Count Olaf/Kit Snicket

[DarkAvenue13]

Greetings, I am here to figure a few things out, that either I am alone with, or other people have contemplated (I'm sure).

In The End's ending, where The Baudelaires say to Count Olaf, "Do something good for once in your life.", this had profound meanings, and effects upon me, because Count Olaf tells them they are just like there parents thinking they can survive with certain things, and how he did not start the fire, yet he did not admit or tell who started the fire. I thought this was rather odd, because obviously he believed that they thought he didn't start the fire from the beginning,. When they said that, he sounded astonished.

When Count Olaf, goes and grabs the pregnant Kit Snicket, her response, to him saying, "I told you I would do that again", is rather wierd....I just do not get what it means, and what failures she is talking about. Then Olaf, says something I never believed in my life..."I never apologized"....or it was like that, was he talking about apologizing to the Baudelaires, for all he had put them through? Is olaf, actually a good person, just disguised, or undercover, secretly trying to get the Baudelaires to this island, in The End....because, I am starting to believe this.

As the Baudelaires looked down at the wounded Olaf, with blood covering his chest, they saw....he tried to say something to them, and opened his mouth...but, then died, Kit had no response to his death, as if she did not care, and even the Baudelaires, did not realize when Olaf's eyes had finally closed for good, for the last time, the last gleam ever to be seen...from those eyes.

How quickly did Kit die after giving Birth to her child, because it would seem only 'cordial' to explain what had just happened between her and Olaf.



I am still very curious as to, why there was an actual BOOK on the island that was entitled, "A Series Of Unfortunate Events"....it was as if. Not everyone who recorded there life there, was unfortunate...and does this correlate to the title of the books we are reading by L.S...did he get the idea from that book, to title these?


How could such a small island have such a huge history, and not even a few people have heard of the island, or even show up there?

Thank you for any help regarding these matters, these mysteries are very profound to me...but I guess it all depends on the way you look at it.




PS: (Off Topic, for this thread) Why did the Baudelaires really leave the island? They left Kit's spirit there, all alone, the same goes for Olaf's spirit. IS the question mark shape ran by the Man with beard but no hair, and woman with hair but no beard? I had a feeling that it was treacherous, but now I think it could be noble. You would think, after experiencing all the treachery they had, they would stay far away from the world.

[Libitina]

Wow, that's a lot of questions and information. I agree with you, a lot of stuff in the end (I mean the end of the book specifically, not The End in general) was profound. Everything with Kit and Olaf was so unexpected. We've been seeing in the last few books a slightly different side of Olaf, and I think the end showed that he truly is a mixed salad. Of course, he obviously shows his more treacherous side more often.

I wish we knew more about the Kit/Olaf relationship. I think it is probably a case similar to Lemony and Beatrice. Beatrice left Lemony because she thought he was evil, and Kit left Olaf because he actually was.

It would have been nice if Kit had explained the situation to the Baudelaires, but I doubt that was her top priority at the moment, not to mention that it would be far too simple.

As for the island not being well-known and its extensive history, that's a good point. I get the feeling that people who show up on the island don't last very long afterwards. Death is imminent, it seems, which is perhaps why it is not well-known.

The Baudelaires had to leave the island. They came to the realization, I think, that evil is everywhere. You can't run and hide from it, as even if you are in seclusion, it will find you. It even happened on the island, and would undoubtedly happen again. The Baudelaires realized their responsibility to return to society.

Other than that, I can't think clearly enough tonight to figure much out, sorry.

[DarkAvenue13]

I have a quite interesting idea; Do you think it plausable for when Kit Snicket says to Olaf's statement, "I Told you I would od that one more time", has any relationship to the V.F.D code and recruiting of V.F.D members, as is told on page 39 of the L.S Autobiography. He was there undercover discuised guide. (GOOD SIDE) Her response to this includes, "Do you expcect me to forgive you for all your failures?" What I think she is saying is of all the failures of trying to catch the Baudelaire fortune, and more or less, murdering the young Baudealire Orphans. Thus revealing and in dicating that Kit is an accomplas, and as a treacherous villian as Count Olaf assuming he is evil. (BAD SIDE)

Please, what are you responses to my theory?

[SnicketFires]

Please do not double post, DarkAvenue13. I've modified your posts.

[Dante]

darkavenue13 said:

In The End's ending, where The Baudelaires say to Count Olaf, "Do something good for once in your life.", this had profound meanings, and effects upon me, because Count Olaf tells them they are just like there parents thinking they can survive with certain things, and how he did not start the fire, yet he did not admit or tell who started the fire. I thought this was rather odd, because obviously he believed that they thought he didn't start the fire from the beginning,. When they said that, he sounded astonished.

Olaf's response to the accusation that he burnt down the Baudelaire mansion was ambiguous; it implied that he didn't, but he still could have. There are many possibilities for how he could have felt - looking at the passage again, he seems to me to be insulted, or depressed, or contemptuous. He might not know who started the fire; he could just have taken advantage of it. An idea I like - no more accurate than any other - is that he was there when the mansion burnt down, but it was set alight due to an accident. He doesn't need to confess, or tell the Baudelaires who started the fire, and he may not even be able to. And the absence of a direct answer from him fits in nicely with the book's themes, the lack of answers for our questions (and the Baudelaires').

When Count Olaf, goes and grabs the pregnant Kit Snicket, her response, to him saying, "I told you I would do that again", is rather wierd....I just do not get what it means, and what failures she is talking about. Then Olaf, says something I never believed in my life..."I never apologized"....or it was like that, was he talking about apologizing to the Baudelaires, for all he had put them through? Is olaf, actually a good person, just disguised, or undercover, secretly trying to get the Baudelaires to this island, in The End....because, I am starting to believe this.

It's clear that Olaf and Kit were in a relationship at some point in the past, and one that broke up unhappily. Kit thought Olaf was trying to redeem himself by showing that he still loved her - that that one kind act would make her forgive all his wicked ones - but Olaf wasn't looking for forgiveness, for as he said, he hadn't apologised. He isn't ashamed, it seems - he's done what he's done, and there's no taking it back, perhaps. And I think everything that Olaf's done, and everyone else's reactions to him, show that he's not a noble person in disguise or undercover trying to get the Baudelaires on his side. At the very most, perhaps he was meant to be, but his actions in TBB showed that he'd turned away from V.F.D. I think that's unlikely, though, and I've criticised the theories that the whole series is secretly V.F.D.'s training for the Baudelaires enough times.

As the Baudelaires looked down at the wounded Olaf, with blood covering his chest, they saw....he tried to say something to them, and opened his mouth...but, then died, Kit had no response to his death, as if she did not care, and even the Baudelaires, did not realize when Olaf's eyes had finally closed for good, for the last time, the last gleam ever to be seen...from those eyes.

Kit didn't seem able to respond to Olaf's death; there was enough else on her mind, I'm sure, what with her being in labour and suffering the effects of Medusoid Mycelium as well. Olaf's planned last words might well have been some kind of confession, or some words of wisdom, or just a name, or something he wanted to say. He didn't get his chance. People don't often seem to be able to do what they'd like in aSoUE.

How quickly did Kit die after giving Birth to her child, because it would seem only 'cordial' to explain what had just happened between her and Olaf.

The book seems to imply that Kit died at the moment her child was born, or very much at the same sort of time, without any opportunity to explain anything.

I am still very curious as to, why there was an actual BOOK on the island that was entitled, "A Series Of Unfortunate Events"....it was as if. Not everyone who recorded there life there, was unfortunate...and does this correlate to the title of the books we are reading by L.S...did he get the idea from that book, to title these?

It was only natural for the book to have that title, because the people who wrote in it seem to have realised that the world is an unfortunate place - for Ishmael, for example, that's why he wanted to keep the real world away, and hide it in the arboretum. And isn't it an unfortunate event to be shipwrecked, for example? And it just requires one person to give that book the title, and then even if anyone who follows them disagrees, then it's too late, that's the name of the island's book. As for the title of the book on the island having the same title as Snicket's series, then from the perspective of Handler, it's just a powerful and mysterious title for the book to have, and it's almost sinister to see that name come up again, for the reader, in such an unexpected and yet appropriate place. As for whether Snicket, in the books, got the idea for the name of his series from the name of the book on the island, it's hard to say, but I like to think that he came up with it independently; it is a very fitting title, after all. I don't believe it was ever stated whether he visited the island (in the past - obviously, he will have at some point to research The End).

How could such a small island have such a huge history, and not even a few people have heard of the island, or even show up there?

Not very many people may show up at the island, or have heard of it, but that's in the present day, and the island has a very long history. People have clearly been arriving there for a long time, and it might not just be the island's history they're writing there, but their own as well. And perhaps the island has strange currents around it that just happen to draw in nearby shipwrecks or detritus, necessitating plenty of interesting entries in the book. Alternative answer: It's part of Handler's message in The End so we shouldn't question how plausible or implausible it is.

PS: (Off Topic, for this thread) Why did the Baudelaires really leave the island? They left Kit's spirit there, all alone, the same goes for Olaf's spirit.

Kit and Olaf's spirits weren't alone - they had each other, and it's clear that at some point they loved each other, so they wouldn't resent their opposite's presence, not any more. If you believe in spirits, anyway. And somebody else is sure to wash up on the island someday, other people, so the spirits of the past won't be lonely forever.

IS the question mark shape ran by the Man with beard but no hair, and woman with hair but no beard? I had a feeling that it was treacherous, but now I think it could be noble.

Again, ambiguous - we'll never know. The plans of the Great Unknown are unfathomable, either nonexistent and it just acts on whims, or so unspeakably complex that the brief glimpses we get of it aren't nearly enough for us to understand.

You would think, after experiencing all the treachery they had, they would stay far away from the world.

The Baudelaires realised they shouldn't - they decided their parents were right, and that one can't be sheltered from the world forever. And eventually, if they'd stayed, the world would have returned to the island's shores and spoilt it, just as the Baudelaires and Olaf spoilt it for Ishmael and his castaways. It would be cowardly and ultimately ineffectual to hide, and perhaps far more fulfilling to go and live in the world.

[Dear Dairy]

Lovely responses, Dante. Just beautiful. I'm particularly fond of your turn of phrase here:

" . . . to keep the real world away, and hide it in the arboretum."

[truthson]

I'm new so please do not scorn my theory but is it passable that how ever unlike that lemony started the fire because after all he is wanted for arson. Just a theory!!!

P.S But can’t think of a motive, for noble person to start a fire.

[thedoctororwell]

"You're the one who made us orphans in the first place.
_ Is that what you think ?"
Everybody seems to believe that it means that Olaf didn't set the Baudelaire mansion on fire. I find it hard to admit as so many details in the series would imply that he did organize this fire. I have two alternative interpretations of his answer :

1) He was maybe referring to the fact that the children were using a singular subject. Olaf wasn't the only one who wanted to murder their parents ; Esmé hated Béatrice, and the Baudelaire parents caused many problems to TWWHBNB and TMWHBNH. Anyway, they were supposed to be good VFDers, and VFDer's mansions tend to be destroyed by fire quite frequently. So it is safe to admit that nearly ALL the bad VFDers had something to gain by murdering the Baudelaire parents. The fire could have been organised by the entire "evil" side of the schism. In that case, Olaf said that because he wasn't pleased to see that the children thought he was the one and only murderer of their parents, wich was entirely false. However he didn't bother to reveal them this information because he admitted that they had very good reasons to hate him and that he had a real responsability in the crime.

2) It was a reaction to the fact that the Baudelaire parents killed Olaf's father and mother, and thus made him an orphan. So, when he organised the fire in order to kill their parents, he felt that he was obeying the Talion's law : an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In his point of view the only way to repair the offense that they had done to him (making him an orphan) was to do them the exact same offense : so he thought that making Violet, Klaus and Sunny orphans was the only way to obtain reparation. In his mind, it was not him who made the Baudelaire children orphans in the first place : it was the Baudelaire parents themselves, when they commited the crime and obliged him to obtain revenge. However, when the Baudelaire directly charged him for the crime, he suddenly came to realisation that his logic was pure crap, and that he only managed to become as evil as the murderers of his parents were. So, the "Is that what you think ?" was the beginning of a long speech where he planned to explain that it was their parents who were the only responsibles of their personal tragedies. However, he resigned, seeing that all this wouldn't erase the fact that he did commited an evil act. So he didn't bother to insult the children by revealing his stupid logic of revenge. The "I haven't apologized" referred to the fact that there wasn't only selfish reasons behind the murder, but also a difficult bussiness of legitimate revenge.

The two theories can complete themselves nicely, I guess. Any opinions ?

[truthson]

It seem to me a bit unliky that the Baudelaire parents would murder Olaf's parents, them being on the good side of the schism an all.

[thistledown]

Why? The Baudelaire parents were not always noble--that much is made clear. And there is the 'there is no good side they're both equally bad' thing going on throughout the series.

And Lemony could have a motive for burning down the Baudelaire mansion. He was angry, possibly, that Beatrice married Bertrand instead of him. Lemony also seemed to be the one either blamed for the Sugar Bowl incident and the setting of fires.

On that matter, of fires, I'm not entirelly certain Lemony didn't set some of them. If he was completely innocent, why was he always away from V.F.D.? I always thought there was something completely odd about Lemony--like he's not as good as he seems. Like he's just got this queer personality (not as in gay...) and the fact that he almost obsessively stalks the Baudelaires. Yes, I know he loved their mother...but what is his real motive? To kill them, perhaps?

Back on topic to the Baudelaire fire. I think Snicket did set the fire. I mean, there is major possibility that Olaf did...but why would Handler include that line of Olafs "Is that what you think?" I know--he could have added it just to spark theories...but he does that anyway with his general writing. No, I think there's something behind that line.

[thedoctororwell]

I can't believe that Lemony started the fire... I really can't. In my opinion it's like saying that Quigley was actually Duncan pretending to be his dead brother in order to trick the Baudelaires on the order of Josephine, wich was Olaf's archrival in the quest of the Baudelaire fortune. I mean, what the hell... I know Lemony can be plain stupid but... Killing the person he loves the most (and who he didn't talk for years according to TBL), just to spend the rest of his live writing books on the kids he made orphans ? Wow. Some people DO know how to spend their their time in life.

[thistledown]

Orwell--it could happen, though. Lemony hated Bertrand, probably, and oftentimes in the series he can seem almost unstable. Seriously--what kind of sane person dedicates all of his books to a dead woman and writes all the dedications in some sort of prose? Yes, I know F Scott Fitzgerald always dedicated to his Zelda, but he wasn't too sane either. I think Snicket is a bit unbalanced. And who knows what he wants with the orphans anyway.

[Jacques the Environmentalist]

If Lemony hated Bertrand he'd go out of his way to portray him as evil, but he doesn't, he compliments both Baudelaire parents all the time.
He's got plenty of opportunities, the memories of them yelling at the kids over a spoiled map, the poison darts thing, but he doesn't villify Bertrand at all.

Obviously Lemony's unbalanced and he did steal the sugarbowl and maybe he comitted some other crime, but I don't think he set any fires. It just goes against his entire character that we're read about throughout the series.

[Phoebonica]

mynamesjacques said:

...but I don't think he set any fires. It just goes against his entire character that we're read about throughout the series.

To play devil's advocate for a minute... Lemony wrote the series, so if he did set any fires we would never know. *spooooky music plays* Of course, if he's lying about himself we can't be sure of anything, so it's sort of pointless to speculate. Fun, but pointless.

I definitely agree with you about Bertrand, though. (And to go off topic for a second, your point also applies to people who write fanfiction about Bertrand being cruel or abusive to Beatrice, which I've seen at least twice and it drives me crazy.) Lemony's attitude to him seems to be more on the lines of "at least Beatrice married someone good."

thedoctororwell, I really like both your theories. I think it's probably significant that Klaus didn't actually say "you burned our house down", but rather "you're the one who made us orphans", which you pointed out with your second idea about Olaf thinking the parents really brought it on themselves.

[thistledown]

However, you look at Dante (the author/poet not the mod)
's INFERNO and it mentions the name 'Bertrand de Born' located in the circle of hell the schismatics...meaning that he tore apart others lives while living and now he is torn apart himself (quite literally...read the Dante Club...). So if that is where Lemony got the name Bertrand from (which would make sense considering Dante was obsessed w/Beatrice) maybe Bertrand is bad? (Not to his family, perhaps, but within VFD?)