|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 18, 2023 16:56:42 GMT -5
Chapter 5: Something that occurs in Chapter 5 is that Lemony Snicket appears to have knowledge of specific happenings in the Baudelaire children's lives prior to the Baudelaire mansion fire. Those advocating that Lemony is a stalker of the children, thus having access to information, would need to believe that this stalking occurred throughout the children's lives. I find it more likely that Lemony is a researcher, as he claims to be. In this case, the information about previous happenings could easily also come from the Island Book.
The breakfast scene also depicts a private conversation between the three Baudelaires. It's easy to notice that this kind of scenario only takes place when it relates to the Baudelaires, making it clear that Lemony only has access to their private thoughts and conversations. Those who argue that Lemony can almost magically deduce in detail what happened through his visits to the locations of the main events described in ASOUE, fail to explain why this "magical superpower" does not apply to other characters. For instance, during the breakfast described in Chapter 5, why doesn't Lemony describe in detail what was actually happening in the Reptile Room? That's because Lemony doesn't know in detail, as none of the Baudelaires witnessed what was happening there at that very moment. Lemony doesn't possess superpowers; he merely has access to privileged information originating from the Baudelaires themselves. Indeed, in this breakfast excerpt, Lemony even knows what the Baudelaires are reminiscing about without any words being spoken.
Regarding Uncle Monty's intentions and history with Ink: everything is trickier to explain via retcon here. I think we can safely say, due to LSTUA, that Uncle Monty was chosen to belong to VFD in the retcon made by Daniel Handler. Furthermore, via retcon, the Incredibly Deadly Viper is one of the animals trained by VFD. So, I think the most coherent explanation would be that Uncle Monty created a character and helped Ink hide her past involvement with VFD. If this is the case, all the interest that Uncle Monty shows in the Herpetological Society is theatrical exaggeration. He is, of course, a VFD herpetologist. The reptiles and amphibians are, for the most part, VFD trained animals. Interestingly, this behaviour seems to indicate that Monty was trying to erase traces related to VFD. Understanding what had happened about 14 years prior, the matters related to the MM fungus, it is expected that VFD was undergoing a slow recovery after a great damage.
Still, Olaf was not unknown to Uncle Monty. He should have seen who Olaf was behind his disguise just as the children easily recognised him.
I would like then, to endorse the Mass Hypnosis Hypothesis. The number of adults who didn't recognise Olaf behind his relatively simple disguises that used VFD disguise kits (and VFD members still didn't recognise them), could be explained by the fact that VFD-trained ophthalmologists were inducing people to believe in specific disguises. This hypothesis can explain two important points: firstly, the reason Bertrand did not trust ophthalmologists. And secondly, the reason why a sugar bowl was part of VFD's disguise kit as an optional item. Obviously, one cannot use a sugar bowl as a means of disguise. But it would be possible to use a sugar bowl as a mechanism to break someone's hypnosis, provided that the sugar bowl (or words related to sugar) could be used as means to interrupt the hypnotic state. Therefore, it is an optional item, as it would be an option to have a tool capable of "removing" the disguise, so to speak, should that become necessary in some situation.
--- Does Klaus really think that if anything happens to any of them, Olaf's plan would already be thwarted? Two of them could die, and the inheritance could still be stolen by Count Olaf. In this regard, the advantage has always been with Olaf. The lives of two of them are disposable in the villain's plan. In fact, in TCC, Olaf tried to kill two of them at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 18, 2023 18:21:10 GMT -5
Chapter 6
Chapter 6: Regarding the film "Zombies in the Snow" and the alleged secret message addressed to Uncle Monty according to LSTUA: as I have mentioned a few times, there are plenty of clues to suggest that the film watched is simply a rerun. The fire survivor to whom the secret message refers is not a recent survivor at the time of the Baudelaire children, but rather some survivor of a much earlier fire, back when Count Olaf himself was still a teenager and acting in films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiran O'Saurus on May 18, 2023 20:40:15 GMT -5
Still, Olaf was not unknown to Uncle Monty. He should have seen who Olaf was behind his disguise just as the children easily recognised him.
I would like then, to endorse the Mass Hypnosis Hypothesis. The number of adults who didn't recognise Olaf behind his relatively simple disguises that used VFD disguise kits (and VFD members still didn't recognise them), could be explained by the fact that VFD-trained ophthalmologists were inducing people to believe in specific disguises. This hypothesis can explain two important points: firstly, the reason Bertrand did not trust ophthalmologists. And secondly, the reason why a sugar bowl was part of VFD's disguise kit as an optional item. Obviously, one cannot use a sugar bowl as a means of disguise. But it would be possible to use a sugar bowl as a mechanism to break someone's hypnosis, provided that the sugar bowl (or words related to sugar) could be used as means to interrupt the hypnotic state. Therefore, it is an optional item, as it would be an option to have a tool capable of "removing" the disguise, so to speak, should that become necessary in some situation.
I have a lot of questions about this theory. One: how did Klaus get glasses, if every optometrist was a hypnotist? Two: VFD isn't massive. They surely don't have enough agents to replace every optometrist and still do everything else. Three: the most ridiculous disguise in ASOUE, Klaus and Sunny as doctors during THH, uses clothes they find in the hospital. Clearly this isn't disguise kit limited. Four: how do you use a sugar bowl to unhypnotize someone? Five: Olivia Caliban sees through the Baudelaires' disguises in TCC. You could argue she's not hypnotized because she's in VFD, but so was Monty! Why would they hypnotize their own members? |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 18, 2023 22:45:07 GMT -5
Bertrand and Beatrice had a trusted ophthalmologist, who despite being a hypnotist, agreed not to hypnotize Klaus.
Despite not being a large organization, VFD is an old organization. The science related to ophthalmology itself may have been created with the help of VFD. Furthermore, as indicated by FILE UNDER 13, the number of ophthalmologists available is small. It is not necessary that all ophthalmologists are literally members of the VFD. It only needs that all ophthalmology instructors have been taught by VFD or have textbooks produced by VFD. They would naturally learn that hypnotizing clients is part of the job.
According to LSTUA, coat (medical) is part of the disguise kit. Evidently hypnosis is not limited to the fabrics used, but the fact that someone is disguised in that type of disguise makes the hypnotized person totally susceptible to seeing that type of disguise as much better than it really is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 18, 2023 22:53:01 GMT -5
Four: how do you use a sugar bowl to unhypnotize someone?
If I want someone to come out of the hypnotic effect, I just need to ask the person: "what's in here?" or "what object is this?" and depending on which is the word that takes the person out of hypnosis (according to the basic training of all ophthalmologists) this can be done. This could explain why Olaf got so irritated at the mere mention of the word in TPP, or even why one of the D. brothers offered Klaus tea.
(This differs from how Klaus comes out of his hypnosis, it's true. That's why it's a hypothesis, not a theory. On that part, there is no strong positive evidence. Anyway, what happened with Klaus indicates that ophthalmologists are taught to devise a method of bringing people out of a hypnotic trance. doctor O. followed protocol even though it was unnecessary for his plan to have that word. In a way she created a self-destruct button in her plan, similar to Phineas and Ferb's Doctor Heinz duff Smith)
Five: Olivia Caliban sees through the Baudelaires' disguises in TCC. You could argue she's not hypnotized because she's in VFD, but so was Monty! Why would they hypnotize their own members?
As I said, VFD is very old. Throughout history, this practice may have been promoted by VFD, and because it became widespread in ophthalmology teaching centers, it is no longer possible to prevent it from self-propagating. Basically, all ophthalmologists received the same training.
And if I'm not mistaken, Olivia Taliban was fooled by the Baudelaire's disguises. They needed to tell her who they really were. This indicates that Olivia was indeed hypnotized: even though she received training in VFD, even though she knew what the parts of the Disguise Kit were, she was still unable to identify the Baudelaires without them having removed their own disguises.
|
|
|
|
Post by FileneNGottlin on May 19, 2023 19:19:18 GMT -5
As I see it, the easiest way to justify the oddly high efficacy of disguises is that VFD members, past and present, often spot the disguises themselves. They just cannot tell who is under the disguises.
Monty didn't recognize Olaf, but the fact that Stephano was wearing a disguise confirmed Monty's belief that he was a herpetological spy. The Baudelaires can fool Olaf's associates with doctor's uniforms, because the associates mistake them for two different people, who they thought would be wearing disguises. The Baudelaires themselves notice odd things about the doctor in TRR, the doorman in TEE, Officer Luciana in TVV, and even Quigley in TSS(technically they have never met Quigley, but he would presumably look and sound like Duncan)-- but they do not put together who these people are. (You could expand this to include TPP-- all the people they meet on their concierge errands think they might be in disguise, but can't figure out who it is.)
Obviously, it's a somewhat far-fetched plot necessity that no one's disguises are ever discovered until the most useful dramatic moment, but this seems the easiest way of justifying it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 25, 2023 11:21:40 GMT -5
In Chapter 9, why did Doctor Lucafont disagree with Stephano's idea of letting the children ride in his car with Count Olaf? He said that the city laws only allow the owner to drive the car. That doesn't make sense within the story. Firstly, Doctor Lucafont is Fernald, Olaf's henchperson. He should be trying to help Olaf keep the children. Secondly, Olaf was driving Uncle Monty's jeep to the port, and Uncle Monty's car didn't belong to Olaf, even though Uncle Monty was already dead. And finally, I know I can't rely on Mr. Poe's intelligence, but I think even he would consider calling a taxi.
Well, in real life, I would say that's a plot hole on Daniel Handler's part.
But, looking for a justification within the story (and Dante must be rolling in his grave right now), it's possible to admit that Violet got confused about what she heard or who was speaking. In the scene, Violet was listening from behind a door, and her emotional state wasn't the best. So, that's possible. If Violet got confused, she repeated what she believed she heard in the island book. Lemony, then, using the island book as a source for his research, replicated that error in TRR.
----
Chapter 10 - Those who believe that Lemony would be capable of lying about important matters in ASOUE are credited with Lemony's explicit declaration in Chapter 10 that lying would be good and necessary. I myself based a good portion of the first theories I posted here on this sentence. However, Lemony being capable of intentionally lying doesn't prove that he actually lied intentionally in ASOUE. Currently, I believe there is evidence that Lemony was mistaken or deceived about non-essential points in the 13 main books, but that he was deceived about important aspects throughout his life, as indicated in LSTUA, which affected the story behind the story of ASOUE.
---
Chapter 11 - Lemony, while writing this chapter in TRR, is on a friend's yacht. Obviously, while writing TRR, he wasn't yet a wanted criminal. But this shows why his friends stopped associating with him in the future: he revealed their names to the general public, making them targets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiran O'Saurus on May 25, 2023 14:18:30 GMT -5
Mr. Poe is an expert in laws and bureaucracy. If the laws actually said that, Fernald might be trying to preempt Poe's objection while appearing trustworthy.
I say this because Snicket clearly does fact-checking research, even with the island book as his original source. I doubt he would reproduce an error.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 25, 2023 15:05:46 GMT -5
Mr. Poe is an expert in laws and bureaucracy. If the laws actually said that, Fernald might be trying to preempt Poe's objection while appearing trustworthy. I say this because Snicket clearly does fact-checking research, even with the island book as his original source. I doubt he would reproduce an error. This actually makes a lot of sense. And with regard to Uncle Monty's car, it could be said that Mr. Poe perhaps believed that the car belonged to Stefano. But if that's so, a solution to delay and prevent the transport of children with Olaf by Violet saying: "Uncle Monty's jeep, and local laws only allow drivers to own the car." It would be a cool solution to a problem, and this would be a lot like the book 1 solution, true. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 25, 2023 15:26:19 GMT -5
Chapter 13 - So here we are at last, at the enigma of Gustav. Could this be Uncle Monty's assistant, Gustav Sebald, in the retcon or not?
The massive pickle is that in LSTUA, Lemony receives the script for Zombies in the Snow from Gustav Sebald, and at the moment of delivery, Lemony concludes that he might have been apprehended.
The option that they're not the same Gustav is always plausible, but from an author's standpoint, it seems quite improbable. Having two characters with the same name connected to the same circle... It feels off, something I doubt Daniel Handler would do.
Before he passed, Dante hinted at the possibility that Gustav survived Count Olaf's attack, even though Olaf was under the impression Gustav was dead, he was actually alive. I fancied that at the time because I relish unreliable narrators, and in this case, Olaf would be an unreliable narrator for having been mistaken. But still, I find it doubtful that Daniel Handler intended this storyline.
From my scrutiny of LSTUA, it appears that Daniel Handler did indeed construct a sort of chronology of events. So, having reread TRR with the insight of LSTUA, I'm questioning whether the timeline I've pieced together for these events is the one that's off the mark. I mean, what if it's just a single demise with only one Gustav, one male director named Doctor Sebald who is the same Gustav and also Uncle Monty's assistant? How would I reconcile that?
I believe I've already resolved part of the problem: the covert message addressed to Uncle Monty in the film Zombies in the Snow isn't linked to Violet, Klaus, and Sunny, nor Duncan, Isadora, and Quigley. The message pertains to some other survivor and some other assistant, and the subject matter was relevant many years before the main events described in ASOUE. The message remained in the film simply because once you embed a secret message in a movie, the same message can be detected in all screenings.
With that in mind, the other question is: why did Lemony procure the film script? Lemony provides the answer: he wanted to ascertain whether Uncle Monty had learned the Sebald code or not. The conclusion he came to was that he hadn't.
So, the question emerges: when did Lemony return the manuscript to Dr. Gustav Sebald? Following my premise, the answer has to be: shortly before Gustav Sebald was murdered by Count Olaf. What confounded me greatly was the fact that Lemony was already attempting to publish his books, but he hadn't yet succeeded, according to Lemony's letter to the cheesemakers (LSTUA Chapter 4). I envisioned Lemony during his many years of investigation. However, as indicated in LSTUA, even though Lemony only managed to publish his books many years after the main events described in ASOUE, he began writing his books during those main events. Lemony might have met with Sebald even before the Baudelaires arrived at Uncle Monty's house because Lemony's objective wasn't directly connected to Violet, Klaus, and Sunny. When Lemony returned the script, Olaf had already killed Gustav. Weeks or months later (or perhaps even years later), while Lemony was still penning his books but hadn't yet published them, he contacted Sally Sebald and sought more information related to the events during the production of the film Zombies in the Snow.
I believe this satisfyingly resolves the mystery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiran O'Saurus on May 25, 2023 20:06:02 GMT -5
Mr. Poe is an expert in laws and bureaucracy. If the laws actually said that, Fernald might be trying to preempt Poe's objection while appearing trustworthy. I say this because Snicket clearly does fact-checking research, even with the island book as his original source. I doubt he would reproduce an error. This actually makes a lot of sense. And with regard to Uncle Monty's car, it could be said that Mr. Poe perhaps believed that the car belonged to Stefano. But if that's so, a solution to delay and prevent the transport of children with Olaf by Violet saying: "Uncle Monty's jeep, and local laws only allow drivers to own the car." It would be a cool solution to a problem, and this would be a lot like the book 1 solution, true. I think the law is that cars used by doctors can only be driven by said doctors, because if it really was only that only the registered owner of a car could drive it than that would come up elsewhere in the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 25, 2023 20:19:46 GMT -5
This actually makes a lot of sense. And with regard to Uncle Monty's car, it could be said that Mr. Poe perhaps believed that the car belonged to Stefano. But if that's so, a solution to delay and prevent the transport of children with Olaf by Violet saying: "Uncle Monty's jeep, and local laws only allow drivers to own the car." It would be a cool solution to a problem, and this would be a lot like the book 1 solution, true. I think the law is that cars used by doctors can only be driven by said doctors, because if it really was only that only the registered owner of a car could drive it than that would come up elsewhere in the argument. I'm reading the Portuguese translation, so there's no mention of the fact that the law specifically says something about doctors driving their own cars, but owners driving their own cars. Perhaps the problem was the translation. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 25, 2023 20:22:56 GMT -5
This actually makes a lot of sense. And with regard to Uncle Monty's car, it could be said that Mr. Poe perhaps believed that the car belonged to Stefano. But if that's so, a solution to delay and prevent the transport of children with Olaf by Violet saying: "Uncle Monty's jeep, and local laws only allow drivers to own the car." It would be a cool solution to a problem, and this would be a lot like the book 1 solution, true. I think the law is that cars used by doctors can only be driven by said doctors, because if it really was only that only the registered owner of a car could drive it than that would come up elsewhere in the argument. But more important than all of that is your opinion of Sebald. What do you think of my conclusion? We've been discussing this on the forum for years, and we've never reached a consensus. In fact, the late Hermes and Dante often disagreed on this, and I disagreed with both of them, and Foxy disagreed with me. And I disagreed with myself at least three times because I change my mind according to the counterarguments, when they make sense. So your opinion on this interests me a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiran O'Saurus on May 26, 2023 5:42:32 GMT -5
I think that Uncle Algernon's theory that the survivor is referring to Olaf makes the most sense. It's truly out there and not at all author intended, but it doesn't rely on a ridiculous coincidence like "there are two Gustavs" or "the exact same thing happened years ago". In reality, Handler just made a plot hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on May 26, 2023 10:23:32 GMT -5
I think that Uncle Algernon's theory that the survivor is referring to Olaf makes the most sense. It's truly out there and not at all author intended, but it doesn't rely on a ridiculous coincidence like "there are two Gustavs" or "the exact same thing happened years ago". In reality, Handler just made a plot hole. Please send me the link or explain his theory better... Even though Olaf is the survivor, I understand that this is an old movie, no? I mean, even the possibility that "Omar" is one of the newer actors, isn't that evidence that the movie was shot at a time when Olaf was still a VFD actor? It is clear to me that Daniel Handler's intention in LSTUA is that Zombies in the Snow is an old movie and he left some hints about that. And then there's the clear reference in FU13 indicating that Daniel Handler was still thinking that way many years later at the time he wrote ATWQ. |
|
