My theory~survivor of the fire!!!

[lilmermaid987]

Well it's all very well and good to say "dead men never rise up"....But that whole idea is shot with the idea of the "dead" Quigley.

[Jacques the Environmentalist]

ffwf said:

I'm distinctly suspicious of that clue myself - part of the reason why I won't speculate which parent survived, if one of them did.

And Jacques, the BBRE notes referred to both the Fickle Fountain and the Fountain of Victorious Finance. The note to one of them said "See note to page X," and page X (I can't remember which number) was the note about the other fountain, and that said about people being hidden in fountains, and such.

Yes I knew that I just couldn't remember which you were ultimately referred to.
And no the Quigley incident doesn't shoot down that clue, Lemony himself NEVER said Quigley was dead for sure, he just had the Quagmires say it and the bauds think about it. With Jacques and Mr. Baudelaire he specifically said that they would not rise up again, besides Quigely would be classified as a boy, not a man.

[lilmermaid987]

Well I figured "men" would be categorizing dead people in general.

[Jacques the Environmentalist]

Lemony was obviously applying it to only men by his examples and comments in tss though.

[lilmermaid987]

This is true. I hadn't remembered the quote and so I was wondering why so many people favored the Baudelaire mom over the Baudelaire dad as the survivor of the fire.

I'm guessing Quigley was just a red herring, but I think it would be a little too fortunate that their mother survived. I can't imagine Handler, who wanted to make a terrible sad children's book, writing in a mushy mummy/Baudelaire scene....

[Dante]

He did Klaus's birthday in prison, though, which was probably in much the same vein. (Although I think I'd prefer it if neither parent survived.)

[Eye Of The Count]

Maybe they will celebrate Sunny's birthday in a shoe!

[Antenora]

I can imagine them celebrating Sunny's birthday in the VFD meeting room, possibly after everyone else has fled.

[Dante]

Wouldn't that mean specifying her age, though (something which Handler has deliberately avoided)?

[Antenora]

Hmm, I've always assumed that Sunny was one year old, going on 2 by now, but you're right. Handler just says she's an infant, and avoids specifying her age.

Maybe we'll have some other significant Sunny-event, something tantamount to her walking in TVV or saying "I'm not a baby" in TSS. Not sure what that would be, though. Cooking a full-course meal?

[Dante]

I knew there was a thread on this, but I couldn't remember where it was earlier. Now I've got it.

Further comments on Sunny, her age, development, etc. belong in All Things Sunny.

[lilmermaid987]

He did Klaus's birthday in prison, though, which was probably in much the same vein.

^Celebrating a child's birthday while they are trapped in jail is mushy?

But I agree, I would be perfectly content without the mother coming back.

[s]

On page 27 of TMM:
"...they thought of their parents, their poor parents whom they missed so much and whom they would never see again." (emphasis mine).

So, even if there is a survivor of the Baudelaire fire, and that survivor is one of the Baud parents, the Bauds are never going to see him/her again. Right?

Oh and Dante, could you please give your simple explanation disproving this? (Oh, and I'm terribly sorry about posting this elsewhere. I swear I looked here, and found no thread...oh well.)

[Dante]

I said that it was a simple argument against it. I'm not so arrogant as to presume that it will disprove it. Indeed, if I could disprove such a theory, that would be quite impressive. I shouldn't think that any theory can be disproved by anything except a new book.

You could argue that Snicket is describing things from the perspective of the Baudelaires, and that it's just what they think - not necessarily what is true.

(With that said, I don't particularly believe that one of their parents survived, although it's not something I feel strongly about.)

You could also argue that any clue from the first four books is invalid, as Handler only came up with the greater plot and V.F.D. after the fourth book, when it became clear that the series was selling well, and that he would indeed be able to write his thirteen-book series (his original contract was just for four books).

I rather take those two in conjunction, which allows me to ignore that evidence (although as I said, it doesn't matter too much). It's rather hypocritical of me, as I hold some things from the first four books to be examples of Handler stating things so clearly that he can never go back on them. But I guess it's only hypocritical if I'm wrong.

[s]

Ah. I see...yes, I see what you're saying. Hmm...