jackson
Catastrophic Captain
We will attend masked balls at her castle, and you can get scared then.
Posts: 50
Likes: 29
|
Post by jackson on Jul 14, 2020 1:05:09 GMT -5
Hello all. I'm very late to the party. My elementary school existence revolved around ASoUE before being romanced by computers, and I lost touch with Lemony Snicket's work. I just recently stumbled upon the Netflix adaptation and ATWQ. I don't remember much about my experience reading ASoUE, but the pacing of the third and fourth books was incredible and had me alternating between wanting to slam the book shut entirely and skimming to relive the tension. When I finally reached the end of the tracks I was gutted and left staring numbly into the dark because I was blinded by the screen of my Kindle and it was three in the morning. I don't remember ever being this intoxicated by a story. (Series-ruining spoilers below for Why Is This Night Different From All Other Nights?. I tried to embed this whole thing in a spoiler tag but couldn't get it working.) I missed all of the clues. I missed Snicket's whistling in the Colophon Clinic, and the lettering on the phonograph. I never considered where the water came from that flooded Killdeer Fields. I failed to associate the references to nature in Hangfire's monologue with a certain naturalist. And I gasped when I heard Ellington gasp the loudest in the prison car. I wanted so badly for the epilogue to be of them talking together on the balcony of that house in Winnipeg, and I cannot rationalize why Snicket pushed Hangfire into the jaws of the Bombinating Beast. As far I understand, the city was always spoken of with a certain finality. I got the impression that it was a place you didn't emerge from. Snicket repeatedly tried to assure himself that Kit's array of skeleton keys and bobby pins would be enough to get her out of her scrape. Every time there was talk of a train leaving for the city with a prisoner, there was never any discussion of intervening. And Snicket seemed to identify with the romantic founding ideals of the Volunteer Fire Department. I wholly expected him to hurl that wretched, unearthly statue into the mouth of the Bombinating Beast and restrain Hangfire for the authorities in the city. I don't find his behavior to mesh with his character, especially with how enamored he was with Ellington. He made the conscious decision to murder her father. It just seems like an all too convenient way to ensure that none of the denizens of Stain'd-by-the-Sea would need to be accounted for in Snicket's future. I feel the narrative would have been better served by exploring the awkwardness of Snicket and Ellington's relationship after the arrest of Hangfire. They were both far too entangled in Hangfire's plot and I'd be interested to see how they move on from that, how their personalities interact when not bolstered by something greater than themselves. I was hoping for someone to tell me why I'm wrong, to get a life, or to point me to past discussions because I'm sure that this has been talked to death. I'll end with a couple of quotes I dredged up from past threads. Dante, from 2015. And from Catastrophist in 2019. If you're still here, I am so very sorry for the text wall. I don't know what combination of current events and subconscious stimuli is preventing me from getting this story out of my head. Sidebar: This is more of a reading comprehension question, but I can't figure out Hangfire's motivation for being on that train. I was all aboard the Agatha Christie train trope, and it was great fun, but if Hangfire's only motivation was to rendezvous with Ellington, couldn't they have done that at Wade Academy?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jul 14, 2020 1:52:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but I think that in ATWQ, as well as ASOUE, we can only see part of the story. Hangfire's motivations and methods seem to make sense in his mind, but that sense is not clear at any time. Did he want to take revenge on the whole city? Would he use BB to destroy the city in the Godizilla style? Would children serve as food for BB? Was the beast carnivorous or herbivorous? I also received the murder that Snicket committed with great surprise. But I couldn't help feeling a taste of "well done!" But then I felt bad for Snicket, because he would have to carry that burden for the rest of his life. It was hasty ... Something he thought would be necessary. It was not right. But it happened. It is a pity that ATWQ needed to be a history prior to ASOUE. Some things were already decided. Eligton's relationship with Snicket would have no future. And something needed to happen to end what was very interesting.I can only encourage you to create your own theories, and show us the results of them. ASOUE consumes most of my energy, and I am unable to give ATWQ the attention it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by FileneNGottlin on Jul 14, 2020 11:58:23 GMT -5
Sidebar: This is more of a reading comprehension question, but I can't figure out Hangfire's motivation for being on that train. I was all aboard the Agatha Christie train trope, and it was great fun, but if Hangfire's only motivation was to rendezvous with Ellington, couldn't they have done that at Wade Academy? Here’s how I see it: Hangfire gets word that Dashiell Qwerty will be imprisoned on the Thistle of the Valley. Qwerty has the information necessary to stop the Inhumane Society, so they decide to kill him. He recruits Stew to commit the murder, and arranges to get on after the murder is done, giving him a perfect alibi and enabling him to sort out any trouble that comes up. It’s also possible that he’s knows that Lizzie Haines/S Theodora Markson will be there too. Optimism is my Phil-osophy I’ve always assumed that he was planning to use the BB like the dogs in Animal Farm—a threat of what could happen if you disobeyed him. But anything’s plausible. Didn’t Handler do an interview here awhile back suggesting that Ellington and Snicket meet again?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jul 14, 2020 15:18:44 GMT -5
Ah, thanks for the explanation. But why so much effort for a city that was already bankrupt? environmental destruction was already causing the revenge of nature itself. Hangfire thinks so small? Did he really set up a secret organization just to get revenge on a single city? This looks more like a gang and not a secret organization ...
|
|
jackson
Catastrophic Captain
We will attend masked balls at her castle, and you can get scared then.
Posts: 50
Likes: 29
|
Post by jackson on Jul 15, 2020 0:27:44 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but I think that in ATWQ, as well as ASOUE, we can only see part of the story. […] It was hasty ... Something he thought would be necessary. It was not right. But it happened. It is a pity that ATWQ needed to be a history prior to ASOUE. Some things were already decided. Eligton's relationship with Snicket would have no future. And something needed to happen to end what was very interesting. You're absolutely right. Snicket's behavior is ultimately irreducible. I just can't shake the feeling that Hangfire's murder was somewhat of a narrative escape hatch, but I recognize that I'm more inclined to feel this way because I was rooting for a happy ending. Qwerty has the information necessary to stop the Inhumane Society, so they decide to kill him. He recruits Stew to commit the murder, and arranges to get on after the murder is done, giving him a perfect alibi and enabling him to sort out any trouble that comes up. Ah, I had forgotten about that whole confrontation in the prison car at the beginning of the book. I really like this interpretation. If Hangfire was motivated to supervise to the murder, then whatever Qwerty had on the Inhumane Society was really damaging. Thanks for the reply. Didn’t Handler do an interview here awhile back suggesting that Ellington and Snicket meet again? Oh my goodness.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jul 15, 2020 3:32:25 GMT -5
The underlying logic of the character motivations in ?4 is difficult to unpick, because in my opinion the book is not wholly consistent with either the books which preceded it or with itself. Regardless of characterisation, though, I don't think the happy ending you anticipated could ever possibly have been on the cards, because I don't think that kind of... reward for sincerity and for doing the right thing exists in the world of ATWQ or the world of Snicket. Rather, I would say that the message I derive from both ASoUE and ATWQ is that the right thing, the perfect course of action which will make everyone happy, or satisfy some kind of ultimate justice separate from human conceptions of it, doesn't exist. We can try all we want, but we can't make everyone happy. We can do the right thing but others won't agree it was right, we can do the necessary thing but even we won't think it's the right thing. The best we can hope for is to know that we tried, and that we'll keep on trying, even if it's at great risk or sacrifice. I could try and rationalise this according to the logic of the story - who are these people who would help Lemony to restrain Hangfire? - but I don't think that's really the point. The tragedy was set in motion long before the story began, steaming its way down a linear and unbranching rail towards catastrophe.
"They didn't understand it, but like so many unfortunate events in life, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so."
|
|
jackson
Catastrophic Captain
We will attend masked balls at her castle, and you can get scared then.
Posts: 50
Likes: 29
|
Post by jackson on Jul 15, 2020 23:30:15 GMT -5
Regardless of characterisation, though, I don't think the happy ending you anticipated could ever possibly have been on the cards, because I don't think that kind of... reward for sincerity and for doing the right thing exists in the world of ATWQ or the world of Snicket. I was deluding myself the whole way, I guess. It's been a while since I've read Snicket.
If a happy ending was never on the cards because Handler doesn't want to give the impression that life glamorously rewards acts of sincerity and righteousness, wouldn't this idea have been better conveyed if the story had let things fizzle? Stain'd-by-the-Sea could have continued to deteriorate, and its residents could have grown apart by necessity and by lack of a common goal. The way it's written suggests that a happy ending would've been possible if Snicket hadn't killed someone, and it's the only reason he lost his friends. I understand that you were never arguing in favor of one characterization, I was just curious.
"They didn't understand it, but like so many unfortunate events in life, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so." Lovely quote, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jul 16, 2020 3:47:13 GMT -5
If a happy ending was never on the cards because Handler doesn't want to give the impression that life glamorously rewards acts of sincerity and righteousness, wouldn't this idea have been better conveyed if the story had let things fizzle? Stain'd-by-the-Sea could have continued to deteriorate, and its residents could have grown apart by necessity and by lack of a common goal. The way it's written suggests that a happy ending would've been possible if Snicket hadn't killed someone, and it's the only reason he lost his friends. I understand that you were never arguing in favor of one characterization, I was just curious. To be honest with you, personally I felt that Stain'd-by-the-Sea was rotten to the core and had no comeback, so in that respect Handler is still a little bit more optimistic than me. I would suggest that this is down to one of the major themes of ATWQ, which might be summed up as "Who else is going to do it?" The series emphasises the capacity and possibility of a new generation to redeem or recover the faults of the old. Hangfire, the Knights, Mr. Mallahan, all the other parents and relatives - they're not interested in helping the community (for which read "society"). The younger generation can't depend on them, but the situation isn't hopeless, because the possibility exists that, with a certain amount of ingenuity, friendship, and kindness, you can drag the world back from the precipice on which it is teetering. But what you can't have is everything. The people they want to return won't. Frankly, I think a construction like "if Snicket hadn't killed someone" is misleading, as that implies that there existed some socially approved choice for him. But we're given the binary at the start of the book - do you become a murderer, or do you let one go free. That's the binary of the denouement of this story. If Snicket hadn't pushed Hangfire into the jaws of the Beast, what would have happened? As I said, who are these adults who are going to help restrain Hangfire - the Mitchums, who are de facto on his side; the librarians, who can be intimidated by a child? Even if Snicket had just chucked the statue into the belly of the beast, as you propose above, and if by some miracle the Beast had then decided not to just eat them all, Hangfire would simply have walked away and come back with another scheme, and another, and another. So I think that the final choice is partly another expression of "Who else is going to do it?", but it's also a reflection of the wider imperfection in the human condition. You can't make a choice which will make everyone happy. In this case, the choice Snicket made resulted in the possibility of happiness for a lot of people; at the cost of his own and Ellington's happiness. I wouldn't call that a sacrifice for the sake of the greater good or childhood's end or anything so ennobling as that, though there are elements of both. But it's an ugly dilemma in an ugly world, and all the goodwill in the world won't save you from having to make a choice if the responsibility falls to you.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jul 16, 2020 7:12:04 GMT -5
Noblesse obrige If a happy ending was never on the cards because Handler doesn't want to give the impression that life glamorously rewards acts of sincerity and righteousness, wouldn't this idea have been better conveyed if the story had let things fizzle? Stain'd-by-the-Sea could have continued to deteriorate, and its residents could have grown apart by necessity and by lack of a common goal. The way it's written suggests that a happy ending would've been possible if Snicket hadn't killed someone, and it's the only reason he lost his friends. I understand that you were never arguing in favor of one characterization, I was just curious. To be honest with you, personally I felt that Stain'd-by-the-Sea was rotten to the core and had no comeback, so in that respect Handler is still a little bit more optimistic than me. I would suggest that this is down to one of the major themes of ATWQ, which might be summed up as "Who else is going to do it?" The series emphasises the capacity and possibility of a new generation to redeem or recover the faults of the old. Hangfire, the Knights, Mr. Mallahan, all the other parents and relatives - they're not interested in helping the community (for which read "society"). The younger generation can't depend on them, but the situation isn't hopeless, because the possibility exists that, with a certain amount of ingenuity, friendship, and kindness, you can drag the world back from the precipice on which it is teetering. But what you can't have is everything. The people they want to return won't. Frankly, I think a construction like "if Snicket hadn't killed someone" is misleading, as that implies that there existed some socially approved choice for him. But we're given the binary at the start of the book - do you become a murderer, or do you let one go free. That's the binary of the denouement of this story. If Snicket hadn't pushed Hangfire into the jaws of the Beast, what would have happened? As I said, who are these adults who are going to help restrain Hangfire - the Mitchums, who are de facto on his side; the librarians, who can be intimidated by a child? Even if Snicket had just chucked the statue into the belly of the beast, as you propose above, and if by some miracle the Beast had then decided not to just eat them all, Hangfire would simply have walked away and come back with another scheme, and another, and another. So I think that the final choice is partly another expression of "Who else is going to do it?", but it's also a reflection of the wider imperfection in the human condition. You can't make a choice which will make everyone happy. In this case, the choice Snicket made resulted in the possibility of happiness for a lot of people; at the cost of his own and Ellington's happiness. I wouldn't call that a sacrifice for the sake of the greater good or childhood's end or anything so ennobling as that, though there are elements of both. But it's an ugly dilemma in an ugly world, and all the goodwill in the world won't save you from having to make a choice if the responsibility falls to you. Would you say that Fernald's actions in destroying AA would be similar to Lemony's actions in killing Hangfire?
|
|
jackson
Catastrophic Captain
We will attend masked balls at her castle, and you can get scared then.
Posts: 50
Likes: 29
|
Post by jackson on Jul 16, 2020 22:07:20 GMT -5
I think a construction like "if Snicket hadn't killed someone" is misleading, as that implies that there existed some socially approved choice for him. […] But we're given the binary at the start of the book - do you become a murderer, or do you let one go free. That's the binary of the denouement of this story. If Snicket hadn't pushed Hangfire into the jaws of the Beast, what would have happened? […] So I think that the final choice is partly another expression of "Who else is going to do it?" […] Thank you for taking the time to write this out. Your replies have convinced me that the ending is believable and nuanced, and I'm much more comfortable with how we left the characters. I assumed Hangfire's arrest was just as viable as his murder, but you're right — that alternative was never possible. I guess I expected Hangfire to surrender himself after losing control of the statue (assuming the beast doesn’t eat the train car like you mentioned), or that Snicket would receive help from the adults on the train, but these branches underestimate Hangfire's capabilities and motivation and overestimate the adults' bravery. "Who else is going to do it?" perfectly captures the situation. In this case, the choice Snicket made resulted in the possibility of happiness for a lot of people; at the cost of his own and Ellington's happiness. I wouldn't call that a sacrifice for the sake of the greater good or childhood's end or anything so ennobling as that, though there are elements of both. But it's an ugly dilemma in an ugly world, and all the goodwill in the world won't save you from having to make a choice if the responsibility falls to you. This is wonderfully articulate and really resonated with me.
|
|