Rereading backwards

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

I think the main question shouldn't be whether they actually survived or not. After all, they are fictional characters. But it should be: why did the fictional character Lemony Snicket decide to leave TE open when there was evidence, however inconclusive, that they survived? I will discuss this further in TBL.

[TheAsh]

Jul 22, 2021 11:41:51 GMT -5 Hermes said:

Well, we should bear in mind that there may be no definite answer,, because Handler's intentions changed during the writing of the series. It's likely that at first he wanted us to believe that the Baudelaires survived, but later decided to throw doubt on this.

But if we are to address this from a Watsonian point of view:

I'm doubtful about both of Dante's arguments. It isn't natural to say 'years' when you just mean two years (and in any case, if you want to be persnickety, I don't think the main action of ASOUE is likely to cover more than six months, so it would only be one and a half years). And while it's certainly left open whether Violet actually did meet the FFP on her third visit to Briny Beach, the way Lemony puts it seems to imply that there definitely was a third visit. There's also Sunny appearing on the radio to discuss her recipes, hard to explain if she did not survive.

I think we have to say simply that L had lots of evidence implying that they were alive, but he also had reports that they were dead. Since he did not himself see V's return to Briny Beach, or hear the broadcasts, he can't be sure these stories are true.

At least, as the Doctor points out, we can't simply assume they are dead because Beatrice sank, since young B certainly survived, and so the others might have done too. Some, I think, conclude that they were swallowed by the Great Unknown because of the image of the question mark in the water, but I would argue that that isn't the Great Unknown, the underwater being, but the great unknown, the uncertainty of life and death.

I for one don't really care what DH's original intention was. It matters more what he actually wrote. And I think the evidence is clear they survived. Lemony saying otherwise is just Lemony just being Lemony. Perhaps he didn't want others to search for them.

(A funny thing: I have a young child and have visited mommy forums. Their, DH has a whole different meaning Sometimes I get them confused with this forum, and the result can be quite comical.)

[Hermes]

But what he wrote reflects what he thought. If the author's mind changes, so do the implications of what is written. In some places he wrote stuff that implied they were alive, and in other places he wrote stuff that implied it was unknown.

[TheAsh]

Jul 22, 2021 13:19:28 GMT -5 Hermes said:

But what he wrote reflects what he thought. If the author's mind changes, so do the implications of what is written. In some places he wrote stuff that implied they were alive, and in other places he wrote stuff that implied it was unknown.

I look at it like many Biblical scholars look at the bible. They treat it as a unified literary whole, even if it was composed by different authors. (A good example of such a scholar is Robert Alter.) So too, I look at ASOUE as a unified whole - that is complete noncontradictory nonfiction work - and try to resolve any contradictions in-universe.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

I wouldn't say I actually see it that way, but my theories reflect that principle. The difference is that we can justify contradictions by misunderstanding or intentional lies by the characters, who are neither omniscient nor have such strong principles related to the truth. In fact, Lemony unapologetically claims that lying is sometimes good and necessary.

Many characters can think like him.