Lemony Snicket

This month marked the release of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Bad Beginning Deluxe Limited Edition. If you are curious exactly what makes it different from the original, I'll break it down for you.

-This luxurious new edition comes with a gold foil stamped cover art, while the rest of the cover has a printed design which mimics the look of leather.

-It has beautifully colored edges, which may look familiar if you are a longtime fan; as it originally comes from the cover art from The Bad Beginning Rare Edition, from many years ago.

-Lastly, it has passages for the characters that appear in this book, accompanied by brand new illustrations drawn by Brett Helquist. Some of these include characters never illustrated before.

As a life-long enthusiast of Lemony Snicket, I can't recommend this book enough, whether you thinking of getting a copy of it for yourself or an unfortunate colleague.

-I: The Unreliable Narrator.

Lemony Snicket is the author, but also part of the story. Since he is part of the events that unfolded, how can we be sure that he does not have bias, or that he even knows the entire story? Unlike third-person authors who are basically omniscient to the story, Lemony is limited. This makes us wonder: is he telling the whole story and the truth? Or just the version that favors the “good side” of V.F.D.? We see this all throughout the story with Lemony saying things like “The rest is unknown to me,” and “I only know what I was told, and that may be false.” Also I think Lemony tries to romanticize and under take the story for what it truly is. In reality, V.F.D. probably means Vendetta Fire Defense, (or other ) specializing against arson attacks to take out high-value targets. The enemies are most likely cultists or assassins. However we know that V.F.D. was covered in secrecy, wearing disguises and having secret passageways? The service probably did not only take action in real arson, but psychological and sociological ones, taking care of slippery information that if put in the wrong hands, could create havoc. The repercussions of the information being leaked is the act of real arson. A message that they now have that info and to not mess with them. Much of the details about the actual force V.F.D. fought against was very masked and hard to uncover.

at the start of each book, we get a letter to Beatrice—later revealed to be their mother. If you solve the cipher in each letter, you get the message: “They all die.” Probably referring to Book 12 and the fire of Hotel Denoument. But how? How would Lemony know of something that had not happened yet, considering the books are supposed to be a record of his journal logs? That is still incomprehensible to me.

-II: Sugar Bowl, Weaponized lie.

The sugar bowl might not even be real. What if the sugar bowl was not an object, but a symbol. A very deliberate, intricate lie, created with the sole purpose to spark division and destroy a seemingly perfect society by the hinges. Fertilizing the seeds of war within V.F.D. Because V.F.D. might not only deal with real fires, but also sociological ones. The sugar bowl could represent information that everyone wanted, something so powerful that everyone thought could destroy everything they worked for but was passed around unwillingly, leading to the schism. Kit Snicket even says tea should be “As bitter as wormwood and as sharp as a double-edged knife”—probably because she knew the sugar bowl was false hope. And Dewey Denouement died with the information that could have saved V.F.D.

-III: The Headquarters, Amulet of truth.

In Book 10, the Baudelaires go to “the V.F.D. headquarters,” supposedly burnt down. But maybe that’s not the truth. We know V.F.D. was a secret organization—so would such a clandestine organization really have a headquarters that big? A lie. Maybe Lemony used this as an amulet in disguise. Perhaps the real tragedy wasn’t that the headquarters burned down, but that the information it contained was too powerful. The destruction gave false hope to the reader, making us think that proof about the sugar bowl was gone forever. But how could there be information in a place that didn’t even exist? Ding ding ding—the amulet is there. The burnt-down “headquarters” doesn’t refer to a physical location, but rather to the last people who held the knowledge that could end the schism. Again, Lemony lies.

-IV: Eye symbol, More than just a emblem.

Now, the eye symbol. I think it perfectly ties into this. The surface meaning of V.F.D. is misleading—they give us an eye. Why? The Illuminati also uses an eye in a triangle: the eye symbolizes surveillance, and the triangle represents strength. But if you look at the V.F.D. eye in the Netflix show (even though I don’t like its comedic tone), doesn’t it look like an eye enclosed in a circle, beside fire? Fan theories suggest it spells “V.F.D.,” which is true, but there may be another meaning. An enclosed circle symbolizes an ongoing and forever-lasting cycle of war, both physical and psychological. A circle can mean completeness, but it can also mean a cycle of unjust. The real arson is just a symbol for the much stronger psychological warfare within V.F.D. The eye means “we’re watching”—but it has nothing to do with what V.F.D. literally stands for. Couldn’t an eye also refer to jealousy, as in the “evil eye”? Perhaps someone inside V.F.D. planned all this deliberately—not just a schism, but a weapon of mistrust and jealousy, with the sugar bowl as its symbol.

-V: Count Olaf, villain, Or wordplay?

Count Olaf was never a villain. He was simply trying to help, despite his actions. He haunted the Baudelaires—but with purpose. He always kept the orphans from knowing the truth about V.F.D., all the way to the end. Why? Because he wanted the oppression to stop. He was never on the wrong side. Neither were the “bad side” of the schism—they just wanted the cycle of entrapment to end. The so-called “good side” thought the world needed fires to hold together the system they built—the system that thrived on war and mistrust. Lemony calls himself a good guy, but he was just another one who wanted the cycle to continue. To maintain his power. He paints Olaf as a villain, but perhaps all the words Olaf spoke were twisted, used to make him seem wrong. Of course, that would happen, because Lemony has a bias toward his side of the story.

“If we all fight fire with fire, the world would go up in smoke.” And it did.

-I: The Unreliable Narrator.

Lemony Snicket is the author, but also part of the story. Since he is part of the events that unfolded, how can we be sure that he does not have bias, or that he even knows the entire story? Unlike third-person authors who are basically omniscient to the story, Lemony is limited. This makes us wonder: is he telling the whole story and the truth? Or just the version that favors the “good side” of V.F.D.? We see this all throughout the story with Lemony saying things like “The rest is unknown to me,” and “I only know what I was told, and that may be false.” Also I think Lemony tries to romanticize and under take the story for what it truly is. In reality, V.F.D. probably means Vendetta Fire Defense, (or other ) specializing against arson attacks to take out high-value targets. The enemies are most likely cultists or assassins. However we know that V.F.D. was covered in secrecy, wearing disguises and having secret passageways? The service probably did not only take action in real arson, but psychological and sociological ones, taking care of slippery information that if put in the wrong hands, could create havoc. The repercussions of the information being leaked is the act of real arson. A message that they now have that info and to not mess with them. Much of the details about the actual force V.F.D. fought against was very masked and hard to uncover.

at the start of each book, we get a letter to Beatrice—later revealed to be their mother. If you solve the cipher in each letter, you get the message: “They all die.” Probably referring to Book 12 and the fire of Hotel Denoument. But how? How would Lemony know of something that had not happened yet, considering the books are supposed to be a record of his journal logs? That is still incomprehensible to me.

-II: Sugar Bowl, Weaponized lie.

The sugar bowl might not even be real. What if the sugar bowl was not an object, but a symbol. A very deliberate, intricate lie, created with the sole purpose to spark division and destroy a seemingly perfect society by the hinges. Fertilizing the seeds of war within V.F.D. Because V.F.D. might not only deal with real fires, but also sociological ones. The sugar bowl could represent information that everyone wanted, something so powerful that everyone thought could destroy everything they worked for but was passed around unwillingly, leading to the schism. Kit Snicket even says tea should be “As bitter as wormwood and as sharp as a double-edged knife”—probably because she knew the sugar bowl was false hope. And Dewey Denouement died with the information that could have saved V.F.D.

-III: The Headquarters, Amulet of truth.

In Book 10, the Baudelaires go to “the V.F.D. headquarters,” supposedly burnt down. But maybe that’s not the truth. We know V.F.D. was a secret organization—so would such a clandestine organization really have a headquarters that big? A lie. Maybe Lemony used this as an amulet in disguise. Perhaps the real tragedy wasn’t that the headquarters burned down, but that the information it contained was too powerful. The destruction gave false hope to the reader, making us think that proof about the sugar bowl was gone forever. But how could there be information in a place that didn’t even exist? Ding ding ding—the amulet is there. The burnt-down “headquarters” doesn’t refer to a physical location, but rather to the last people who held the knowledge that could end the schism. Again, Lemony lies.

-IV: Eye symbol, More than just a emblem.

Now, the eye symbol. I think it perfectly ties into this. The surface meaning of V.F.D. is misleading—they give us an eye. Why? The Illuminati also uses an eye in a triangle: the eye symbolizes surveillance, and the triangle represents strength. But if you look at the V.F.D. eye in the Netflix show (even though I don’t like its comedic tone), doesn’t it look like an eye enclosed in a circle, beside fire? Fan theories suggest it spells “V.F.D.,” which is true, but there may be another meaning. An enclosed circle symbolizes an ongoing and forever-lasting cycle of war, both physical and psychological. A circle can mean completeness, but it can also mean a cycle of unjust. The real arson is just a symbol for the much stronger psychological warfare within V.F.D. The eye means “we’re watching”—but it has nothing to do with what V.F.D. literally stands for. Couldn’t an eye also refer to jealousy, as in the “evil eye”? Perhaps someone inside V.F.D. planned all this deliberately—not just a schism, but a weapon of mistrust and jealousy, with the sugar bowl as its symbol.

-V: Count Olaf, villain, Or wordplay?

Count Olaf was never a villain. He was simply trying to help, despite his actions. He haunted the Baudelaires—but with purpose. He always kept the orphans from knowing the truth about V.F.D., all the way to the end. Why? Because he wanted the oppression to stop. He was never on the wrong side. Neither were the “bad side” of the schism—they just wanted the cycle of entrapment to end. The so-called “good side” thought the world needed fires to hold together the system they built—the system that thrived on war and mistrust. Lemony calls himself a good guy, but he was just another one who wanted the cycle to continue. To maintain his power. He paints Olaf as a villain, but perhaps all the words Olaf spoke were twisted, used to make him seem wrong. Of course, that would happen, because Lemony has a bias toward his side of the story.

“If we all fight fire with fire, the world would go up in smoke.” And it did.

Have you ever read this book called “The Mysteries of Harris Burdick”, by Chris Van Allsburg. It tells of the titular man who gave someone named Peter Wenders pictures and descriptions related to stories he wrote. Unfortunately, he disappeared before he would give Wenders the full stories. Van Allsburg wrote this book in hopes that kids can write their own stories.

Well, about 27 years after it was published, another book was published called “The Chronicles of Harris Burdick: Fourteen Amazing Authors Tell the Tales”. It contains stories based on the pictures written by several famous authors including Louis Sachar (Sideways Stores from Wayside School), Sherman Alexie (The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian), Kate DiCamillo (Because of Winn-Dixie), Walter Dean Myers (Fallen Angels) and even the legendary Stephen King. The introduction was written by Lemony Snicket! In it, he talked about Harris Burdick and even defined a word! He said that he suspected these might be the original responses, but when he questioned the authors who wrote them, he didn’t give them good answers, and some of their responses were unlike them if you ask me.

After heading home from watching The Phoenician Scheme (Wes Andersons latest film) I realized the greatest missed opportunity in all of cinematic history: an ASOUE film by Wes Anderson! As much as I love the show and recognize its andersoneyness I couldn’t help but imagine how great it would be… Alas, a reboot does not look to be in ASOUE’s future.

I'm surprised Lemony Snicket didn't talk about these expressions.

There are two phrases that people use on certain occasions, “really saying something” and “not saying much”. If something is really saying something it means that that something it deserves attention. For instance, if you were the fastest runner in class and everyone was pretty fast, that would be really saying something. Not saying much, however, refers how something is not that important. For example, if you were the fastest but everyone else was pathetically weak, that’s not saying much.

Does anyone remember me? I used to post like everyday on this wiki back in 2020 and 2022. I completely forgot about this and how much I loved being on here. I was rewatching ASOUE and then remembered this and now I want to come back and start posting more again

Im duel reading/watching the series (of unfortunate events) and the difference in count olaf is kinda insane.

This is basically about The bad beginning. The scheme for Tbb is for Olaf to marry violet. But in the book it seems like Olaf is actually kinda 'into' violet where in the show its just for the money.

Now I actually prefer the shows interpretation of that. But is there anyone who prefers the book interpretation?

I don't know if anyone's alive here or not but...

Im Bird/Telemachus. Im pretty much only on the Epic wiki

I'm currently duel reading/watching the show and book

I just finished the austre (?) academy and on part 2 of the show

<3