Let's talk again about Lemony's narrative

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

New members, new ideas. What do you think about Lemony's narrative in ASOUE? How reliable is the narrative? And how does he get to know what Klaus, Violet and Sunny were thinking and talking about in environments where they were obviously alone?

I've heard a lot over the years. I have heard it said that Lemony was chasing children everywhere at the time the events were happening. But that doesn't make sense to me. Lemony was not in the caravan.

I've heard it said that there were cameras everywhere. But the cameras don't read thoughts.

I've heard that Lemony invented these details. But if he was going to invent so many things, why do detailed research? And why not invent everything, when he clearly admits that he doesn't know some details?

For me Lemony read information left behind by the Baudelaires.That is why Daniel Handler highlighted the memory skills of each of them.

What do you think?

[tricky]

I think his narration is reliable, but as secondary research. I think the conversations are filled in via verbal and written accounts, from Justice Strauss to Beatrice Baudelaire, the Island's commonplace book to an underwater library. It's like how authors write biographies of strangers, whilst they might not know them directly, a combination of facts, interviews with friends and family, and imagination all combine together in order to make a good story.

[misstastrophe]

i love this idea, and have been wondering the same thing about the baudelaire's thoughts/feelings as i've been rereading the series this year. as a kid i guess i never questioned the narrative, but now i'd like to think it's a combination of evidence/commonplace books/interviews/etc. left behind. lemony obviously has an inventive mind (highlighted in ATWQ for me especially) so it's easy for me to see how he would fill in the details of their experience when he couldn't find anything concrete in his research.
i very much enjoy when he would admit there were things he didn't know. as a child, i remember being frustrated by books where the author/adults seemed to know everything and had all the answers, but were withholding them for some reason. for him to admit there was missing information helped shatter the myth 'all adults know what they're doing'.

[Dante]

I think that "research" is just an especially effective thing in the Averse, almost to the point of being magical, and so extraordinary deductions and inferences even of thoughts can be made from ordinarily lacking evidence. Though I also enjoy the two passages in the BBRE showing Lemony's research process - they're jokes in which he asks elaborate questions merely confirming information he clearly already possesses!

Nov 20, 2020 13:29:44 GMT -5 misstastrophe said:

as a child, i remember being frustrated by books where the author/adults seemed to know everything and had all the answers, but were withholding them for some reason.

This is one of my absolute peeves, and I've seen it in a number of stories. The adults or authority figures know a certain piece of information, for no reason at all they don't tell the protagonist about this, then later the protagonist makes some catastrophic mistake which couldn't have been anticipated without knowing said information... and everyone blames the protagonist and the adults are never called out on it, not even by the author. All this achieves is making me despise characters I'm clearly meant to regard as wise.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Interesting to mention that. I read one of Agatha's books and had that same impression. I mean, Poirot once predicted that someone was going to be murdered and simply did not inform the victim. He gave Hastings some apology, something like "he would never believe it". But seriously ... At the very least it seems seriously that he was hoping the guy would die so he could investigate something. But back to talking about the topic of Thread ... I really loved your answers ... And finally they all make sense, and in fact enrich an important part of ASOUE (important to me, at least) which is the story by behind the story. I am past the stage where I believed Daniel Handler had in fact created a logical and coherent story in his mind for each of the moments when Lemony was researching, writing and publishing ASOUE's books. That would be really cool. But still, I know he had flashes of imaginations of moments that he found funny, like loose scenes from that story. And it's fun to think about how all of Lemony's investigation went, and all that he went through and lived during that period of research and publication. But I would like to highlight some important details that I noticed. Dante is already aware of this, of course. But I want to point out again that Lemony's powers of understanding what the characters' thoughts are are limited only to Baudelaire themselves. This is for me strong evidence that the mental image that Daniel Handler had was that Lemony read something that the Baudelaires left behind. More than that. I believe that in TSS this concept was strong enough for him to explicitly state that he did not find the caravan. This means that Daniel Handler was in fact unable to deduce the Baudelaire events and dialogues from the physical evidence he found in this case. That's because he found no physical evidence. In fact, the highlight that Lemony gives in the lack of physical evidence found by him is very big in TSS. It is as if it were something that Daniel Handler had actually been thinking about. He actually thought, "Lemony knows about it even though he hasn't found any physical evidence for it." I emphasize that it is in this book that Violet presents her super-power to have an excellent memory, being able to remember events from early childhood. After that, Sunny was able to remember something when she was only a few weeks old. This was published in TE (I think).



In other words, Daniel Handler apparently realized that it would be necessary to give Violet and Sunny an almost miraculous memory after TSS, even when he decided to focus on the lack of physical evidence for his deductions. When publishing TSS he had already decided that TE would take place on an island, as shown in TBBRE. So, I believe it was when he planned that the Baudelaires would leave something written in detail on the island and that source would have been one of the most important (but not the only) for Lemony to have written ASOUE.


Another interesting detail in TSS is that it is clear that Lemony does not have access to the things that the Baudelaires failed to see and hear. Lemony doesn't know what happened inside the tent that Olaf, Esmé and the sinister man and woman entered. That's because Sunny didn't see what happened there. Since she doesn't know what happened, she didn't write it down. But of course, this is different at the Hotel H. Lemony had access to various information that the Baudelaires did not have access to. And Lemony clearly wrote about it. Certainly Lemony interviewed many of those who were there, or better yet, Lemony was actually there and personally saw many of the things that happened or was with people in those days when things were happening and these people reported on the events soon after they happened.

[R.]

I definitely believe that Lemony is a liar. It seems that the purpose of the series in the Averse was VFD propaganda, which is especially clear in TUA, where K uses the books to recruit members. Therefore, it is quite likely that Lemony made some things up to glorify VFD and damage his enemies’ reputations. A great deal of the things he writes about Esmé from TSS onwards, for instance, seem daft and out of character. Most likely, he didn’t know much about what happened later on, and just made up things to embarrass her. Even the Baudelaires themselves state in TBL that his narration was inaccurate. That is certainly enough evidence for me.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

R., I think of all the people on the forum, I am the one who most understands your point of view on this. My first text here highlighted that Lemony was an excellent liar, able to know exactly when and how to lie in order to have a powerful effect on his readers. Your arguments are a lot like mine. Subtly, you are turning to non-predominantly narrative texts (LSTUA and TBL) to show that the predominantly narrative text is unreliable. Exactly what I have tried for many, many years to do. However, after thinking a lot and listening carefully to the arguments against my way of thinking, I realized that the non-narrative texts only highlight Lemony's true intentions. Although he may have been mistaken in some conclusions, he definitely did not tell intentional lies to the reader of his universe. Consider a few things.

In chapter 1 of LSTUA, in a personal note, Lemony states that he was pleased that the accounts of the Baudelaiire would be published in a reliable manner in contrast to what was disclosed about him. Thus, in writing to himself at a time when he did not know that this personal note would be published, Lemony made a commitment to the truth. He would not lie to himself. Sure, you can believe the opposite, (you can believe what you want), but it’s unlikely that Daniel Handler was giving the reader a clue that his narrator was trying to lie to the reader when he put his narrator to write an appointment with the truth for himself.

Second, TBL. I actually used that same passage that you quoted to support my arguments. The Baudelaires contradicted Lemony's account at some points in history. But they told their story to Beatrice JR. So, think of the story that Lemony wrote about the Baudelaires. The story is fantastic from the point of view of physics and biology, but it is a strikingly realistic story from the point of view of human morals. Lemony manages to portray all the characters that have a long role in the story as having a good side and a bad side (whether they realize it or not). People are like chef's salads after all. The Baudelaires made decisions that caused the deaths of innocent people. They planned to kill Olaf on the boat, the idea of ​​which came from the most 'innocent' of the Baudelaires. Lemony did not hide the downside even from her main characters. This is characteristic of a narrator who has made a commitment to the truth, no matter how ugly the truth is. On the other hand, the Baudelaires were obviously ashamed of some morally questionable decisions they made. They had reason to lie to their daughter. (unfortunately sometimes parents lie to their children). And Beatrice JR would not be suspicious of her own parents (most children believe everything their parents tell them). On the other hand, Lemony had reason to tell the truth. He made a promise. And more than that, in TBL (which I hope you have read by now) we find physical evidence that Lemony was committed to the truth when publishing ASOUE's 13 books. After all, Beatrice JR saw Lemony's trail of twine and pins. Lemony was in fact doing research on Baudelaires in various places, as he categorically states that he was doing. So, his research is real. It makes no sense to believe that he would try so hard to publish lies later.



At least the evidence indicates that Daniel Handler did not have in mind a narrator who intentionally lied to the reader. Now let's talk about your argument involving Miss K, which is another of my recurring subjects. I totally agree that Miss K used at least one of ASOUE's books to recruit two orphans in Prufrock Prep for VFD. She went there to do that. But that has no evidence that Lemony Snicket wanted his books to have that purpose, just as the other books brought to Prufrock Prep by Miss K were not written for the purpose of recruiting neophytes for VFD. Lemony begs his books not to be read. He needs to keep his promise to publish the books, but he doesn't want large numbers of people to read it. This is the narrator's intention and at no time does anything in the work indicate that he has a different intention. Lemony does not forget to make clear some mistakes of the VFD itself, as well as how much VFD fails in its goals, and how confused VFD is and how risky it is to join VFD. Lemony is not advertising a VFD, he is telling a story about the Baudelaires, who unfortunately came into contact with VFD. Lemony doesn't even tell the reader what VFD is. They are characters in Lemony's narrative who tell the Baudelaires the literal and conceptual meaning of VFD. Characters who were not entirely reliable because they hid facts or lied about some things. So Lemony doesn't want to disclose to the general public about VFD. Still, he does so when his commitment to the truth compels him to do so: if he knows that a character has contacted the Baudelaires about VFD, Lemony cannot hide that information.

On the other hand, I agree with you that Esmé is sometimes portrayed in a slightly exaggerated way. But even if you don't believe this to be "real" you should take Lemony's research mechanics into account. Much of the speech we find in ASOUE are descriptions of what the Baudelaires wrote with their own hand somewhere. And as shown in TBL, the Baudelaires are not reliable narrators about their own history. Lemony knows this very well. And it is because of this that Lemony spent so much time researching the places where the Baudelaires passed according to their reports, in order to verify the accuracy of the report he found himself. Think again about the caravan. Lemony did not find the caravan, as described in TSS. But he searched for it for months. He wanted to confirm whether what he had found written by the Baudelaiires was indeed true or not. But he found no physical evidence. He had to publish what was in the Baudelaires' writings simply because he could not find reasons that could upset them. And according to Dante "the lack of evidence against something is not evidence in favor of something". Dante is right. The TSS report was written without much confirmation. On the other hand, despite this, the available evidence indicates that Lemony wanted to narrate the truth about events. And we are judging Lemony's intentions here, and not whether he has actually managed to achieve such intensions. In other words, where Lemony found no hard evidence, he published what was in the Baudelaire writings without making any changes. This may (perhaps) explain your point of view regarding Lemony's account of Esmé. Lemony was writing what the Baudelaires wrote about how she acted and behaved. Of course, I can't say that the fact that Lemony disliked Esmé didn't influence him in his choice of words. But it happened in a subliminal way in Lemony's mind. Lemony indeed believes that Esmé is a deplorable person, and that certainly influenced him, as well as his way of describing Count Olaf. But I am sure that Lemony's goal in these descriptions was not to mislead the reader, but to demonstrate his sincere opinion of these characters. I mean, you can find me arrogant, and write that I'm arrogant and post that I'm arrogant. Even if I am not arrogant, it does not mean that you are telling an intentional lie. This is just the way you see me. And if you write about me in a few months, chances are you will be able to remember only negative characteristics about me, and if you have to write about it in a few months, it is likely that you will exaggerate my piacicological characteristics, it doesn’t mean you’re telling an intentional lie about me. It is just human nature speaking louder.



In other words, Daniel Handler did not leave out even his narrator when describing human imperfection. If that mysterious TPP taxi driver was actually Lemony, I believe Daniel Handler put him to smoke just to highlight that. And Lemony is aware of his own weaknesses and the weaknesses of other people, including the people he loves. And I think that is very evident in his relationship with Beatrice. Lemony does not think Beatrice is a perfect woman. In fact, Lemony does not at any point insist on wiping her name from the hints that she may have been part of a murder plot. Lemony did not hide the hints that Kit, her beloved sister, could have been part of it, nor did she endeavor to clear her name. Lemony did not hide the fact that Kit hid important truths from the Baudelaires. All of this points to Lemony's commitment to the truth with himself. So I conclude with the following statement: "The inveracities that exist in ASOUE are not due to Lemony's desire to deceive the reader. The positive evidence that exists indicates that Lemony did not have this desire. "

It's your turn R.. Counter-argue or declare me the winner of the debate.I'm just kidding. You are not obliged to do anything you did not want to, nor are you obliged to agree with me. I'm sure you already know that, and that's why I admire you little girl.

[R.]

Yes, but what about Sunny and her teeth? However bizarre the Averse is, this is one weird thing that never gets even something resembling an answer, and isn’t even set up as a mystery. Sunny Baudelaire climbing an elevator shaft with her teeth without any buildup or explanation is something I refuse to believe, and I am pretty sure Lemony made it up because either he couldn’t figure out how they got out, or they were helped by one of his enemies who he didn’t want to admit did a noble thing.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

I don't think you realized the depth of the bizarre things that actually exist in ASOUEverse. To name a few examples: An adult man can swallow butterflies and they can be kept alive in his stomach, only to be regorgived safely. Crickets can be trained to send coded messages. A snake can communicate with a cricket. (These two are written in LSTUA and are not a narration by Lemony). A lizard can fly. These are just a few examples. But since we're talking about Sunny, let me talk about one of the scenes that impacted me the most when I read ASOUE for the first time. Sunny's fight using her own teeth against Georgina O. Prior to TEE, Daniel Handler strongly established that Sunny's skills were truly phenomenal with her teeth. It is as I said recently: "The ASOUE world is like a fairytale world without fairies". I can compare with the story of Little Red Riding Hood. Wolves speak, swallow alive humans and (in some versions) an elderly woman is rescued alive from the bowels of the wolf. All of this is told without the slightest intention of appearing mysterious, or resorting to explanations involving magic. Wolves speak and swallow alive human beings capable of being taken out of their entrails while still alive, period. That world is like that. It is the same with ASOUE. Due to what I have already explained, Lemony says to himself that he will publish the truth about the Baudelaires, and there is no concrete reason to doubt that.

If Daniel Handler had thought of a plot in which Lemony's enemies had actually saved the Baudelaires, I am sure he would have given explicit hints about this. I mean, Olaf was described as trying to save Kit's life. Fernald was described as a good brother. And Fernald said that Olaf had a bright side and Lemony did not hide those comments from the general public. So, although you have the right to have your headcanon, the available evidence points out that it is not only possible, but also very likely that Sunny actually climbed the elevator shaft with her teeth. I don't want to force you R., but I suggest that you don't let your feelings of attachment to Esmé get in the way of your excellent logical reasoning. I let something like that happen to me for a long time ... After all, you seem to be someone who values ​​the canon of ASOUE.

[R.]

You seem to think that I was implying that I thought Esmé rescued them. That is ridiculous. By ‘enemies of Lemony’ I meant people who might not have been mentioned in canon.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Yes, I thought you were thinking that. Thank you for making it clear to which enemies you are referring. But I hope you understand my point.

[R.]

Of course I do. You are a great theorist, and although I don’t always agree with you, your theories are always interesting and well thought out.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Thanks!! And I'm sorry if I sometimes call you a little girl ... I'm not belittling you. I think I see you as a potential pupil or successor. I'm excited for Lemony Snicket's next book. It will be good to have someone with a sharp mind and interest in making theories about asoueverse (and who speaks English natively) when the book is published next year. I hope you are one step ahead of me when that day comes. (I will have to wait for publication in Portuguese in order to make decent theories).
Dante will be here with his own style of making theories, and I wouldn't stand a chance against him. But who knows if a person I train could oppose him?

[R.]

What did you mean by that last sentence? I didn’t really understand your English.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

And that is the problem. I'm not fluent in English. I meant that I want you to be Dante's next rival by becoming a creative theorist as opposed to Dante's cold and calculating way of making theories.If you do, I will feel proud, as if I did it myself.