|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 6, 2020 4:45:25 GMT -5
I learned from Dante that I will not be a complete snicketiologist if I do not consider Doylist explanations. But my self-centeredness keeps me from following the same steps as other people. The results may be the same, but I prefer to go the way I opened myself.
I liked the whistle theory a lot, and I really liked that you all worked hard for it. I felt fulfilled. But while it is very interesting, we all know that the possibility that this has crossed Daniel Handler's mind is extremely small.
But it sure is better than what Netflix did by saying it has sugar in SB, don't you agree?
So being doilistic, I believe that inside the sugar bowl there is a "literal" MacGuffin. Finally I can state this without fear and without regret. Hermes once quoted DH as saying that every once in a while someone gets right into the SB.
If we look at the personality of DH we can understand a little what he refers to. I've ever read ASOUE as a few times, and I believe I could see a lot of DH's personality.
DH is smart and ironic. DH loves cult movies and books. DH loves word games, especially if there is a comic effect.
On the other hand, DH doesn't like adults who think they're smart, especially when they look down on other people.
So imagine someone like this wanted to make a big joke of all self-titled snicketiologists. Surely it would give them false hopes that it is possible to determine whether coherently what is within the SB.
That would be a great charade, and Daniel Handler is a person who likes to create charades. We can clearly see this in the book File Under 13, and on the website promoting ATWQ.
The answer: "Inside the sugar bowl there is a MacGuffin" is the kind of answer that someone like Daniel Handler expects to receive. The following question, "But what is a MacGuffin" is a quote from a joke that was explained by director Hitchcock. The Hitchcock reference is a feature of a person who loves cult movies.
Suny used that word somewhere I don't remember (help me, Dante, please) to indicate that Daniel Handler is not only familiar with the concept but also he intensely left a clue to readers. Mixing literary concepts with fictional realities is something he had already done with "Red Herring". With the sugar bowl he did the same.
It is important to understand that stating that this is what is in SB is different from stating that SB is empty. There are several types of Macguffin. Evidence indicates that the type of Macguffin that is within the SB is of the "artifact" type. From Esmé's words in TPP, many people died looking for what's inside the SB.
In other words, what's inside SB is a Macguffin from another story that wasn't told to us in detail.
But being a great joker, DH put a Mcguffin inside a Mcguffin. The SB Plus Content set is a great Mcguffin in the sense of literary appeal.
And finally, Daniel Handler loves to differentiate himself from Lemony Snicket. This is possible assuming the fact that Lemony Snicket may know some things that not even Daniel Handler knows.
I mean that DH knows there is a Mcguffin inside SB, but he can't not know in detail how that Mcguffin is used. Just the general: Mcguffin is powerful, possibly deadly. Mcguffin is something that gives its bearer some form of power. All of this is practically Mcguffin's definition of the ancient artifact type.
Another possible explanation for what DH says about determining what is inside the SB has to do with people generally asking the wrong question for him.
Someone should ask "What's in SB?" And his answer should be something like, "It's totally possible to determine what's in SB by what is written in the books." I believe there are several SB's cited directly or indirectly in ASOUE. I do not mean the event registered in TPP. But there is the SB quoted in TCC, there is the item quoted in the secret letter of TSS. There are several SB's cited in LSTUA.
These may be SB's different from Esmé's SB. When DH says it is possible to determine what is in these SB's he is not lying. He just isn't being clear. Not being clear is typical of people who like jokes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 6, 2020 8:20:20 GMT -5
You know, Jean Lucio... in a way, I actually agree with you. Well, I might frame it differently, as "you actually agree with me."
The idea that what's in the sugar bowl is a literal McGuffin - the trope itself, an item of ambiguous power and importance but the exact nature of which is wholly irrelevant to the story we're reading - has been floated in the past, and really, if you're willing to approach the series symbolically, it's actually not that objectionable. Your reading of Handler as a playful schemer who would be quite happy to snub his nose at the theorists is probably not too far off, and I don't think it's at all unlike him to write twists and turns in the plot which make more sense on a thematic and symbolic level than a literal one.
Consider the entirely unanticipated storyline of The End, which resolves none of the major subplots of the series and leaves the fate of the vast majority of the cast open while trading them in for entirely new characters; it's all in the name of resolving the series on a thematic level. Having the contents of the sugar bowl be symbolic I don't think is unreasonable. It's not entirely different, incidentally, from the idea that the sugar bowl is empty, or that its contents don't matter; that its contents are a conflation of many different ideas and interpretations from many different characters. Isn't this true of the Baudelaires' experiences with the sugar bowl - something they chase only because it is chased?
I would also draw a parallel to my personal interpretation of the TGG "question mark", the Great Unknown - as a living metaphor for death and mystery, a purely symbolic question mark rather than something with a literal nature which can be explained. Its true nature is unknown, unknowable - and irrelevant, to the characters; it's something they revolve around, or flee from in fear, without truly knowing what they flee from. Fear of it, or longing for it, is only that of the unknown. The truth? Who cares? Make up your own mind.
As it happens, though, there is actually an extremely good candidate - back-handed confirmation, if you like - for the contents of the sugar bowl as McGuffin: The mysterious "item" mentioned in the first two books of ATWQ. It is of unstated nature and value, but Lemony and Kit intend to steal it and are quite willing to break the law and risk imprisonment for it; the theft is successful, but the item goes missing, with Lemony urging its recovery; and then... it is never mentioned again. What better fit for the contents of the sugar bowl? Frankly, I believe that Handler must have intended it that way; the object's role in the narrative makes no sense otherwise. It's another unidentified McGuffin; and it's entirely compatible with the first.
...Ironically, the use of "McGuffin" in canon isn't actually in reference to the sugar bowl:
-The End, p. 312
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 9, 2020 15:13:51 GMT -5
Thank you, Dante. Although I believe something that controls TGU is a better option, it is not necessarily a whistle. Other good options could be another biological weapon, or an old formula on how to produce a weapon of mass destruction. I don't believe it's a magic item because I don't believe there is true occultism in Averse. Lost technologies that can be used for different purposes is an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marlowe on Jul 11, 2020 14:18:42 GMT -5
You know, Jean Lucio... in a way, I actually agree with you. Well, I might frame it differently, as "you actually agree with me." The idea that what's in the sugar bowl is a literal McGuffin - the trope itself, an item of ambiguous power and importance but the exact nature of which is wholly irrelevant to the story we're reading - has been floated in the past, and really, if you're willing to approach the series symbolically, it's actually not that objectionable. Your reading of Handler as a playful schemer who would be quite happy to snub his nose at the theorists is probably not too far off, and I don't think it's at all unlike him to write twists and turns in the plot which make more sense on a thematic and symbolic level than a literal one. Consider the entirely unanticipated storyline of The End, which resolves none of the major subplots of the series and leaves the fate of the vast majority of the cast open while trading them in for entirely new characters; it's all in the name of resolving the series on a thematic level. Having the contents of the sugar bowl be symbolic I don't think is unreasonable. It's not entirely different, incidentally, from the idea that the sugar bowl is empty, or that its contents don't matter; that its contents are a conflation of many different ideas and interpretations from many different characters. Isn't this true of the Baudelaires' experiences with the sugar bowl - something they chase only because it is chased? This is always how I've interpreted it. The sugar bowl never interested me as a material object; it was far more effective in its usage as a symbol. I doubt Handler himself intended for its contents to be something tangible. |
|
