|
Post by Uncle Algernon on Jun 29, 2020 17:03:10 GMT -5
(…) If you are proposing a pre-schism, public organisation in which the nobler side outright hid the crimes of the less noble side (who were kidnapping children with what justification, in this proposed version of events?), then it is difficult to see that the noble side of V.F.D. has any right to so regard themselves. (…) Well, in my view, that was rather the point. Moral grayness and all that hullaballoo, don't you know? V.F.D. isn't all the children hoped it was — and, goes my interpretation, in all likelihood, an organization that split into such a wretched band of villains on one half, and a bevy of secretive and oft-ineffectual self-proclaimed "heroes" on the other, cannot ever have been all it was cracked up to be in the first place. The V.F.D. of the glory days, I think, can only have been partially corrupt already; they had ideals of good, to be sure, and no doubt in an eagle's eye view they did more good than harm in the world. But like any large and powerful organization, it counted many members who abused their power, and partisanship meant that even those who did not participate would have turned a blind eye to those increasingly brazen violations. Since you yearn for a stricter textual basis… remember, the Sinister Duo had a child slave before the Schism per TSS. I don't suppose they acquired the child in entirely above-board circumstances—do you? Could have been sheer kidnapping, could have been spurious adoption à la Baudelaires — who knows. But the point is, even before the Schism as such took place, there were members of V.F.D. who were already committing all kinds of wicked deeds. You might, of course, suppose that V.F.D. was originally genuinely, wholly, uncompromisingly noble and heroic; that someday, half of its population woke up and thought, "well, you know what, that's rubbish, let's start murdering puppies now"; that these ethical werewolves lay low for a while, but were eventually found out; and hence, the Schism. But that is rarely what the word "Schism" is used to mean; a Schism is the culmination of an ideological rivalry. It's not the Secession or the Rebellion or the Betrayal, it is the Schism. This suggests that before it broke out in full, there existed a controversy within V.F.D. between a more compromising form of the noble side's ideology, and a milder form of the villainous side's own ideology, such as it is; that it grew from preferences to intellectual jousts to full-on Schism. As for how the noble side — or at least, those who still wanted to think of themselves as noble — looked at themselves in a mirror when they signed off on the child-nappers' bribing their way out of jail… As I said, I would imagine there would be a "greater good" sort of thing going on. Sure, it's sad we have to take some kids from their families, but we're doing it to give them the education they need to become efficient agents of V.F.D. — and if V.F.D. actively saves lives while operational, then we shouldn't look too hard at where it gets the resources necessary to do so, including the human resources — and really, what we're doing isn't any different from the lives the kids would get if the parents consented, and they must be quite narrow-minded parents if they don't consent, so really we're doing the kids a favor by taking them away from such parents — etc., etc. There are places for such discussions, and I'd be happy to have them there; but not framed as, "This is canon." Once more, I can but tell you that I make no pretense to be "canon" in my theories. (My interpretation of what pre-Schism V.F.D. was like is quite another thing; there I might venture that I think my idea might be significantly closer to Handler's vision than what I glean from your posts. It seems out of character with the thoughtfulness and cynicism of Handler to genuinely posit a 100% uncorrupted organization, half of which just turned evil overnight due to infiltration by a few bad apples.)
When I engage in theory, I rarely intend to get at any kind of Truth or Authorial Intent. As we agreed on the other thread, I frankly don't think there's much Truth or Authorial Intent left to divine, until such a time as Handler writes four or five new Averse books. I'm not sure where else in the forum than here you would have us discuss new Averse “conspiracy theories”, but since there's not going to be much else to talk about for a while, either we do that in the present part of a forum, or we don't do much of anything in that part of the forum for the next five years. Would seem a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 29, 2020 18:10:10 GMT -5
Dante's vision is a fundamental part of the sardonic series. It would be terrible if everyone had the same attitude as me. I don't want to change Dante in any way. In fact, I even say a few things just to make sure he remains as he is. Knowing he'll be able to hold me when I fly too high, I don't have to restrain myself. I believe that our discussions have really expanded the general knowledge of the ASOUE universe. If somebody decides to make another adaptation of ASOUE some years from now, I hope he will be sure to check our new texts.
|
|
|
Post by B. on Jun 30, 2020 5:58:21 GMT -5
Dante's vision is a fundamental part of the sardonic series. It would be terrible if everyone had the same attitude as me. I don't want to change Dante in any way. In fact, I even say a few things just to make sure he remains as he is. Knowing he'll be able to hold me when I fly too high, I don't have to restrain myself. I believe that our discussions have really expanded the general knowledge of the ASOUE universe. If somebody decides to make another adaptation of ASOUE some years from now, I hope he will be sure to check our new texts. I see why you guys won best pairing now
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jul 3, 2020 7:44:56 GMT -5
Well, in my view, that was rather the point. Moral grayness and all that hullaballoo, don't you know? V.F.D. isn't all the children hoped it was — and, goes my interpretation, in all likelihood, an organization that split into such a wretched band of villains on one half, and a bevy of secretive and oft-ineffectual self-proclaimed "heroes" on the other, cannot ever have been all it was cracked up to be in the first place. The V.F.D. of the glory days, I think, can only have been partially corrupt already; they had ideals of good, to be sure, and no doubt in an eagle's eye view they did more good than harm in the world. But like any large and powerful organization, it counted many members who abused their power, and partisanship meant that even those who did not participate would have turned a blind eye to those increasingly brazen violations. Since you yearn for a stricter textual basis… remember, the Sinister Duo had a child slave before the Schism per TSS. I don't suppose they acquired the child in entirely above-board circumstances—do you? Could have been sheer kidnapping, could have been spurious adoption à la Baudelaires — who knows. But the point is, even before the Schism as such took place, there were members of V.F.D. who were already committing all kinds of wicked deeds. I think this specific example is well and truly covered by earlier discussions of characters hiding their evil deeds and as such demonstrates that the discussion is becoming circular. Remember that this detail was news to Olaf and so we may reasonably conclude it was never widely known, or more likely outright secret. But it is possible to posit a version of events where the woman with hair but no beard was known to have taken in a child, but the conditions they were kept in was not so widely known; consider by analogy the way Olaf's abuse of the Baudelaires is either concealed from or never fully understood by Mr. Poe and Justice Strauss. You have so grotesquely misrepresented my position that I frankly find myself a little offended. Nowhere have I presented the view that pre-schism V.F.D. at the point of schism was entirely pure and uncorrupted; indeed, I have no need to speculate airily about early V.F.D.'s moral status because I have actual textual evidence: "The word "Beatrice" reminds me of a volunteer organization that was swarming with corruption" (THH, p. 77). What you might call the opposite point of view to the above, that the fire-starting side of the schism had already gotten as bad as it was going to get before the schism and nobody ever got more evil, is no less absurd; a few good apples okaying again and again the most wicked crimes committed by their compatriots. The very fact that there was a schism in which characters became enemies without having already been so indicates that it was indeed an ideological schism; in other words, there was room for debate. Furthermore, the fact that the organisation split into two factions specifically pretty well disproves "tolerance of evil" as the cause, because the implicit result there is of three factions - intolerant of evil, tolerant of evil, actually evil. In practice it is spelt out that the sinister duo represent an extreme, worse even than Olaf (an argument could be made that they weren't even in V.F.D., though unlike with Esmé I think the intention is fairly plain), with the split likely running instead through a greyer middle ground which drifted towards extremism whilst still being able to provide moral justification for their activities. Consider the actions of Gregor Anwhistle and Fernald - and these examples weren't even before the schism. (Over the years, the use of "laissez-faire philosophy" in the U.A. index has at times led to proposals of a third faction of the schism, one which simply walked away; though in the final analysis it's clear that the characters so indicated were never volunteers.) In actuality, we don't have grounds to suggest a detailed picture of the state of the organisation before the schism (though it's true that it would make a very interesting series); but the root of my argument has never been so broad. I've simply interrogated the grounding necessary to fulfil Jean Lucio's implicit claim of a transition from unpermitted taking to permitted. The idea that, on the organisation fracturing, the nobler side would have taken inspiration from their criminal enemies and started approaching private families to propose a virtuous kidnapping with parental permission, is farcical; the effort would appear so transparently criminal as to be laughable. Considering V.F.D.'s implied association with boarding schools and scouting organisations, the origins of its recruitment practices are reasonably clear; it follows logically that, on the organisation having been driven underground, they continued doing exactly the same thing but with greater secrecy. Additionally, the very same TPP quotes delivered in this thread by Jean Lucio, regarding the Denouements' recruitment, suggests an even stronger philanthropic point of origin: Rescuing children from fires and the danger their parents might be subject to (the one instance in which it could be argued that they didn't really need to ask permission, if the house was already ablaze). We have no need to posit a spate of tolerated kidnappings, eventually objected to and then immediately embraced as a great idea. Herein lies the problem: You may not be intending to determine truth or authorial intent, but Jean Lucio is. And when he plucks a poison berry and calls it the truth, I don't make a habit of pouring him a glass of water to better wash it down.
|
|
|
Post by Marlowe on Jul 3, 2020 12:20:38 GMT -5
Dante sounds like an Aaron Sorkin character now.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jul 3, 2020 12:25:09 GMT -5
I just want to make it clear that I already understood and already agreed. In fact, after rereading R's letter to Lemony, it became evident to me that the great schism happened (the word happen means an event has happened that is now becoming very obvious and irrevocable) after Lemony's meeting with R in the infirmary, which it happened when Lemony was a little older. R claims that it was after her meeting with Lemony that the organization went into a total mess, or something, alluding to the beginning of the schism.
And of course, Dante understands my intentions ... (Maybe he doesn't understand my motivations well, but even I don't understand them well, so he's forgiven.).
|
|