Who is the arsonist?

[Dante]

Just by similarly rude people; Nero conspicuously fails to use a coaster in TPP.

[Christmas Chief]

Strange rules of etiquette seem to identify noble members of V.F.D. It's a sort of unconscious code, so just as noble members are usually well-read, ignoble members are notorious for their negligence of using coasters (see TBL, in which a ring is imprinted on one of the enclosed letters).

[B.]

As Kit said in book 12, it's become the only way to tell a volunteer from a villain. By their actions.

[fangirlinthetardis]

In my opinion, I think that Esme did it as revenge as she thought that Beatrice stole the Sugar Bowl when in reality was either Beatrice and Lemony or just Lemony on his own.

[lemonmeringue]

This is an old thread, but I would like to give my opinion here.

I don't think it was necessarily Olaf. Because, if it had been him, he wouldn't have reacted the way he did, when the children accused him in The End. His reaction seemed, as though he was almost sad (not really about this, but sad about how everything is in general) and that everything was so much larger. I suppose he had an idea of who did it and why, but maybe not even in details, or maybe he was some sort of assistant in it. But honestly, I think his role in this thing began after the fire, when he wanted to use it to his advantage. He was an arsonist by that time, but I think he burned down other things. I also don't think it was Esmé - that case would be to close to Olaf, and again "too small". I think it was maybe the man with a beard but no hair or the woman with hair but not beard, or some other "major" fire starters, in a v.f.d. (or some other) matter that was much beyond the children's and Olaf's shared story.

My other theory is that is Olaf, because, well, at least he thinks the Baudelaire parents killed his parents. Perhaps he even wanted their children to become orphans, like him, even though it doesn't make really sense because he would basically punish the wrong people, although I suppose the parents' parents were dead by then anyhow. But even though it seems more likely, something about this theory even seems too likely and somehow off, and again: Olaf would have reacted differently in The End, which some sort of "they deserved it" response, I suppose.

[Dante]

Reflecting on the subject now, I'm still content with the idea that the fire could have been an accident. It seems tragically fitting for this enormous series of unfortunate events to have been triggered by pure bad luck, into which all parties concerned read so much more. I think the ship has long since sailed on Olaf being the survivor, alas, much though I think it would be the most delicious kick in the teeth for the Baudelaires.

With that said, Olaf must always be the prime suspect; means, motive, opportunity. But ultimately, it doesn't really matter. So many people might have set the fire, but what's important is only that it happened.