|
|
Post by Dante on Feb 14, 2006 7:11:41 GMT -5
There is the whole anagram of pietrisycamollaviadelrechiotemexity which contains in it "Violet dies, I cry, car tot axe" ... If I recall correctly, the full quotation was something like, "Violet dies, I cry help me, I may lie, car, tot, axe." I think it's probably a coincidence / red herring, as with really long expressions, you can find nearly anything in them. There's also a red herring argument because Handler had some other red herring anagrams in that same book. Plus the whole "I may lie" thing, I think I, or somebody, once did a rearrangement of it to fit the plot of TGG or something - Violet lies, I may die, something like that. There's an old thread on it here, which links to an even older thread here, for anyone who's interested. |
|
|
|
Post by twistedbrain on Feb 14, 2006 15:22:00 GMT -5
That's what I thought it meant, the TGG one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Feb 16, 2006 21:06:12 GMT -5
Ooh, I had never noticed how it coincided with tgg plot, thanks for that one.
But even if he was only planning four books I still don't think he should completely go against what he told us earlier and kill of a character he said was going to live for a few more years... Just because he decided to write four more books doesn't mean the beginning ones should be thrown out the window.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Feb 17, 2006 3:36:31 GMT -5
I agree. I mean, there are some signs of retroactive continuity in the books, and that's caused a fair few chronological inconsistencies that we've debated endlessly, but I agree that he shouldn't say, for example, "And they never saw him again, ever ever ever," and then next book it's all "Hi guys!" I'm fine with him bending what he's already written and working around it, but it's a bit of a barrier to speculation if he writes one thing and then completely contradicts it. (For example, the messing around with the timeline that occurred in TPP now means that I don't feel I can make any accurate speculation on the matter.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Feb 19, 2006 20:47:22 GMT -5
They messed around with the timeline in tpp? When was this?
And he seems to follow these sort of things, for example in tss he said the Baudelaires would never meet Ike. Some people insisted that Ike was in the submarine when we got chapter 1 of tgg. I said no, because of that very passage. I was right. (Now just because I said that watch Ike pop up in book 13)
I also believe a similar passage about Jacques and Mr. Baudelaire not rising up again and look, they haven't. So if you follow the pattern then you'll see it's highly unlikely for Violet/Klaus to be killed off unless there's that possible let's go a few years in the future for the last book which I don't think will happen though it'd be nice if they went to violet's 18th birthday to let us see what the story with the fortune is.
Anyway I've been rambling for too long and I'll stop now. *stops now*
|
|
|
|
Post by SnicketFires on Feb 19, 2006 21:57:19 GMT -5
They messed around with the timeline in tpp? When was this? Chapter two, when Kit reveals she and Jacques were only four years old when the schism happened, I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by I am the Assasin Chicken on May 27, 2006 14:18:10 GMT -5
*clears throat for awesome theory* i think that the bauds MIGHT commit suicide, they might be so tired of olaf wanting their money, so they kill themselves so no one gets the money so... BOOM theres my awesome theory... thats actually not that awesome now that i think about it...
|
|
|
|
Post by jacktripper FROZEN ACCOUNT on May 29, 2006 13:05:05 GMT -5
OKAy, Snicket/Handler has told us that Violet and Klaus look back many years later. That we have establised. BUt what about sunny? He has not said anything about her yet, has he? And there have been so many signs of here dying. In RR the snake, In GG the posion, also in BB where Count Olaf has here in a cage and says drop her. has anyone thought of that yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by fmaadicted on Jun 11, 2006 7:12:28 GMT -5
if it's Klaus I shal perdonaly assasinate Lemmony Snicket
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Jun 11, 2006 21:15:34 GMT -5
Oh right.
I doubt they'd commit suicide because knowing Olaf he'd find a way to snatch the fortune once their dead. he's already claimed to be a distant relation before...
And those aren't signs of Sunny dying they're just persistent threats to her well being. Would you say Violet's failed cranioectomy is a sign that she'll die in The End?
|
|
|
|
Post by volunteer23 on Jun 18, 2006 21:09:13 GMT -5
Violet needs to die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Jun 19, 2006 20:38:09 GMT -5
Why does she need to die exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by The World Is Quiet Here on Jul 2, 2006 22:00:44 GMT -5
I don't think any of them can die because that would be putting an importance on some and saying the other isn't as important, besides didn't Snicket/Handler say something about the end being not entirely tragic and if one of them died it would be tragic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jul 3, 2006 8:26:54 GMT -5
Handler's said many times that the ending will be - I paraphrase roughly - neither particularly happy nor particularly sad, that it would be ambiguous. The death of one sibling would be tough to balance out so as to make the ending ambiguous, unless possibly they died early on or midway through the book, or, as some have speculated, there'll be an epilogue set in the future or something. I don't really know what'll happen, but I don't particularly expect an epilogue or any Baudelaire sibling deaths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daveaite on Jul 3, 2006 14:26:29 GMT -5
I think it is definitly going to be Olaf because you see the picture in the front of the book it has someone with a tattoo of an eye lying on the ground.
|
|
