|
Post by Marlowe on May 27, 2020 15:14:47 GMT -5
Hi fellow volunteers, long-time lurker, first-time poster. Here are my theories regarding the mysterious, rarely/never-seen parents of ATWQ.
Pip & Squeak's father: Probably long dead by the start of the series. If he dies "offscreen" at any point in the series, there isn't anything hinting to it - a change in the brothers' demeanor, etc. There's also the possibility that he is indeed alive but extremely ill (dying from cancer?), and that's what I assumed when I first read ?1, but given how he's such a non-presence even by the end I think it's safe to say that he's dead.
Moxie's father: Strange case. We see Mallahan alive and relatively well in ?1, of course, but to my memory he literally never shows up ever again. I once considered the possibility that he dies at some point, but this strikes me as not credible for several reasons:
1. No noticeable change in Moxie's demeanor 2. Snicket would almost certainly have heard about it and mentioned it at some point (there'd have to be a funeral, for one thing. If he dies then were would the body be kept? Certainly not in the lighthouse. If Moxie buried him and not told anyone about it, then... nah, too much conjecture.) 3. He seems to be middle-aged and not affected with any serious physical illness
Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that he is suffering from clinical depression. His wife has left him and he's living in a dying town with no prospects and no future. Mallahan's favorite activity, sleeping a lot, is regarded as a common trait of depression.
Moxie's mother: While I never expected her to appear in the series, Snicket definitively saying she has left her daughter for good in ?4 kind of shocked me. We know Moxie idolizes/idolized her... this leads me to consider various possibilities.
1. Moxie and her mother's relationship was unhappier than we have been led to believe, and Mrs. Mallahan simply never much cared about her daughter 2. Moxie's parents were unhappy in their marriage - possibly an abusive or very toxic marriage if she wanted to get away that much 3. Mrs. Mallahan is literally unable to return to her daughter as her husband got full custody in their divorce 4. Moxie's mother is dead.
Of these 4 the first is the most likely to me, and I frankly wouldn't rule out the other 3.
Of course, those are just my personal theories. What do you guys think? Mr. Handler has certainly given us a lot to chew on.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 27, 2020 16:28:34 GMT -5
I really believe that Moxie's father is depressed, it makes a lot of sense. About her mother, I always get the impression that Moxie's mother doesn't really love her, at least not as much as she loves her own career.
Pip & Squeak's father - I think it is likely that he is dead, although I would rather selfishly believe that he is really dying in bed and close to death.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 28, 2020 10:09:18 GMT -5
Yes, I analysed Moxie's case in our ATWQ reread a little while ago and came to a similar conclusion as you regarding Moxie's father - including the observation that it's possible that he could have died, but that there is equally no evidence to point to this (there's one scene where Snicket has to remind her to shout a goodbye to him before she leaves the lighthouse which would have been a good fit). I wonder if he was perhaps being set up as a red herring of some sort, though it's more likely that Handler didn't see a purpose in having him put in an appearance; but in the final analysis, that he is suffering from depression and Moxie is his de facto carer seems to be the best-fit explanation - all the sleeping, never changing out of his bathrobe, I seem to recall Moxie has to do his shopping for him.
Pip and Squeak's father may be dead, or he may simply have abandoned his children and left town; it doesn't really matter. The point is that this is a truth we don't really need any verification for; over time it becomes increasingly obvious that their father's sickness is just an excuse, not least when ?3 makes it clear that they don't even really have a home to go to. The same goes for Moxie's mother never getting around to summoning her daughter, though I don't think there's much call to lean towards the death explanation here; her parents have simply separated, perhaps informally, perhaps even without telling her.
|
|
|
Post by Marlowe on May 28, 2020 17:41:00 GMT -5
I wonder if he was perhaps being set up as a red herring of some sort, though it's more likely that Handler didn't see a purpose in having him put in an appearance That's also likely - judging by ?4's various retcons, DH's plans changed drastically over the course of the series. I don't dispute this, but what has me leaning towards the "He's dead" theory is that the brothers simply could've admitted that their father abandoned them. It's not like he's the only parent from Stain'd to have done so. Perhaps he died somewhat recently, and the truth is still too uncomfortable for them to discuss with others.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on May 30, 2020 18:27:10 GMT -5
I wonder if he was perhaps being set up as a red herring of some sort, though it's more likely that Handler didn't see a purpose in having him put in an appearance That's also likely - judging by ?4's various retcons, DH's plans changed drastically over the course of the series. What are the retcons in ?4?
|
|
|
Post by Marlowe on May 30, 2020 22:37:22 GMT -5
That's also likely - judging by ?4's various retcons, DH's plans changed drastically over the course of the series. What are the retcons in ?4? At the risk of sounding like CinemaSins... -Describing the events of ?2 as "[Hangfire did] everything he could to stop Cleo Knight from finishing her formula for Invisible Ink, a formula that might save Stain’d-by-the-Sea once and for all" (Ch. 8) -Portrayal of Hangfire as a puppetmaster lurking in the shadows when he has taken direct action before by killing the Colonel, tying up Theodora, etc. -Saying Hangfire backstabs people who helps with his plans: “He sent Dr. Flammarion and Nurse Dander to jail. He threw Colonel Colophon out a window, and he drowned that actress in the basement.” He never sent those two to jail, he never worked with the Colonel, and drowning Murphy didn't work. I could be persuaded to dismiss the last statement as a matter of semantics, but the other two are blatantly false. -Not in ?4, but in ?1 he mentions he ended up "destroying the wrong library", when in fact in ?3 he destroyed the right library. -Biggest offense: Kit being revealed to have been on the train to the city the whole time - completely flying in the face of literally every previous mention of Kit in the previous books as being already "in the city". I also have various other issues with ?4, from the inconsistent treatment of the skeleton key as some sort of Travelling Pants type deal as it magically transports from owner to owner with no explanation as to how; to Snicket's logistically impossible conclusion that Stew clung to the railings, shot Qwerty, and hid with the librarians; and to the Beast actually showing up at the end, at which point my suspension of disbelief officially broke.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 31, 2020 1:42:09 GMT -5
What are the retcons in ?4? At the risk of sounding like CinemaSins... -Describing the events of ?2 as "[Hangfire did] everything he could to stop Cleo Knight from finishing her formula for Invisible Ink, a formula that might save Stain’d-by-the-Sea once and for all" (Ch. 8) -Portrayal of Hangfire as a puppetmaster lurking in the shadows when he has taken direct action before by killing the Colonel, tying up Theodora, etc. -Saying Hangfire backstabs people who helps with his plans: “He sent Dr. Flammarion and Nurse Dander to jail. He threw Colonel Colophon out a window, and he drowned that actress in the basement.” He never sent those two to jail, he never worked with the Colonel, and drowning Murphy didn't work. I could be persuaded to dismiss the last statement as a matter of semantics, but the other two are blatantly false. -Not in ?4, but in ?1 he mentions he ended up "destroying the wrong library", when in fact in ?3 he destroyed the right library. -Biggest offense: Kit being revealed to have been on the train to the city the whole time - completely flying in the face of literally every previous mention of Kit in the previous books as being already "in the city". I also have various other issues with ?4, from the inconsistent treatment of the skeleton key as some sort of Travelling Pants type deal as it magically transports from owner to owner with no explanation as to how; to Snicket's logistically impossible conclusion that Stew clung to the railings, shot Qwerty, and hid with the librarians; and to the Beast actually showing up at the end, at which point my suspension of disbelief officially broke. I think you will love meeting Dante. But I think that your suspension of disbelief had no reason to fall ... Just because a mythological beast can travel at incredibly high speeds is no reason to eliminate the suspension of disbelief ... After all, it was a mythological beast ... If dragons can breathe fire through their mouths, BB can travel at incredible speeds. And for that very reason, I came up with the theory (which proved to be only hypotheses) involving the Sugar Bowl containing a whistle capable of controlling a giant animal in the form of a question mark and that could be used as a weapon of mass destruction. I believed it strongly, until the accidental theory that the SB contained something radioactive ended up overcoming that in credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on May 31, 2020 9:48:39 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to list these. -Describing the events of ?2 as "[Hangfire did] everything he could to stop Cleo Knight from finishing her formula for Invisible Ink, a formula that might save Stain’d-by-the-Sea once and for all" (Ch. 8) Fair enough. This description would be a mischaracterization more than a retcon, wouldn't it? It seems fair to describe him as a puppetmaster even given his immediate impact on the plot. His voice impersonations are direct actions, for example, but their purpose is to manipulate the characters into playing into his grand scheme. Maybe a quote here would help? This quote could be showing that Ellington has bad information, rather than the author trying to make us think Hangfire is worse than we have evidence to believe. Still, I agree that this could be a retcon. Ellington should know better. I don't know that this one is a retcon either, but it's true that the "wrong" questions in ATWQ require a loose interpretation of "wrong." And the first illustration in ?1, right? I was also surprised by this ending. Are there any other fantastical or magical elements in ATWQ that would justify this? (I think, Optimism is my Phil-osophy, that we're perplexed by the presence of the Beast itself rather than anything the Beast does.)
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 31, 2020 11:02:49 GMT -5
Why is the Beast surprising? We had already heard its sound at the end of ?3. And there are many clues throughout the series that Hangfire's plan is to recreate the Beast. As to its being magical or fantastic: well, it doesn't defy any laws of nature as far as I can see. It's fantastic in that it's a kind of beast that doesn't exist in the real world, but we have plenty of them in ASOUE - various reptiles in Monty's collection, the Lachrymose Leech, plus trained crows, lions and so on.
As for Kit: obviously she wasn't on the train throughout the series. She was in the city through most of it, then was arrested; we see her being escorted through a station; and presumably she is taken to Stain'd, or to a location beyond Stain'd. And in the last book she is on her way back.
|
|
|
Post by Marlowe on May 31, 2020 12:21:06 GMT -5
Why is the Beast surprising? We had already heard its sound at the end of ?3. And there are many clues throughout the series that Hangfire's plan is to recreate the Beast. As to its being magical or fantastic: well, it doesn't defy any laws of nature as far as I can see. It's fantastic in that it's a kind of beast that doesn't exist in the real world, but we have plenty of them in ASOUE - various reptiles in Monty's collection, the Lachrymose Leech, plus trained crows, lions and so on. I was never a fan of the Beast subplot, it always seemed too fantastical to fit with the series' noir-ish tone. There were clues, yes, but I hoped to God they were just red herrings. I may be more forgiving towards the Beast's appearance if it hadn't came at the end of what I considered to be an already very sloppily plotted book.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 31, 2020 15:16:19 GMT -5
There never was a Bombinating Beast. The monster is a symbol of Lemony's murderous rage; he summons it, it kills a man through him, and he departs in the same direction as it. ...Well, that's the best I can do without rewriting the ending entirely, anyway. (Though of course, I've done that as well.)
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on May 31, 2020 15:52:32 GMT -5
But... but... but... If there was no Beast, what was Hangfire plotting to do? What were the tadpoles? What was the substance Lemony got on his shoe? What did Lemony and Ellington experience by the pond? What was the significance of Salty Jewel of the Tasty Sea? Why did Hangfire want the Beast statue? (I've argued before now that he didn't want it as keenly as he suggested, since he could have got hold of it much more easily if he did, and that he was using it, much of the time, to immobilise people. But there's no doubt he intended to get hold of it in the end.) As far as I can see, without the Beast the whole plot dissolves.
I can see that one might be disturbed by the thought that the Great Unknown is the BB, since that destroys the point of 'Unknown'. But we don't have to believe that. The BB is something that might be the Great Unknown, and VFD is interested in it for that reason. But equally it might not be. Perhaps, just as this investigation in Stain'd is revealing a Beast, a parallel investigation somewhere else is revaling a submarine. The truth remains Unknown.
|
|