|
|
Post by PJ on Apr 12, 2005 5:33:19 GMT -5
As I said, if the message doesn't refer to the Baudelaire fire, then it doesn't make sense. It would be utterly pointless to communicate to Monty that they had a survivor of a random unspecified fire and then told him to bring the Baudelaires along. True, but perhaps he was needed for something, and was told to bring the kids, so as to introduce them to VFD, as well as to get them away from Olaf. Like I said, it's pretty unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by RockSunner on Apr 12, 2005 9:19:29 GMT -5
As I said, if the message doesn't refer to the Baudelaire fire, then it doesn't make sense. It would be utterly pointless to communicate to Monty that they had a survivor of a random unspecified fire and then told him to bring the Baudelaires along. It would make sense to bring them together with Quigley. They are about the same age and could be trained together, etc. What would be really pointless is if a Baudelaire parent is still alive to hide them in a snowman, communicate to Monty only by one cryptic message, and then when he missed it continue to let the Baudelaires be shuffled from guardian to guardian. It would not only be pointless but cruel not to let the children know a parent was alive. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 12, 2005 9:28:17 GMT -5
What would be really pointless is if a Baudelaire parent is still alive to hide them in a snowman, communicate to Monty only by one cryptic message, and then when he missed it continue to let the Baudelaires be shuffled from guardian to guardian. It would not only be pointless but cruel not to let the children know a parent was alive. No enemies are going to think of looking in a snowman; Monty had no Volunteer Factual Dispatch receiver; same problem with communication applies to Josephine, who doesn't seem to be active any more anyway; Sir, Nero, Esmé wouldn't have told the children anything even if they did know it (the first two would have no reason to be told, and Esmé didn't sound like she did in THH). If Monty didn't receive the message, and Gustav was dead, in less than a day Monty's died too, and then the children are already at Josephine's, and here's the stage where volunteers are trying to spread the word whilst also keeping such information out of the hands of their enemies, and the survivor had to be kept safe because the arsonist would want their destruction; after, say, TMM, V.F.D. realises that Olaf isn't going to give up, so they start following the Baudelaires around but they keep on being moved to different guardians; then things get even more complicated because the Baudelaires have to go on the run, and by this time even the volunteers aren't sure of where they are; in THH, the Baudelaires find out there is a survivor. In short: The one "cryptic message" to Monty was the only means of communication with an active volunteer, and after that there was simply no suitable or safe opportunity. Edit: Plus suspension of disbelief, taking into account the need for a good plot to develop, etc. Practicalities have little place in aSoUE. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Apr 12, 2005 18:01:20 GMT -5
Good point. So you're saying a parent could've been trying to get in touch with them throughout the whole series but was unable to?
|
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Apr 12, 2005 18:38:54 GMT -5
Good point. So you're saying a parent could've been trying to get in touch with them throughout the whole series but was unable to? What about Hector? Wasn't he active? Or maybe he simply didn't have enough time to tell them. He probably planned to tell em in the sshamh. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 13, 2005 8:19:49 GMT -5
Yes, Hector does raise flaws in my theory, but otherwise, it's watertight. Good point. So you're saying a parent could've been trying to get in touch with them throughout the whole series but was unable to? The Baudelaires made such a hypothesis themselves, in THH or TCC - and I believe them, just as I believed them when they theorised that all their guardians were in V.F.D., on one side or the other of the schism. |
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Apr 13, 2005 16:12:16 GMT -5
Yes, Hector does raise flaws in my theory, but otherwise, it's watertight. Indeed? So how come Quigley and the entire crew of the Queequeg didn't care to mention it? Of course, it's possible they didn't know what with the dying of the Volunteer Factual Dispatches, but still. And Jacques might have shouted "Your mother is alive!" Or something like that. It's a good theory, but it has some flaws. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Apr 13, 2005 17:51:53 GMT -5
Jacques may have tried:
"Baudelaires, I'm so glad to see you alive, your parents-"
*is cut off by esme covering his mouth.
Esme obviously wanted to prevent him from telling the news, so she probably knew something about it. The peculiar part about that though:
If Esme DID know, she obviously didn't tell Olaf because he didn't know anything about a parent being alive till tcc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Little Snicket Lad on Apr 13, 2005 18:00:51 GMT -5
My view:
The file doesn't mention WHICH fire is described. The snicket fire? Could be Lemony, Jacques or Kit. But doesn't Lemony say FIRES? It is probably simply Quigley.
Fire is one, fires is more.
If Quigley's really the survivor,
Then he was saved by the trapdoor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Apr 13, 2005 18:16:53 GMT -5
I doubt it's referring to the Quagmires, it's called the snicket file and it was filed under baudelaire. It COULD be the snicket fire(s) because that's what Hal said it was about, but I think the snicket fire occurred too long ago for the survivor to still not be known.... Everyone seems to think(the characters I mean) that it refers to the baudelaire fire so I'm sticking with that...
|
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Apr 13, 2005 18:18:24 GMT -5
Jacques may have tried: "Baudelaires, I'm so glad to see you alive, your parents-" *is cut off by esme covering his mouth. Esme obviously wanted to prevent him from telling the news, so she probably knew something about it. The peculiar part about that though: If Esme DID know, she obviously didn't tell Olaf because he didn't know anything about a parent being alive till tcc. I suppose so, Esmé could just be trying to stop him from telling them anythign at all. I always thought he was saying something like "Your parents are friends of mine, or your parents and I are volunteers for VFD or something like that. My view: The file doesn't mention WHICH fire is described. The snicket fire? Could be Lemony, Jacques or Kit. But doesn't Lemony say FIRES? It is probably simply Quigley. Fire is one, fires is more. If Quigley's really the survivor, Then he was saved by the trapdoor. If you read my theory thread in Conflicting Conjectures, you will find my opinion. But i'll tell you anyways. The file is found under Baudelaire, which basically reinforces the Mrs. Baudelaire theory. AND it also says "a survivor" not more, and since Isadora and Duncan ALSO survived the fire, it should be more than one. If they had been talking about Quigley, they would have said "Another survivor." This leads me to believe it is Mrs. Baudelaire, or some random we haven't yet met. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Apr 13, 2005 18:58:23 GMT -5
Yes. I'm still wondering how Duncan and Isadora survived but nevermind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 14, 2005 9:49:28 GMT -5
Hal said the file was on the "Snicket fires." I believe that they were so called because they were thought to have been started by a Snicket (if you recall, Lemony has been accused of arson - I forget the exact circumstances, but it's pretty major).
|
|
|
|
Post by lauren on Apr 15, 2005 22:18:43 GMT -5
sorry i also wrote a theory in sadistic series it's almost the same one but instead of lemony being the arsonist its esme'...i wrote it cos i couldn't find where i put this post and now i've found it cos someone pointed out there was a theory posted just like mine here...so yeah...cough cough...i'l copy and paste my new theory which is almost the same but has esme instead....I think that neither the Baudelaire mother nor father is the survivor of the fire…why because lemony never says in any of the books that the survivor of the fire was a parent. We just contentedly jump to the conclusion that it must be their parents without considering who else may have been in the house at the time. In the bad beginning it tells us that the Baudelaires were at Briny beach because the parents were having visitors over! And in TBB rare edition it hints that the visitor was rude and enjoyed drinking wine without a coaster…the most obvious person who fits this character is Count Olaf! That’s right Count Olaf is the survivor of the fire… Esme planned to kill the Baudelaire parents because Beatrice (whom I’m taking a risk to assume is their mother) fell in love with Lemony who Esme was going out with…lol a bit abstract but it could work. To get back at Lemony she decided to date Olaf and use Olaf in her scheme to get rid of Beatrice. So Olaf was keeping them in the house while Esme burned it down and then Olaf escaped via underground tunnel leading to 667 dark avenue. Then to have another stab at Lemony (her ex-boyfriend) she accused lemony of killing Beatrice and her husband. This is what Esme meant when she said “But I want to steal from you, like Beatrice stole from me” because Beatrice stole Lemony from her. So what a tragic ending it will be when the Baudelaires find out that Olaf is the survivor of the fire and not their parents…That’s it sorry it’s a bit complicated just to set my twisted love triangle straight…Lemony was going out with Esme but fell in love with Beatrice instead who was married to Mr Baudelaire, Esme then ended up going out with Olaf out of revenge/ love…I don’t know
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Apr 21, 2005 7:44:02 GMT -5
I don't believe the whole 'esme was dating Lemony' theory because Lemony would never date her. And I don't like Olaf being the survivor of the fire either because the snickets wouldn't bother to put that information in a file, all vfders would know that he was still alive.
|
|
