine and an animal. So I'll have to choose another option that Dante listed ... Not really. I will create one more option. I came up with a theory that states that there is a submarine that appears in a passive sonar as a question mark, and that there is also a question mark-shaped animal in the Averse oceans. In the text of the theory I stated that not necessarily the submarine would have the shape of a question mark, because the sonar shows a two-dimensional projection of three-dimensional things. Very well ... "Not necessarily" is an iterating expression. It means in practice that I had no idea what the submarine's true shape was, and that it might or might not have the shape of a giant question mark. (Foxy, thank you for taking it out of my head that only animals swallow things ... I was reading another Bible passage right now, Hebrews 11:29: "By faith they passed through the Red Sea on dry land, but when the Egyptians attempted it, they were swallowed up. ") So my conclusion is: The question mark-shaped submarine in passive sonar looks very similar to that of a giant question mark-shaped animal. In fact, in my theory I even said that the organization that created the giant octopus-shaped submarine probably created submarines in the shape of real sea monsters. If it were the octopus-shaped submarine that some of the tentacles emerged from the water, it would probably be hard to see if that thing was a submarine or a giant animal. But to be in doubt between the two options, it is because you know in advance that there are gigantic animals of that shape and that there are purposely created submarines in those shapes. In this case, Kit really should have the information that there was a sea serpent-shaped submarine, and that there was a sea serpent in the oceans. Even seeing the thing emerging from the body of water, she still didn't know if it was the animal or the submarine. Since the question mark-shaped submarine has no tentacles or arms, the mechanism for capturing other vessels and other submarines should be imitation of the animal's mouth. It would actually be a large hatch, capable of "swallowing" everyone who was trying to save themselves very quickly. So this conclusion leaves the Quaquimire and Baudelaire survival open as many people like (Dante), leaves hope that they survived for others (me and Foxy), and at the same time definitely resolves the question: "what are they?" the question mark format entities that appear in TGG and TE? " What do you think? I will create a thread about this.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 19, 2019 3:58:07 GMT -5
So long as the truth is unknown, I can have no objection.
|
|