vfds321s
Catastrophic Captain
Posts: 76
Likes: 10
|
Post by vfds321s on Jan 12, 2020 9:14:19 GMT -5
I've seen several threads of what happened to the wart-faced man. But what I think is being overlooked is about some other members of Olaf's theatre troupe. What happened to the assortment of people that came to Olaf's house in TBB that the children couldn't see but who promised to be just as frightening? They played even less of a part in the story than Warty (Who wasn't mentioned until the Marvelous Marriage scene) and it couldn't have been the three short men and the short haired woman because they don't seem like the frightening type and the fact that they aren't mentioned as having fled like Warty did shows that they didn't know of Olaf's villainy and would likely not have stood silent towards how Olaf treats the orphans. Plus it makes no sense that Olaf needs to find new recruits from those like the freaks and Carmelita Spats when he already has an assortment of them.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 12, 2020 11:55:43 GMT -5
Apparently Olaf's early followers all had some involvement with VFD. They knew they were fighting fire with fire. Although they did not fully understand the meaning of this, they believed they were advocating some kind of cause. Probably they believed they were using evil to end evil. I already explained that Olaf wasn't just greedy. Olaf wants to destroy VFD. He wants to remove the Baudelaire Inheritance right, not just keep the money. Since the money is in a bank accruing interest, the money is secured. So it is not enough to rob the bank. Olaf must take the Baudelaire Inheritance right in order to remove VFD features. VFD is a secret organization, so the resources of the organization cannot be in the name of legal entities. The resources of the organization are in the name of individuals. Not everyone who was part of his TBB troupe was involved in some way with VFD. They were just actors.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 12, 2020 16:47:58 GMT -5
I don't think it's necessarily the case that all of Olaf's troupe members were involved with the plan to defraud the Baudelaire inheritance (and ultimately murder the children). It's a pretty select sub-group who were employed around Olaf's home to guard the Baudelaires, after all, and one has to assume that the three short men and the short-haired woman were mentioned for a reason. Some of Olaf's henchpersons were acquired through his V.F.D. connections, like Fernald; others perhaps suited his vicious temperament, like the bald man. But others might simply have been perfectly ordinary actors and production staff who simply suited his needs - which we have to remember were largely legitimate and above-board, at the time of TBB. It's possible that the three short men and the short-haired woman were uncomfortable about what little they saw of Olaf's treatment of the Baudelaires, but were too weak to speak up; or may have spoken up afterwards, and in consequence weren't let in on the rest of the plan. It's also possible that they were frightening in their own way, too; but simply not criminal material.
|
|
TheAsh
Formidable Foreman
Posts: 175
Likes: 99
|
Post by TheAsh on Jan 30, 2020 15:11:20 GMT -5
I've seen several threads of what happened to the wart-faced man My headcanon has always been that it's Lemony himself. (Or the reader, assuming he has a real in-universe reader in mind) based on this passage:
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 30, 2020 17:54:01 GMT -5
I think there have been some attempts to link the wart-faced man and Lemony in the past, possibly also linking to Lemony's habit of hiding his face. Would you venture an opinion on why he would assist Olaf in escaping? Or why the reader would? Metafictionally, one could argue that only such action by the author and/or reader permits the series to continue.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 30, 2020 19:48:55 GMT -5
I still have difficulty accepting that the mysterious taxi driver is Lemony, Imagine the difficulty I would have to accept that this one is Lemony!
|
|
TheAsh
Formidable Foreman
Posts: 175
Likes: 99
|
Post by TheAsh on Feb 2, 2020 4:32:23 GMT -5
I think there have been some attempts to link the wart-faced man and Lemony in the past, possibly also linking to Lemony's habit of hiding his face. Would you venture an opinion on why he would assist Olaf in escaping? Or why the reader would? Metafictionally, one could argue that only such action by the author and/or reader permits the series to continue. Mainly, because I think Mr. Poe is lying when he says the money is to be used when Violet comes of age. He merely wants it for himself. (I have some proof to this, but I will publish it when i expound on my theories at length.) If Beatrice (or someone else in the Beaudalaire family) survived the fire, but they had a reason to stay hidden, they would want their money back. The only way that could happen is by cooperating with Olaf to help him steal the money, and then somehow getting the money from him. Keep in mind Olaf is a member of VFD, and quite an influental and proud one based on the number of eyes he has in his house. And VFD is designed to put up kids for training in a volunteer's home. It's possible that VFD would do anything to ensure to keep the money and the kids in Olaf's hands for their training, as that's where they belong. (I have serious doubts that Olaf wanted to kill the kids in the early books - perhaps so VFD would think he's doing his job.) Although Lemony knew that Olaf was evil (at least later on), It's quite possible he thought its better to cooperate to get the money. Another possibility is that VFD has a "omerta" code even for so called evil members, which would make even spies like Lemony in Olaf's organization cooperate in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Feb 2, 2020 5:21:30 GMT -5
Interesting ideas. But I think there is a chronological problem that needs to be resolved in your way of thinking. In TGG it is evident that OLAF was already an incendiary known by VFD since from the time in Gregor was murdered. This happened when Fiona is still a baby. In addition, since the meeting was about the construction of new HQ described in LSTUA, Olaf and Esme presented as declared enemies of VFD. This happened in the time the film Werewolf In The Rain was being released. I think it is evident in LSTUA that Werewolf in the rain is a very old film. In addition, I believe that the bad critique that Lemony published about the play where Olaf and Esme starred marked the beginning of the incendiary years of Olaf. According to Jacques Letter to Lemony in Lstua, Lemony needed to flee because of this. The criticism happened at the time of what was the Bestrice and Lemony wedding.
|
|
TheAsh
Formidable Foreman
Posts: 175
Likes: 99
|
Post by TheAsh on Feb 3, 2020 7:17:31 GMT -5
I want to point out that Daniel Handler thinks of everything. He actually explains what happened to those three men: Although this is quite obviously a retcon, Lemony Snicket does explain to us what happened to the three men - they were inserted into the book to confuse the reader.
(Not the subject of this thread, but he also explains why Olaf's house had tons of eyes, but other VFD locations merely have one: Which neatly explains why the villian's house (the "night") has more eyes.)
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Feb 3, 2020 12:00:35 GMT -5
The existence of retcons is mutually exclusive with the idea that he thinks of everything, which itself is an idea which does not survive contact with the many inconsistencies in Handler's works. This doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable; it merely means that you are recommended to read them for the themes, language, and style, rather than for the cohesiveness of the plot.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Feb 3, 2020 17:50:11 GMT -5
After talking to you for a while, I came to the following conclusion: to believe that Daniel Handler did not make chronological errors in his work is a childish attitude, but to believe that any apparent contradiction is a chronological error is an attitude that prevents access to the plans of the author for some apparently contradictions intensionally created to explain non-explicit canonical events. There is a need for balance on the part of the theorist, as well as for the possibilities: something like "if this is not a chronological error, what are the consequences?"
|
|
TheAsh
Formidable Foreman
Posts: 175
Likes: 99
|
Post by TheAsh on Feb 4, 2020 4:38:48 GMT -5
The existence of retcons is mutually exclusive with the idea that he thinks of everything, which itself is an idea which does not survive contact with the many inconsistencies in Handler's works. This doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable; it merely means that you are recommended to read them for the themes, language, and style, rather than for the cohesiveness of the plot. All I mean is that he doesn't consciously contradict himself. So when he sees a contradiction, he'll try to fix it in a later book, rather than ignoring it or leaving it as a red herring. Of course he doesn't think of absolutely everything, he's not God. But he does consciously try to give all the answers in a roundabout way, so it makes sense to look for them.
|
|
TheAsh
Formidable Foreman
Posts: 175
Likes: 99
|
Post by TheAsh on Feb 4, 2020 4:40:40 GMT -5
After talking to you for a while, I came to the following conclusion: to believe that Daniel Handler did not make chronological errors in his work is a childish attitude, but to believe that any apparent contradiction is a chronological error is an attitude that prevents access to the plans of the author for some apparently contradictions intensionally created to explain non-explicit canonical events. There is a need for balance on the part of the theorist, as well as for the possibilities: something like "if this is not a chronological error, what are the consequences?" Well said. I agree with this. Intentional chronological errors are to be interpreted, and unintentional ones ignored. Determining which are which are the job of the reader.
|
|