|
|
Post by R. on Dec 5, 2020 11:17:10 GMT -5
I have been looking at the notes in TBBRE, and I think I’ve cracked it. Following Esmé’s marriage to Jerome, the Baudelaire parents considered calling a temporary truce with the other side of the schism. They invited her over to negotiate (this was why they sent their children away). They were sitting round the table drinking brandy, and Esmé, being a firestarter, didn’t use a coaster. Little did they know that she had placed some sort of device outside intended to set the building on fire, which didn’t work due to the weather. She got angry, which made the Baudelaire parents suspicious. Esmé excused herself, left the room, and set fire to the building from the inside. She then left via the secret passageway. The Baudelaire parents, smelling smoke, go to investigate, but only Beatrice manages to get out before the passageway is blocked (somebody later removes whatever fell on it). Beatrice hides in the fountain. Lemony does not actually believe that she is dead, but pretends she is in order to protect her. VFD faking her death is the reason Lemony is ‘forbidden to speak to her’ like he mentions in TAA. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Dec 6, 2020 5:19:12 GMT -5
It's not a bad theory, and I think that the clues in TEE and the BBRE are definitely intended to lead readers towards some permutation or variation of this interpretation (for which reason a great many have indeed fielded such permutations or variations). I certainly don't think it's a coincidence that TSS, published on the same day as the BBRE, featured a subplot involving a character escaping from a fire in their home through a trapdoor leading to a secret passage. What's always going to be lacking is hard proof for the whole thing, not just the little details like the exact mechanics of how the fire began but also whether any of what could have happened actually did happen. That's ultimately because the author wasn't interested in following through on this plotline.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Dec 6, 2020 7:24:48 GMT -5
I also liked this idea, which especially because it was created based on canonical evidence. I can't say that I like to blame Esmé for the fire. I never liked that idea. I mean, the idea is interesting but for me it is another way of saying that it was Count Olaf who set the house on fire. For me, if the fire was not actually caused by Count Olaf (as he seems to indicate in TE) it would not make sense to blame one of Count Olaf's close associates. I think Olaf would be similarly proud to have personally caused the fire or if one of his close associates had caused the fire. It was this feeling that led me to the theory that one of the Baudelaires' parents caused the fire (or both), even if it formed accidentally. That would be an unfortunate event. Could the survivor feel so guilty as not to look for his children? A little forced, I admit. Did they both actually die? Most likely, but it is not possible to rule out the hypothesis. What I can say is that apparently all the evidence of survival from one of the Baudelaires' parents appears to be a red herring made to give us false hopes and then crush them. I fell into each of these red herrings. And I find no definitive evidence of the survival of a Baudelaire parent. If one of them survived, the tracks were so well hidden that I still haven't found them.
|
|
|
|
Post by R. on Dec 6, 2020 7:27:03 GMT -5
I was thinking that Esmé did it for her own personal reasons, completely separate from Count Olaf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Dec 6, 2020 7:43:22 GMT -5
It's like I said ... I understand the possibility. I just don't like it. And it's interesting how you and I ended up accusing our favorite characters of the Baudelaire mansion fire. I blame Beatrice and you blame Esmé. We cannot totally separate feelings from theories, no matter how hard we try.
|
|
|
|
Post by carmelita0cheryl on Mar 20, 2021 13:33:51 GMT -5
The theory sound really good, in fact I like it a lot, but Esmé said she didn't make the Baudelaire children orphans also Jerome and Esmé's marriage most possibly took place during the ASOUE events (according to the UA).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 21, 2021 5:55:21 GMT -5
The theory sound really good, in fact I like it a lot, but Esmé said she didn't make the Baudelaire children orphans Can you recall where in the series this was? |
|
|
|
Post by carmelita0cheryl on Mar 21, 2021 6:35:51 GMT -5
The theory sound really good, in fact I like it a lot, but Esmé said she didn't make the Baudelaire children orphans Can you recall where in the series this was? Definitely! As you know it was in the Netflix only, in Season 2 Episode 4 when Olaf and Esmé captured Baudelaires in the shaft and were drinking Parsley soda.  |
|
|
|
Post by R. on Mar 21, 2021 6:58:28 GMT -5
That means it isn’t valid book canon.
|
|
|
|
Post by carmelita0cheryl on Mar 21, 2021 8:53:20 GMT -5
That means it isn’t valid book canon. Sure it isn't as you say, but since DH was working on the Netflix series too, wouldn't that be considered as the newest canon material? I doubt there were different arsonists in the books and Netflix. After all few things that were not certain in the books were confirmed in the Netflix show. Or am I misunderstanding this conversation somehow? |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Mar 22, 2021 4:15:43 GMT -5
The Netflix series is its own story which contradicts the books on a number of occasions, so they can't be assumed to be mutually compatible. The two canons are independent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Mar 22, 2021 5:23:31 GMT -5
I consider the first and second season as an alternative universe to the universe of books, and yet canonical in its own universe, since the original author was involved with the creative part. I consider the third season as a good fanfic. (I am not criticizing the third season, just saying that its content does not represent the intentions of the original author, but of great fans of that author).
|
|
