Sparring

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Missing a rival, I will discuss some previous issues ...

Mar 26, 2007 10:31:52 GMT -5 Dante said:

13 Shocking Secrets you’ll wish you never knew about Lemony Snicket

A short booklet looking at the books in turn and providing “secrets” about Lemony Snicket.

Not written from the perspective of Lemony Snicket, and with no indication that Handler himself had a hand in writing it. All information about future books could be gleaned from having read TBL or The End, which is likely where the information came from, since the latter and therefore probably the former had been finished by the time the booklet was released. All new connections about past books (hints that the taxi-driver in TRR was somebody that readers would recognise, and that Madame Lulu’s crystal ball was one that Lemony had alluded to himself breaking in a previous book) are those that could be made by fans, and indeed had.

The “Suspicious Characters” chart makers numerous nonsensical and seemingly-mistaken connections between characters – for example, several connections between the Quagmires and the teachers would make much more sense if swapped around, and although the chart marks one, the books themselves never indicate a link between Hal and Captain Widdershins. Studies have shown that there is little or no consistency in what a particular line style indicates.

Overall, since it was apparently not written by Daniel Handler and since it makes several mistakes and ultimately, makes no non-fanon contributions to the canon, I see no reason why this should be counted as canonical.

I see reasons why the 13 secrets are canonical. Perhaps not the booklet as a whole, but each of the secrets is important to confirm facts that could be questioned due to the unreliable nature of the narrator. As Dante said, these secrets were not written by Lemony Snicket, but about Lemony Snicket. It was written by someone in our universe about Lemony's universe. I don't know if it was Daniel Handler who wrote these secrets, but apparently there was at least his approval.

More than that ... This leaflet is an important part for the "Asoue effect" to exist. Note the introduction:

"There are certain individuals who think they know what Lemony Snicket's books are about."

This phrase alone captivated me, and it is truly responsible for making me the asoue theorist that I am today. This phrase suggests that there are secrets not evident in the work of Lemony Snicket. An even darker truth than the obvious truth. Who is this hidden truth about? About the Baudelaires? No. The introduction answers:

"They are under the impression they understand who he is. They believe they know what to expect. In fact, the truth is far worse than such people ever imagined."

The non-obvious truth is about Lemony Snicket himself. In other words, Lemony's life is somewhat portrayed in ASOUE, and not just the life of the Baudelaires. And this story behind the story was what captivated me, and this booklet was what pushed me on this path.

After that to a sentence: "How to Conduct Your Investigation"

In other words, this is official material encouraging the creation of theories.

The booklet continues:

"This important booklet contains twelve shocking secrets about Lemony Snicket - secrets that make up the keychain that holds the key that unlocks the door that hides the mystery."

So ... According to the booklet, each of the secrets is important to solve a mystery. I can say that secrets can and should be seen as absolute truths, unlike the content narrated by Lemony Snicket, which may have its validity questioned (not that the question is true or not).

Jun 9, 2020 5:54:20 GMT -5 Dante said:

It's definitely a classic Jean Lucio theory; instead of either accepting or resolving contradictions, duplicate events such that both interpretations can be correct. It's certainly an interesting approach, perhaps even elegant; that both the version of events documented in The Little Snicket Lad and Lemony's memories are correct because they refer to different events - but a request for clarification must be made: Are you also suggesting that Jacques and Kit were taken twice, simultaneously with Lemony? And, this being the case - why did Jacques and Kit never explain to Lemony that this recruitment ceremony had been performed on him twice, as on themselves?

As you yourself argue, Jacques and Kit were older and thus would remember better - though I should correct you on one point: Jacques does not disagree with Lemony on whether he was permitted to finish his tea, Snicket merely says "My brother insists that he was allowed to finish his tea before departure but this has been disputed over the years." (U.A. p. 18) In actual fact it seems the dispute may even have been with his (according to your theory, adoptive) mother, given the statement that she "returned home that fateful day and found waiting for her not three young children but one worried husband and two half-full cups of tea" (U.A., p. 15) (unless those were Lemony and Kit's cups, and Jacques not only finished his but washed and dried his cup?). Whatever the case, bearing in mind that the discrepancies between accounts have, therefore, been discussed, why can Jacques not cite the two kidnappings to resolve this dispute? Does he also not remember his original kidnapping? If this is the case, the factor of Snicket's siblings being older seems irrelevant because he would not remember the contradictory information either - unless it were brought up to him first by people who were present at the original kidnapping but don't know about the second! However, you suggest that the three siblings were tattooed after their first kidnapping; but if this were the case, surely Lemony, and particularly his elder siblings, would remember bearing the tattoo already and be able to subsequently deduce that he had already been placed in the power of the organisation even before the second (which he remembers as his first) kidnapping?

I will also suggest that to kidnap three children, tattoo them and place them with volunteer foster parents (for early training?), and then kidnap them again seems entirely redundant. Further, page 30 establishes the possibility that false photographs can be manufactured by an advanced computer, undermining the significance of the photograph. There is also disagreement about who is responsible for the annotations to the U.A., so the idea that the added details to this chapter were Lemony's own inclusion seems too tenuous to constitute evidence. Snicket's overt additions to the file are generally far less cryptic, and often typed or signed.

In this speech, I considered myself defeated. I basically argued that Lemony was kidnapped twice, and presented evidence that turned out to be weak. But now, I take the opportunity to present additional evidence. In fact, I say, "Forget everything I said and just focus on what I'm going to say now": The shocking 13 secrets booklet indicates that Lemony was kidnapped when he was a baby.

SHOCKING SECRET #7:

WHEN HE WAS A BABY, LEMONY SNICKET WAS KIDNAPPED BY A SECRET ORGANIZATION

While in LSTUA, Lemony (talking about his own memories) states that he was not kidnapped when he was a baby, but when he was a small child.

We have a contradiction here. An interesting contradiction: Many claim that LSTUA's inconsistencies are a reason for not considering the history assembled based on the documents found in it to be really canonical. On the other hand, this story (full of lack of merit on the part of many) is in contradiction with something that has even less credit in the opinion of most readers. So, what should you believe? What I propose is an opinion against the majority, and from my point of view something that seems to make more sense: 13 secrets should be seen as absolute truth, simply because they are not written from the point of view of a character, but rather of a third-person narrator. While the characters in ASOUE and LSTUA may be wrong or mistaken, this is not the case with third-person narrators. (At least not often). It is significant that LSTUA had already been published with the booklet being published. It is significant that Lemony explicitly states in LSTUA that he was not kidnapped as a baby. Dante accuses the writer of these secrets of having relied on previous information (and information on TE and TBL) to formulate these secrets. But in this case, this "writer" would have intentionally chosen to contradict something that was already seen as true by most readers of LSTUA: that Lemony was not kidnapped when he was a baby. This contradiction does not help at all, if it is thought of as someone trying to defraud ASOUE. On the other hand, when viewed as an intentional detail, this contradiction makes LSTUA more interesting. Of course ... This may have been just a mistake, when the writer chose the word "baby" to compose this secret. (A mistake that proves that Daniel Handler wrote these secrets, as he is prone to mistakes, not his fans). This is a question that has no way of discovering the truth, and seriously ... The truth is not that important. The ASOUE effect is more important, and in the name of this effect, adding this booklet to the big puzzle that ASOUE is something that only improves that effect.

I can say something more about this booklet. If his introduction is already a tip that encourages you to be a theorist, his conclusion is something that makes you wonder how Daniel Handler's creative imagination seems to be guided by a supernatural entity:

"Like an off-key violin concert, the Roman Empire, or food poisoning, all things must come to an end".

Now tell me: Where did Daniel Handler, at that time, get the idea to refer to poisoned food and relate it to the end? Did he ever imagine writing Poison for Breakfast? No ... At least not consciously. But the fact is, he did. And taking this booklet out of what we consider canonical is a mistake, as it will prevent readers who are more attentive from making these very interesting connections.

I'm not sure that Lemony will die even in PFB. But if he dies, everything will be connected through this phrase found in this booklet. And this is beautiful.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Mar 26, 2007 10:35:27 GMT -5 Dante said:

"BEATRICE SANK" is the only anagram that can be considered fully canonical. "A BRAE SNICKET" doesn't mean anything, and I'd be tempted to view it as a red herring, and while one other anagram I've heard, "BEAR A SNICKET" (a reference to Kit's daughter) is in some ways tempting, I'm not entirely sure if two anagrams were intended. I also don't think the letters LS should be included in an attempt to make an anagram - young Beatrice may include them in her collection of letters, but I think that was for the purpose of more puns, and the letters are missing, rather than present, from Lemony's letter to the editor (their being punched out on the preceding page is just a neat little visual, I think). In any case, the suggestion I've seen for that, SNICKET BRAE-LASS, has an extra S and wouldn't work.

~~~

I don't regard any material in TBL except for the pure text itself as canonical (and even then, I don't include the typos, except for the intended "Deaf" one, as I think TBL was probably put together by the same people who made up the Shocking Secrets document, which also misspelt "Denouement" and included the nonsensical character chart - and there have been Sebald Code mistakes in the U.A. and TPP as well), as the idea to make it into a more realistic set of documents was apparently entirely HC's idea. I have the same concerns about the poster - while one side obviously pertains to the anagram (and, I feel, defeats the purpose by making it too obvious, although I also feel the punch-out letters were superfluous and made it too obvious), I think the two sides pertain to the two writers rather than two solutions. Beatrice is obviously associated with the ship that sank that she was on when she sank, and Lemony is associated with the cave because he's the brae-man (although not in the play, but in the reality the play was based on). So I'd be very unsure about there being a second anagram, especially one that doesn't pass on a coherent message. I should note that the Egmont edition of TBL says "Contains a clue to Book the Thirteenth." "A" clue. I accept, though, that Egmont is an indirect publisher of aSoUE and so not as reliable.

In addition, I don't think that the placement of the punch-out letters on their plates of poster artwork has any meaning - they just took interesting parts of the poster that made a good iconic image, so that one slowly builds up a sinister picture. I highly doubt Handler had much to do with the punch-out letters but merely intended the letters to be hidden in the letters themselves, and I highly doubt he had much to do with creating the poster (he’s explained he has little choice in the illustrations of the books, and even the clues in the last pictures could have been drawn from the Editor letters up to THH, although there could well have been some interaction there), and, by extension, I don't believe he'd have had much to do with where on the poster the letters are placed. And if nobody's come up with a meaningful explanation of what the letters mean when placed on the poster, that probably means there isn't one. In many ways, aSoUE is quite simple - there's a reason why the Sebald Code is always circled. (You may argue Beatrice's letter from the braes has unmarked Sebald Code, but then there is no message – I think that was to show that there was more said there for her to hear, but she obviously couldn't have learnt the Sebald Code at the time.)

~~~

I don't believe the second calling card, from the younger Beatrice, was compatible or directly followed on, in tone, style, or situation, with her previous letter to Lemony. That letter had an air of finality about it quite different to the almost casual tone of the calling card, which could easily be about something else or to someone else. The calling card shares much in common with the calling card Lemony sent Beatrice when they were children (note the flipped colour scheme from red on white to white on red - they're parallels, like much else in The End and in TBL). Combined with the fact that young Beatrice shares several qualities with Lemony himself, and the fact that many individuals have the same initials, and (to a lesser extent) the fact that we were promised an “unhappily ever after” ending... I think young Beatrice has developed a habit of drinking root beer floats at the café, and, while there, found herself quite impressed with another young lad of about the same age as her, and that maybe they'll start to spend a lot of time together, and that this will lead to an unfortunate event where she'll never be happy again. She's the Lemony Snicket figure of the future, the same names recurring again and again through time. The cycle of misfortune goes on, forever.

I don't know exactly what to say about that, unless I agree in part. But I will explain what I disagree with: I think there are two anagrams, and the fact that one of the anagrams is almost meaningless is that anagrams are like that. One of the themes of TBL is that Letters can be organized in more than one way, and as Betrice Jr says, she doesn't know exactly what it would mean if she organized it in one way or another. This is true for both alphabetic letters and letters with messages. You can argue that the obvious and most evident meaning is like the solution of anagrams that have more than one meaning: there is usually one overused word or phrase, and another (or others) of very infrequent use and of almost unknown meaning.

To remove that from TBL is to remove one of the coolest things in this book. I can say that the mystery of Beatrice Sr whether or not she survived the fire at her house, is subtly addressed in TBL. The survival or not of the three Baudelaires is also covered here. The obscure meaning of My Silence Knot is also covered here. It is up to the reader to decide what he prefers to believe, and it is up to the theorist to identify all possible interpretations of TBL, both as an isolated work and as a work in a set of works. I'm not sure if all the interpretations were on purpose, but it doesn't matter. It's like the letter E, in Lemony's first letter to Beatrice. That is a letter, and that is a map. Is the West on the right side or the wrong side? What are streets, what are walls, what is the path? The reader needs to decide. I believe the West is in the wrong place, and that is justified by Lemony having a terrible sense of direction. But that is just my point of view.