|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 6, 2020 19:21:45 GMT -5
I think this question is so incredible ... LSTUA is my favorite book by Lemony Snicket. I mean ... Sometimes I get in doubt between LSTUA and TBL. But today it is my favorite book. Sometimes I get the impression that LSTUA is a little overlooked by fans. It may just be a wrong impression. But still, I will defend my preferences by doing threads on LSTUA. Returning to the topic question ... Daniel Handler's target audience for LSTUA was the audience in their late teens and early adulthood.
And Lemony Snicket's target audience for LSTUA was his allies and not the Grand Audience of his universe. I believe that understanding these two concepts well is fundamental to taking full advantage of LSTUA. And therefore, take even more advantage of ASOUE and the expanded universe created by Daniel Handler.
Something important that we learned in our literature classes here in Brazil, (classes whose I have severe negative criticisms), is that when dealing with narrators who are characters, you need to consider the fictional target audience in order to make the correct interpretation of the text. In other words, it is necessary to consider the intentions of the real author, and the intentions of the fictional narrator, which can be different, especially if the fictional narrator tells the story from a fictional universe. This is the case with ASOUE. The fact that ASOUE's 13 books have a fictitious target for the large audience (in other words, the largest number of people of all ages) in Lemony's universe is very evident in the letters to the editor. But that changes at LSTUA. To better understand this, we need to understand what the fictitious LSTUA publication process was like. The fictional publication of Lemony's books is a very interesting subject. In Lemony's universe, there are editing and publishing mechanisms that are similar in many ways to the mechanisms that exist in our universe, but in other ways they are quite different. Let us turn our attention to the introduction of LSTUA, where we can better understand this subject. Daniel Handler wrote that he received a letter from the people who published that book. (page ix). But of course, neither Daniel Handler (the character) nor any of the narrators that appear in this introduction are reliable narrators. On the other hand, we reach the page where we find the original chapter titles. From there, we have useful information. There is a typed part, containing the initials LS written by hand, as a form of signature. "These are simpy not the proper questions: in the interest of keeping the Baudelaire file as accurate as possibile and as focused as feasible I have retitled each of the thirteen chapters."
What do these words teach us? Fictionally, the process of publishing LSTUA was as follows: Several characters created different documents over many years. Lemony Snicket collected these documents over the years (including some he had produced himself). The collection of these documents was called by Lemony Snicket "Baudelaire File." These documents were sent to the publisher. The publisher organized the documents into sections, and gave the titles to each section. The publisher also diagrammed and placed the page numbers. The publisher invited Danie Handler (the character) to create the introduction to LSTUA. After that, the publisher made a previous book for Lemony Snicket. Lemony Snicket then made corrections by hand and attached stickers to change some things that were in the previous book. Lemony resubmitted the previous book with the corrections he made to the publisher. The publisher simply photocopied the previous book with the corrections made by Lemony, without bothering to actually correct anything. We see an example of this on the pages leading up to page 1, where Lemony taped notes to the editor with stickers, requesting changes. Instead of actually making the changes, the editor photocopied the page as it was, including the tickets. But what was Lemony's intention when asking for such a book to be published? Probably his intention was to make the information reach his allies. So a fake cover was needed. That way, his colleagues would be protected from being seen carrying a dangerous book. But it is likely that Lemony has decided to hide some information even from her allies. He decided to do this when he reviewed the previous book. On page 195 we see an example of this. Lemony did not agree with the title "Who is Lemony Snicket". Then he wrote a title. But then he crossed out the title he had rewritten and then he damaged page 211 intentionally.
Now watch out for something interesting on page 211. Lemony Snicket made a hole in that page in the previous book, probably using fire. The editor made only photocopies of the pages that had been reviewed by Lemony. Therefore, in our printed copy of that book, we have on page 211 the photocopy of page "213" (the first page of the index). Because the space on the page where there was a hole made by Lemony during his fine review ended up being filled by what was on the back page during the photocopying process. On page 212, we see the same result caused by the same hole. Seriously ... is Daniel Handler a genius or not?
Now that I understand this, I can say that the cow photo was probably replaced by Lemony Snicket during the final review process. If we compare the photo on page 149 with photo 145, we notice that the photo of the cow is pasted with stickers, while the photo on page 145 is not pasted with stickers. This shows that the photo of the cow actually overlapped the original photo that was in the Baudelaire File. I think this solves the Miss K puzzle once and for all. On page 127 and page 142 we find the photo of children next to an adult woman. These photos are with stickers, indicating that they may have been placed by Lemony during the previous book review process. The woman in the photo can be any woman, at any time prior to the publication of LSTUA. And the kids may not even be at Prufrock Prep. The photo simply cannot be used as evidence for anything. (Which is a shame, because one more theory of mine goes down the trash ... how I hate to mature! Why did I have to listen to Dante and keep thinking about it while hiding from the deadly virus that surrounds me!)[/spolier]
I find it so interesting and exciting! This is because Daniel Handler wrote LSTUA thinking of people like me. And I thank him very much for that.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 7, 2020 13:42:17 GMT -5
Returning to the topic question ... Daniel Handler's target audience for LSTUA was the audience in their late teens and early adulthood. This is going to need quite a citation, Jean Lucio. ASoUE is children's fiction served squarely at the 9-12 age bracket, with the clever writing and allusions simply adding additional all-ages appeal, and the U.A. isn't really any different. I've read work by Daniel Handler aimed at teenagers and young adults, and believe me, you would not mistake it for ASoUE. You know, this reminds me of something. At a couple of points in THH, the Snicket file is referred to - first by Snicket as narrator, and then by Esmé - as "the Baudelaire file". I haven't been able to dig up the reference, but it was once common knowledge in the community, derived I think from an interview or article, that the U.A. was originally intended just to be a small promotional pamphlet or something of that nature; only Handler and his editor kept on adding more material to it. (The ad hoc nature of its composition probably explains the reference in the HarperCollins edition copyright page to it being "arranged and rearranged", which also accounts for a couple of discrepancies in the index.) The U.A. was published between THH and TCC. I wonder if it was ever intended to be the Snicket file? I'm not going to address your entire breakdown. But I would stress that I think you've omitted a key point. The first is that if you place any faith in any of the introduction, then it is not straightforward to credit Lemony with a key hand in the publication process. The book is a bundle of papers which passes from hand to hand from ultimately uncertain provenance, and while some of it originated with Snicket or passed through his hands, other documents are more mysterious and have annotations from individuals we cannot be sure of identifying (I believe some have made heavy weather of "Drat!" (p. 11). The chapter divisions were not made by Lemony, and while he has retitled them we cannot be certain he would accept their separation at all. And the status of the entire first twelve chapters is unclear, merely an extension of the narrative of one of the deeper layers of nested storytellers. Remember above all the book's title - the unauthorized autobiography. This book is neither compiled nor published with Lemony Snicket's approval. And the reason why I think this unreliability is both real and deliberate is because of what it gives Daniel Handler: Plausible deniability. Consider the chronological errors introduced in the U.A., or the way so little of it appears to have any subsequent payoff in the series, like the two children taken by Ms. K. from Prufrock Prep. (although, excitingly, they appear to feature in one of Handler's movie drafts). I'd also draw a comparison to material such as that in the Author's Notes of the BBRE, which includes a direct reference to events from Book the Thirteenth which ultimately do not happen. The U.A. has an advantage that the BBRE does not: The fact of so much of its material being of such a dubious provenance. The true in-universe, diegetic, Watsonian solution, though we've been so long in seeing it, to many of the U.A.'s problems is simply that the documents are unreliable. They promise genuine information but it subsequently becomes clear, as the author's plans changed, that this information cannot be so straightforward as presented. Writing the U.A. this way gave Handler the leeway to alter his plans without creating insurmountable contradictions (such as those present elsewhere in canon). I'm not entirely certain I agree with your interpretation of these pages. I think the "photocopy" effect is simply a limitation of the format by which it was not feasible to actually place a hole in the physical page. I also disagree, frankly, that Snicket was the one who burnt through the page. Do you have anything similar to say on the subject of other photographs which were paperclipped, stapled, or framed in? I think you're overreading the detail of the tape, which is simply one of many methods used to insert images in the narrative in a way which enhances our awareness of them as physical documents included with the physical bundle of papers.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Mar 7, 2020 17:49:17 GMT -5
It will take me a while to digest all of this, but I did want to comment immediately on one thing. I have believed for a long time that there is some connection betwen TUA and the Snicket File, because of the references to the Baudelaire file. Clearly TUA cannot be the SF referred to in the books, since it has far more than thirteen pages, but I supposed it might be a revised and expanded version of the SF, created by Lemony after the loss of the original. So Dante's report that it was originally meant as a much smaller pamphlet is extremely intriguing, and I find the idea that it was originally intended to be the SF very plausible.
This has two interesting implications:
a. The 'mystery of the Snicket File', which is often seen as one of the great unanswered mysteries of ASOUE (though I was never quite sure what the question was), is here explained; we were never actually meant to see the contents of the file as mysterious, because we would have had it in our hands.
b. This confirms the thought that the script of Zombies in the Snow is the evidence referred to in the SF about a survivor of a fire - which also implies that, whether or not the survivor is Quigley, they were always meant to be a child.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 7, 2020 20:37:30 GMT -5
Returning to the topic question ... Daniel Handler's target audience for LSTUA was the audience in their late teens and early adulthood. This is going to need quite a citation, Jean Lucio. ASoUE is children's fiction served squarely at the 9-12 age bracket, with the clever writing and allusions simply adding additional all-ages appeal, and the U.A. isn't really any different. I've read work by Daniel Handler aimed at teenagers and young adults, and believe me, you would not mistake it for ASoUE. You know, this reminds me of something. At a couple of points in THH, the Snicket file is referred to - first by Snicket as narrator, and then by Esmé - as "the Baudelaire file". I haven't been able to dig up the reference, but it was once common knowledge in the community, derived I think from an interview or article, that the U.A. was originally intended just to be a small promotional pamphlet or something of that nature; only Handler and his editor kept on adding more material to it. (The ad hoc nature of its composition probably explains the reference in the HarperCollins edition copyright page to it being "arranged and rearranged", which also accounts for a couple of discrepancies in the index.) The U.A. was published between THH and TCC. I wonder if it was ever intended to be the Snicket file? I'm not going to address your entire breakdown. But I would stress that I think you've omitted a key point. The first is that if you place any faith in any of the introduction, then it is not straightforward to credit Lemony with a key hand in the publication process. The book is a bundle of papers which passes from hand to hand from ultimately uncertain provenance, and while some of it originated with Snicket or passed through his hands, other documents are more mysterious and have annotations from individuals we cannot be sure of identifying (I believe some have made heavy weather of "Drat!" (p. 11). The chapter divisions were not made by Lemony, and while he has retitled them we cannot be certain he would accept their separation at all. And the status of the entire first twelve chapters is unclear, merely an extension of the narrative of one of the deeper layers of nested storytellers. Remember above all the book's title - the unauthorized autobiography. This book is neither compiled nor published with Lemony Snicket's approval. And the reason why I think this unreliability is both real and deliberate is because of what it gives Daniel Handler: Plausible deniability. Consider the chronological errors introduced in the U.A., or the way so little of it appears to have any subsequent payoff in the series, like the two children taken by Ms. K. from Prufrock Prep. (although, excitingly, they appear to feature in one of Handler's movie drafts). I'd also draw a comparison to material such as that in the Author's Notes of the BBRE, which includes a direct reference to events from Book the Thirteenth which ultimately do not happen. The U.A. has an advantage that the BBRE does not: The fact of so much of its material being of such a dubious provenance. The true in-universe, diegetic, Watsonian solution, though we've been so long in seeing it, to many of the U.A.'s problems is simply that the documents are unreliable. They promise genuine information but it subsequently becomes clear, as the author's plans changed, that this information cannot be so straightforward as presented. Writing the U.A. this way gave Handler the leeway to alter his plans without creating insurmountable contradictions (such as those present elsewhere in canon). I'm not entirely certain I agree with your interpretation of these pages. I think the "photocopy" effect is simply a limitation of the format by which it was not feasible to actually place a hole in the physical page. I also disagree, frankly, that Snicket was the one who burnt through the page. Do you have anything similar to say on the subject of other photographs which were paperclipped, stapled, or framed in? I think you're overreading the detail of the tape, which is simply one of many methods used to insert images in the narrative in a way which enhances our awareness of them as physical documents included with the physical bundle of papers. I have to agree that Daniel Handler's definition of the target audience when he was writing LSTUA was made based entirely on my personal experience. Unfortunately, this is a subject that only Daniel Handler himself can confirm or deny. If you think of Daniel Handler's other works using his own signature, you will earn a point. But if we compare LSTUA with "The Composer is Dead" and "The Lump of Coal" I think I get a point. I think LSTUA and Horseradish: Bitter Truths You Can't Avoid have the same target audience. But that is irrelevant, in fact. But talking about LSTUA. Let me clarify something. Lemony's notes to the editor before chapter 1 prove that at least some documents were attached by Lemony to LSTUA after the test book was printed, don't you agree? I am not saying that all the documents that are taped to LSTUA were necessarily added by Lemony in this review step. But that all documents that are like this do not have credibility to be seen as evidence, and that includes all the photos that are like this. Take as an example the chapter where there is reportedly an indication that the documents have been tampered with, which is chapter 10. Originally, the editors who chose to name the chapter had chosen the theme: "How many associates does Count Olaf have?" In order to hide information, Lemony attached several pages of books, totally distorting the information that was originally in this chapter. But that does not mean that all those documents were missing the tape or staples or clips in the test book sent to Lemony. But as the introduction to that chapter indicates, some of these documents have been tampered with intentionally. So, if there are any documents tampered with in LSTUA, they are probably among those that have stickers, clips or staples. Most importantly, although we cannot guarantee that Lemony had the Baudelaire File in hand before it reached the editors' hands, we know that Lemony received the previous book and made adjustments. That's the most important. About Lemony collecting the documents: I really need to correct myself. According to pages 175-178, the Baudelaire File was in the Records Library for a while, as was the Snicket File. As indicated on page 176, these files are distinct from each other, although some characters have not noticed the distinction between them. After all Hall was instructed to file documents in the Baudelaire File, instead of filing in the Snicket File. So there are two two separate files. Still, it is quite evident that Lemony was primarily responsible for the Baudelaire File. For example, Lemony wrote personal notes and filed it with a personal letter to Professor C. That Inca said that Lemony's personal file ended up being included in the Baudelaire File.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 9, 2020 9:28:39 GMT -5
I have to agree that Daniel Handler's definition of the target audience when he was writing LSTUA was made based entirely on my personal experience. Unfortunately, this is a subject that only Daniel Handler himself can confirm or deny. If you think of Daniel Handler's other works using his own signature, you will earn a point. But if we compare LSTUA with "The Composer is Dead" and "The Lump of Coal" I think I get a point. I think LSTUA and Horseradish: Bitter Truths You Can't Avoid have the same target audience. But that is irrelevant, in fact. I think comparing picture books and prose is unwise, though it does happily illustrate that Handler is entirely happy for the Lemony Snicket name to be cited as an author for small children. His work for teenagers and adults is only ever under his own name. Horseradish (and Read Something Else are a bit of a different matter as they primarily select from Snicket's work rather than really bringing new material, so they're obliged to use his name regardless. Again, if we are giving credibility to the sequence of events in the introduction, the chapter divisions were introduced before the book ever reached the publishers. We are free to hypothesise any number of agents who may have attempted to organise the file before it subsequently passed into and out of Mr. Snicket's hands again. I also disagree with your interpretation of Chapter Ten; Snicket's note at the beginning indicates that portions of the chapter "have been changed or made up entirely" (p. 159), which is not a statement that only additions were made (or indeed that any changes were made at all, since it is also admitted that the avowal of changes and inventions is included in the potential changes and inventions). The original and vital information may have been altered or subtracted; and the pages of books may have originally been there all along, given that several are subsequently cited in the (distinctly dubious) list of Olaf's associates. But broadly speaking, the intent of that note is the same as I was more widely discussing: To allow leeway for this information to subsequently be disproven or ignored by the author. Allow me to quote the relevant page, p. 176: This does not confirm that there was a separate Snicket file in the Library of Records. Hal files documents in the relevant alphabetical drawer and would be inclined to place papers marked Snicket in the relevant S-drawer regardless of whether there was an existing file or not. And for all we know, Babs might have been obliged to include a very similar note when the full Snicket file arrived at Heimlich Hospital. This note may even be further evidence that the U.A. is indeed the Baudelaire file, given that it establishes a precedent for information about Snicket being filed under Baudelaire. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you provide a page reference?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 9, 2020 12:49:06 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you provide a page reference? I apologize, this was a sequence of typos and translation errors. What I meant was that parts of Lemony's personal file ended up in the Baudelaire File. The first example is on page 5, where Lemony wrote a personal note to go to a file. On page 7, Lemony wrote that she would file this note together with the letter to Dr. Charles Patton. This seems to indicate that the entire chapter 1 comes from a personal archive by Lemony Snicket. Something similar is on page 30. This is a personal note from Lemoy Snicket written for the purpose of going on file. When referring to R's letter to Lemony in the personal note, Lemony wrote "This Letter". This indicates that Lemony, when writing the note, was fully aware that the letter would be added to the same file as the note. Thus, the entire chapter 2 comes from a personal file by Lemony. On page 47, we find a note that states that this translation would be next to "my files". (Comparing page 33 with page 36, we realize that the writer of that note is someone called "J". I can't prove it, but I'm 90% sure that it is Jacques Snicket. I begin to believe that those responsible for assembling Snicket File were the three Snickets.). On page 57, Lemony wrote that she would send a letter along with the Zombie in the Snow script to the cheesemakers. This is evidence that the Cheesemakers kept the files sent by the Snickets. There will be more evidence of this below. In chapter 5 we find a note to go to the file. We also found the indication that Kit was collecting information and sending it to the cheesemakers. They were instructed to file some documents along with her brother's other papers. In addition, we found a letter from R to K, in which R suggests that some documents be kept with the cheesemakers. This indicates that Kit sent documents to be part of the Baudelaire File. However, he acknowledges that the roles are her brother's. This indicates that even among Snikets, Lemony (or Jacques) was primarily responsible for collecting these documents. After the death of Kit and Jacques, Lemony was certainly the main responsible for the formation of this archive. On page 154, we find another note for archiving, made by Lemony Snicket. On page 159 (chapter 10) ... As you indicated, all of these documents were sent by Lemony to the Cheesemakers.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 15, 2020 16:49:40 GMT -5
I begin to believe that those responsible for assembling Snicket File were the three Snickets.). -TSS, p. 195
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 16, 2020 13:35:45 GMT -5
Well, I think because of all of the above, I think the conclusion is that the Snicket File and The Baudelaire File are sets of documents collected by the Snickets over the years. The question of whether they are two separate sets of documents or not seems to me to be answered with the help of my theory of the Great Hiatus. As indicated in chapters 1 and 2 of LSTUA, this collection of documents was published in book form after the publication of some of ASOUE's books. In fact, since the introduction of LSTUA, this has been assumed to be true. As I have explained several times, between the publication of TWW and TMM there was a hiatus of a few years (in Lemony's universe). This was present in Daniel Handler's mind when he published LSTUA (in our universe). Thus, it makes sense to believe that the original content and the number of pages of the Snicket File has been changed over the years. Thus, at the time of the main events described in ASOUE, the Snicket file was 13 pages long and contained the photo of the Baudelaire parents on page 13. This file was called the Snicket File, but it was File Under "Baudelaire", as indicated in THH. Thus, it is natural that the same set of documents was called Baudelaire File. But at the time that LSTUA was published in book form, which happened many years after the main events registered in ASOUE, the editors decided to publish all (or a large part) of the documents that were in the possession of the cheesemakers. These documents had been sent by the Snickets over the years, and included what was left of the Snicket File from the time of the events recorded in ASOUE plus the additional documents sent by the Snickets who were already with cheesemakers plus the additional documents that Lemony had sent to the cheesemakers after Jacques's death.
|
|
|
Post by bowisneski on Nov 30, 2020 9:49:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Nov 30, 2020 11:24:34 GMT -5
Thanks!!
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Nov 30, 2020 17:20:10 GMT -5
Enormous thanks, bowisneski; I can't imagine how you dug that up, but it's great to have it down in black and white.
|
|