|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 6, 2009 17:31:11 GMT -5
anyone care to elabarate on him a bit? =) Exactly what would you like to know more about? We'll answer anything we can. So you know, filexsnicket, if you hit the "Modify" button in the upper-right corner of your posts, you can add a P.S. or, say, fix a spelling mistake or anything like that without needing to make an additional post. It's really easy. |
|
filexsnicket
Bewildered Beginner
Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. - Jerry Garcia
Posts: 6
|
Post by filexsnicket on Jan 6, 2009 18:10:29 GMT -5
Oh, thank you that helps! =) Well, I'd just like to know why he to hide n a clock tower per say? Or why he has followed the Baudelaire's so much? I just don't get the whole reason I love the books and the story-line but I don't know why? With all the questions he left opened I don't know..... I like answers! xp
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 7, 2009 3:18:17 GMT -5
Well, Lemony only hid in a clock tower in the movie, and the storyline of the movie isn't part of the books. I'd say he's there because the imagery is quite cool, myself, but Lemony Snicket is a fugitive from justice and often finds himself hiding in unlikely places. As for why he's following the Baudelaires so much, it's strongly implied that this is because Beatrice, a woman Lemony was deeply in love with, was the mother of the Baudelaires, and he's trying both to do what he can for Beatrice's children, and also protect those children from the same kind of lies that ruined his own life.
|
|
filexsnicket
Bewildered Beginner
Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. - Jerry Garcia
Posts: 6
|
Post by filexsnicket on Jan 7, 2009 16:24:04 GMT -5
Oh I see thank you for making that clear to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by duncanlovr13 on Jan 28, 2009 18:51:26 GMT -5
I'm really confused about the sugar bowl. What did that have to do with anything? Why was it so important? What was in it? Why was it needed? What's going to happen if they never find it? Why was it in the books at all? AHHH! Its overwhelming!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kount Kelsey on Jan 28, 2009 19:37:10 GMT -5
well i hope this helps you the sugar bowl was a sacred item to the v.f.d and they never revealed what it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 29, 2009 2:55:22 GMT -5
I'm really confused about the sugar bowl. What did that have to do with anything? Why was it so important? What was in it? Why was it needed? What's going to happen if they never find it? Why was it in the books at all? AHHH! Its overwhelming!! I'll try to answer your questions, but it is indeed rather overwhelming. The sugar bowl was a piece of crockery used to store a piece of important evidence, evidence which may have proved Olaf's guilt or may have been crucial to V.F.D.'s existence. V.F.D. may have previously used sugar bowls to covertly exchange information in a similar fashion. It may have been involved in the schism. If nobody were to ever find it, the status quo of the series - the stand-off between volunteers and villains - would continue, but it's implied that Lemony ended up with it, so this may not be an issue. It's in the books at all to replace the Snicket File as a MacGuffin to move the plot, and whether Handler was ever clear on what it contained is unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Jan 29, 2009 11:26:20 GMT -5
and whether Handler was ever clear on what it contained is unclear. It's in the books at all to replace the Snicket File as a MacGuffin to move the plot, and whether Handler was ever clear on what it contained is unclear. What's in it is described to be a "thing" by Esme in TPP, which may or may not be of any help; I think that's the most definitive statement as to what might be in it in the books. The Snicket file is described as the last piece of evidence that could send Olaf to jail, and the use of the word 'thing' implies it's something physical, not a photograph or some kind of documentation, so it seems unlikely it's evidence against Olaf. What's in it is ultimately immaterial, much like the briefcase with unseen contents in Pulp Friction; the contents are important, and serve to move the plot on (it's an important factor in TSS, TGG and TPP; hey, it's practically the entire plot in TPP), but the contents are never imparted to the audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 29, 2009 12:42:14 GMT -5
The Snicket file is described as the last piece of evidence that could send Olaf to jail, and the use of the word 'thing' implies it's something physical, not a photograph or some kind of documentation, so it seems unlikely it's evidence against Olaf. Lemony implies in TSS that the evidence that would exonerate him and prove Count Olaf's guilt is inside the sugar bowl; since this is effectively the first suggestion as to its contents, and one of the few which suggests an actual answer, I tend to favour it. It's clear, however, that it was something different in TPP, in which it seems more like the object of some far more epic quest and of critical importance to V.F.D.'s existence, and perhaps something different again in The End, in which a throwaway line says the sugar bowl was involved in the schism. It's hard to answer what the sugar bowl would have contained in the last two books (aside from the theory that it contains horseradish, against which there is enough evidence to satisfy me). True, but the evolution of the implications associated with it suggest that Handler had a vague idea of what its contents at least meant, if not what the contents literally were. Besides, to say that there was never an answer and Handler was just stringing us along would be tremendously insulting and hopefully not true. Hitchcock said, apparently, that a true MacGuffin is something that drives the plot, but as to what it is, the audience don't care; evidently that's not the case here. We are positively teased with the prospect of there being a canonical identity to the sugar bowl's contents unlike, say, the nature of the Great Unknown, or the contents of the Snicket File. The latter in particular is an effective MacGuffin, in that we can be content that it merely contains "evidence," maps, charts, etc., of which we are told the significance. We don't need to know the details. However, the contents of the sugar bowl are presented as something which knowledge of would alter our understanding of the story and characters' interactions. If it didn't matter what the sugar bowl contained, it strikes me that many of the reactions to it and details associated with it would be different. At least, that's how it strikes me, throwing this argument together off the top of my head. |
|
|
|
Post by cwm on Jan 29, 2009 12:55:52 GMT -5
Hang on. You said that sugar bowls could once have been used as a method of V.F.D. communication.
How do we know that, unknown to the Baudelaires, there aren't multiple sugar bowls, and they simply don't realise it? The one thrown out the headquarter windows is sugar bowl A, which contains the important evidence. The one that is delivered to the Hotel Denouement is sugar bowl B, which is the one Esme had stolen from her by Beatrice. The one with the horseradish mentioned in the island's commonplace book by Bertrand is sugar bowl C. The narrative never actually addresses the possibility that the sugar bowls are different, the Baudelaires simply assume that there's only one sugar bowl; Snicket is intentionally being misleading by only presenting the Baudelaires' assumptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 29, 2009 14:01:58 GMT -5
Good point; I'd forgotten that one. Off the top of my head I can't see any flaws... well, it doesn't work for the reference in The End to the sugar bowl being involved in the schism, but that's broken anyway. From Chapter 1: "At the moment, Klaus was examining his notes on V.F.D. and the schism, which was an enormous fight involving all of its members and had something to do with a sugar bowl." The fact that the narration uses "had something to do with" suggests this is from Klaus's perspective rather than Snicket's, which suggests that the sugar bowl's relation to the schism is something Klaus had discovered. However, I don't remember this ever being suggested before in the series. It works, sure, with TPP's interpretation of the sugar bowl, but Klaus shouldn't know this. I think you'd be safe assuming multiple sugar bowls at various points... in fact, I remember someone suggesting that it's not just the Baudelaires who are confused, but everyone - there are multiple lost sugar bowls all containing important secrets, but most characters assume they're each referring to the same one rather than separate ones, so the contents have become incredibly overhyped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jan 29, 2009 16:58:55 GMT -5
It seems to me that the passage in TSS which is the source of the idea of the sugar bowl as evidence is very hard to fit into the continuity of the series. (That's so, at least, if it refers to the sugar bowl at all; that's the obvious reading, but Lemony doesn't use the words; he just refers to a tea set.) Lemony's words there suggest that he has only just discovered the significance of the sugar bowl; but we know from Esme's speech in TPP that it has been a thing of immense significance for a long time, and from various indications that Lemony helped Beatrice steal it, presumably when they were still together or at least in contact, so more than fifteen years ago. What's more, he refers specifically to evidence that will clear him, which doesn't explain why it's so important to VFD as a whole.
Here's my suggestion. We know that Beatrice concealed some horseradish in a vessel (form not stated). We also know that Ishmael, at one time, was looking for an antidote to the poison his pupil was being given - we're not told where it was, because Sunny interrupts, but the next thing he mentions is tea as bitter as wormwood. Was he going to mention a sugar bowl? So, I think VFD uses sugar bowls to conceal antidotes; in which case the sugar bowl may conceal a specially significant antidote.
I don't think the bit about the schism is particularly worrying, by the way. I don't see it as meaning that the sugar bowl caused the schism, just that the fight which is now going on between the two sides has to do with the sugar bowl - which it clearly does, from their behaviour in TPP.
|
|
|
|
Post by duncanlovr13 on Jan 29, 2009 19:02:00 GMT -5
Oh, okay. That makes sense. Thanks! I was irritated though, that Lemony Snicket brought it up and didn't really say anything else about it except that it was very important.
|
|
filexsnicket
Bewildered Beginner
Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. - Jerry Garcia
Posts: 6
|
Post by filexsnicket on Feb 14, 2009 15:51:34 GMT -5
Indeed! I found that incredibly annoying as well! I mean so much hype about an object, but absolutely no knowledge of the item. Terribly GENIUS!! I must admit it was a great hook for me, I couldn't put the book down every moment waiting to find out what the darned item was... Though rather upset when he never stated it.  |
|
|
|
Post by captainwiddershins on Mar 5, 2009 11:33:03 GMT -5
I'm really confused about the sugar bowl. What did that have to do with anything? Why was it so important? What was in it? Why was it needed? What's going to happen if they never find it? Why was it in the books at all? AHHH! Its overwhelming!! In my opinion, it doesn't actually matter. I don't even think Daniel Handler knows, or ever planned to know - it was just a plot device, to move the story along. It's a guranteed way of keeping all the characters moving, because they are all moving towards the sugar bowl, which perhaps isn't a sugar bowl at all. In my opinion, it's just a plot device. |
|
