|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 19, 2020 17:44:44 GMT -5
I wouldn't say "Over a year" but it really has been a long time. But we know it lasted less than a year because of the birthdays if Klaus and Violet. Klaus started at 12 years old and turned 13 on TVV, and Violet started at 14 years old and turned 15 on TGG. It's technically possible that they had a birthday at some point in between TBB and TRR or the like. My point is simply that in the first half of the series time is never really made an issue, while in the second half it suddenly becomes a very prominent part of the books' plots. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 19, 2020 18:13:23 GMT -5
Yes, the argument is totally valid, and don't get me wrong. It's just a detail. In TBB, Lemony states that while they were on the beach Klaus was 12 and Violet was 14. And in TGG we know that Violet turned 15. So...
|
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 19, 2020 18:24:39 GMT -5
Yes, the argument is totally valid, and don't get me wrong. It's just a detail. In TBB, Lemony states that while they were on the beach Klaus was 12 and Violet was 14. And in TGG we know that Violet turned 15. So... That's a fair point of course. Still, who knows how years actually work in the Snicket-verse? Maybe the year of the rat is extra-long? |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 19, 2020 21:31:25 GMT -5
I will not discourage any theorists ... You have my support thinking about different ways of thinking about ASOUE's chronology. If you find evidence of this, please share it with us.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 19, 2020 21:43:56 GMT -5
I will not discourage any theorists ... You have my support thinking about different ways of thinking about ASOUE's chronology. If you find evidence of this, please share it with us. Thank you very much for your encouraging words but I wasn't actually being serious. I was making a joke about Daniel Handler's comments that the series takes place during the Zodiac year of the rat. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jun 20, 2020 4:05:31 GMT -5
I think their parents will did say they had to be raised by a relative, didn't it (though the 'closest relative' thing is an invention of the movie)? So Poe would not have been able to become their guardian while relatives were available - and at that point, when Fagin, the last available relative, refused them, they wanted to go to VFDevotees. Yes .. well remembered. But how were they stopped in the hands of Sir? I do not remember the degree of kinship. And Jerome? What is the degree of kinship of him with Baudelaire? We are never told: but that is not to say they weren't related. If Fagin is a nineteenth cousin, they may have been fifteenth cousins or the like. People are a bit hard on Mr. Poe for his interpretation of the will, but he actually cites its exact conditions on a couple of occasions and his reasoning is sound. The first detail we ever hear is TBB page 15, "Your parents' will [...] instructs that you be raised in the most convenient way possible. Here in the city, you'll be used to your surroundings, and this Count Olaf is the only relative who lives within the urban limits." He clarifies on page 160 that "your parents' will is very specific. You must be adopted by a relative." The case for Count Olaf is actually a very reasonable one as given; while the "closest relative" business is in fact a complete confabulation. Hermes is correct that no relationship with Sir or Jerome is ever stated, but I actually think some grounding is given. On TMM p. 52, Sir explains, "I want to give you three a good deal as well. Now, I heard about what happened to your parents, which is really too bad. And I ehard all about this Count Olaf fellow, who sounds like quite a jerk, and those odd-looking people who work for him. So when Mr. Poe gave me a call, I worked out a deal. The deal is this: I will try to make sure that Count Olaf and his associates never go anywhere near you, and you will work in my lumbermill until you come of age and get all that money. Is that a fair deal?" So, Mr. Poe did call Sir first, suggesting that he may be some kind of relative, but I think it is also possible for us to read this business arrangement with Sir in a similar light to the depositing of the Baudelaires at boarding school whilst Mr. Poe seeks out a new permanent guardian (TMM pp. 6, 181); Sir is not adopting as a formal guardian but under an alterantive system. Again, no relationship with the Squalors is ever described - but it strikes me as significant that Jerome very quickly explains that he was a friend of their mother's (TEE, p. 26); I would suggest this may be regarded by Mr. Poe as second-best to an actual relative, these having clearly been very thin on the ground by this point. It's not a blood relationship, but it is a relationship with the parents, which Justice Strauss didn't have; and it fulfils the clause of convenience to the Baudelaires, too. Continuing in this vein, V.F.D. was part of a formal guardianship program. Granted, I am not convinced that at this point we are meant to imagine Justice Strauss constantly knocking at Mr. Poe's door restating her case, but I think even after TWW, Mr. Poe is still trying to place the Baudelaires in situations which make more sense than some random person they lived next-door to for a fortnight. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jun 20, 2020 6:44:29 GMT -5
Should we suppose that Sir proposed this deal to Mr Poe? If so, given that Mr Poe didn't tell the Baudelaires, it makes him more malicious than he normally seems to be. I take it, given that Sir says 'Is that a fair deal?', that he's proposing it to the Baudelaires right now. (Admittedly he put it into effect before proposing it, but that may be because he sees it as obvious - perhaps he would have done the same with his own children.)
Charles knows the Baudelaires are coming, does not know they will be made to work, and calls Sir a guardian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 20, 2020 7:26:43 GMT -5
I think that Dante 'sexplanation that the Sir agreement is similar to the Nero agreement makes more sense. I remember somewhere that Charles said that the Baudelaires should be treated as members of the family, and Sir says that they are being treated as members of the family because some of their cousins are in the same place as the Baudelaires and working in ways equal. I think Charles needs to say that they should be treated as family members, it indicates that they are not actually members of Sir's family, but should be treated as if they were. And Sir's conclusion reinforces this. |
|
