I scroll through the ASOUE tag on Tumblr at least once a day and when I do I see dozens upon dozens of posts of people asking for season 3 of the Netflix adaptation of ASOUE to answer all their questions. Specifically, I see people asking about whether we’ll find out what’s in the sugar bowl or why the Duchess of Winnipeg gave Lemony Snicket the ring in the first place or whether Count Olaf actually did kill the Baudelaire parents, the list goes on.
But as I read these posts and I reread the books I have to say… I don’t want to find out the answers to everything. And I really hope the Netflix series doesn’t answer them all. Because that’s probably the greatest lesson of all in the stories: that life doesn’t have all the answers and is often incomplete and unfulfilling.
As the Baudelaire children have their grand adventures and seek escape from Count Olaf and his troupe of horrors, they are plagued with dozens of questions that seem to follow them throughout the story: Why does Count Olaf do this? What does the eye mean? What does VFD stand for? Why did their parents lie to them about all this? What is in the sugar bowl?
And for the most part, their questions are answered. It is a story after all and stories have to have some sort of resolution. But as our questions are answered even more questions appear. Even with the resolution of A Series of Unfortunate Events and The Beatrice Letters and The Unauthorized Autobiography, we still do not know much of anything about the VFD or have answers to most of the in-series questions left unresolved at the end of The End.
But that’s the way life is. Life doesn’t answer all your questions in a neat little bundle at the end. Life isn’t beholden to the same conventions as literature - because as much as we’d prefer it not to be so, life isn’t a story it’s an ongoing journey paved by the questions we ask and receive along the way. And much like a dissatisfying answer to a long-held question, it ends when it ends, whether we’ve resolved all of our sub-plots or not. A Series of Unfortunate Events purposefully doesn’t answer all of the questions by the end of the series because life never answers all the questions and if the Netflix series were to attempt to change that - to fix it - as I’ve seen people suggest, then I think that would do a great disservice to the thematic integrity of the series and the lessons Handler has taught through this book in general.
What if “The Little Snicket Lad” was made up by Jacques and Kit when they were children to explain the story of their recruitment to little Lemony?
This would explain why the song does not name E. Snicket. Because Jacques and Kit may not have known their mother’s name. Only her initial.
It would also explain the mentions of Robber Road and the cattle farm despite Robber Road being on the other side of the county, and Lemony actually being born on a dairy farm. Jacques and Kit were just mentioning a random street name they remembered from their early childhood. And when Lemony was born, they wouldn’t have known the difference between a cattle farm and a dairy farm. They just saw the cows.
It would also explain the mentions of silk diapers and a silver crib. This would have been Jacques and Kit either teasing Lemony, or embellishing their memories of their early childhood with their parents to their little brother, who had none.
One of the first ideas I tried to discuss on Dark Avenue was how to solve Chapter 4 of LSTUA. This was an unresolved question left open by Hermes and Dante, Two of the three A Series of Unfortunate Events theorists I respect the most in the world, (the third being @Snicketsleuth [despite our temporary schism due to chronological issues of asoue on which we didn’t reach a consensus]).
The big problem involving chapter 4 involves the chronology of events. Comparing TRR with LSTUA, we come to Lemony’s conclusion, while researching the main events described in TRR (everything indicates that the research of Lemony happened a few years after the events actually took place) he received from Dr. Sebald the script for the movie Zombies in the Snow. However, Count Olaf claimed that he killed Gustav by drowning during the main events of TRR.
Furthermore, the Zombies in the Snow script contains a secret message that seems to apply in some way to the Baudelaires’ case. However, the secret message indicates that there is a fire survivor inside the snowman and asks the recipient of the message to take the three children to the location where the movie takes place. Also, the secret message alerts the recipient of the message that his new assistant is not one of us.
This generates a lot of confusion in the reader’s mind, as Gustav was certainly taken by surprise when he suffered the attempt on his life.
“One day when he was out collecting wildflowers I drowned him in the Swarthy Swamp. Then I forged a note saying he quit.” - Count Olaf, TRR, Chpater 13.
The entire process of shooting the movie to send an urgent message to Uncle Monty seems completely impossible to do, especially when you consider that the movie Zombies in the Snow looks like it was filmed when Gustav was a kid (according to a photo in LSTUA) when Lemony was a teenager (according to an observation made in File Under 13) and appears to involve 3 similar-looking children who are unrelated to the Baudelaires. (LSTUA chapter 4).
I can proudly say that I resolved this last issue some time ago in what I think is the best possible and canonical way: Despite what Lemony may think on the matter, Zombies in the Snow’s secret message refers some old case unrelated to the Baudelaires. That is, when Uncle Monty and the three Baudelaires watched that movie, this was a rerun. The secret message they might have received did not apply to them. [Some might want to believe that someone decided to play the same film as the subject was relevant again… But this is something that in practice doesn’t matter for my main goals, which is to understand the chronology of events in this chapter of LSTUA in relation to the TRR].
Even though I have satisfactorily resolved this last question, the first problem I raised in this text still remained. In Lemony’s letter to the cheesemakers, Lemony states that he received the script from a man named Dr. Sebald. He was getting ready to return the script to Dr. Sebald, but he just didn’t show up. Lemony begins to realize that the possibility that Dr. Sebald has been captured is high. So he decided to send at least the part of the script containing the Sebald code to the cheesemakers. The letter makes it clear that all this happened after Lemony had already unsuccessfully tried to publish at least one book by ASOUE. The Baudelaires hadn’t been at Uncle Monty’s house for quite some time, and the cheesemakers were Lemony’s penultimate chance to publish ASOUE. That is, Gustav Sebald had already been presumed dead.
Dante suggested two solutions to this apparent contradiction: the first is that Uncle Monty’s assistant named Gustav and the film director named Gustav Sebald are different people. Another suggestion from Dante is that although Count Olaf assumed that the attempt to cause Gustav’s death was successful, Gustav actually survived. So years later Gustav was still alive so he could give Lemony the script, but he died (for real this time) before he got the script back.
I’m here to say that Dante was wrong on both assumptions, and that the best way to solve this mystery is to remove from our eyes some of the preconceptions we have as readers. Furthermore, we must accept that the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. Consider again Sally Sebald’s letter to Lemony. I must say that everything indicates that this letter (actually the set of letters) was written by Daniel Handler on purpose to reinforce our prejudices, in order to prevent the understanding of a simple truth. First of all, the order of the letters is wrong in the way it is presented in the chapter. (In the introduction to LSTUA there is already confirmation that you can read the work in any order, indicating that the documents are not necessarily in the chronological order in which they were originally produced in that universe.)
Evidence that Sally Sebald’s letter was written before Lemony’s letter to the cheesemakers is in the fact that Sally comments that Lemony first requested the photographs related to Zombies in the Snow, which were kept in files referring to the film. Sally Sebald stated in the letter that if Lemony had any more requests, he should do so. When Sally received Lemony’s first letter requesting the photographs, Sally thought Lemony was dead, indicating that Lemony had not yet published any ASOUE books. In the letter, Saly found it necessary to describe the scene where the Sebald code had been used. Evidently, it was Sally who sent Lemony the script for the film, after Lemony requested it at some later point. So Lemony was about to return the scrip to Sally Sebald. Please note that in Lemony’s letter to the cheesemakers, at no point does Lemony refer to Dr Sebald as “Gustav”. Lemony calls the film director just Dr Sebald. Sally Sebald states in the letter to Lemony that now the one who takes care of the business left by Gustav Sebald is Sally Sebald. Evidence that Sally Sebald also became a film director is in the fact that Sally Sebald uses the symbol of a cinematographic camera in the letter.
So the person who didn’t show up for Lemony’s appointment was in fact Dr. Sally Sebald and not Gustav Sebald.
This idea is not completely new to me. However, Dante made a powerful counter-argument that he convinced me for over 2 years. I’ll paraphrase Dante: “You’re an idiot! Don’t you realize that the person called "Dr. Sebald” in Lemony’s letter to the cheesemakers is a male? Lemony uses masculine pronouns to refer to “Dr. Sebald” all along the letter!“ But the correct answer I should have given Dante at that moment shouldn’t have been exactly an "answer” but a “question.” I should have asked the right question. But I was prejudiced.
I should have asked Dante, “How do you know Sally Sebald is a woman?”
Nothing indicates that Sally Sebald is a woman. However, Daniel Handler knew of our prejudices as readers. Intentionally Daniel Handler provided a handwritten signature in a typical female handwriting. And the prejudice is precisely in the word “typical” of the previous sentence. In fact, you cannot tell a person’s gender from their signature, especially if the person’s name is commonly applied to both male and female genders. In my case, there is an aggravating factor in my prejudice: The ending of the letter “yours” seemed to me (mistakenly) more appropriate for a female friend to write to a male friend. But that has nothing to do with it! Similarly, Sally Sebald when talking about Gustav uses the word “siblings” instead of “brothers”. In my prejudiced mind, “siblings” was more common to refer to children of different genders, however it is obvious that two brothers can refer to each other as “siblings” especially in the context of the letter, since the relationship between the three Snickets (one female and two males) is compared to the relationship between the two Sebalds (two males). However, Daniel Handler’s choice of words makes a prejudiced reader like me fall into his trap.
So, putting together in a summarized and simple way the puzzle involving Zombies in the Snow, I propose the following chronology:
1 - When Gustav Sebald was a child, he recorded Zombies in the Snow and entered a secret code involving some relevant case at the time. (A teenage Count Olaf/“Omar” may have participated in the filming.)
2 - Years later, when Gustav Sebald was an adult and became Uncle Monty’s assistant.
3 - Just before the children arrived at Uncle Monty’s house, Gustav Sebald was surprised and drowned.
4 - Years later, Lemony sends a letter to the man and doctor Sally Sebald, requesting photographs from the movie Zombies in the Snow, as he had become a film director and took care of his late brother’s business.
5 - The man and doctor Sally Sebald sent the photographs, and then lent Lemony Snicket the script for the movie Zombies in the Snow.
6 - After reviewing the script and photographs, Lemony deduced that Uncle Monty had never learned the Sebald code. (The word “never” here probably indicates that not even when Uncle Monty was younger had he been able to understand a Sebald code that had been sent to him, back at the time of the shooting of Zombies in the Snow.)
7 - After reaching the conclusion mentioned above, Lemony went to meet the male and doctor Sally Sebald. However, the new film director did not show up at the meeting point. Lemony then sent the script to the cheesemakers.
In other words, by understanding this chronology, we don’t need to create yet another character with the same first name as Gustav involved also with Uncle Monty. By understanding this chronology, we need not believe that Gustav Sebald survived the drowning. There are already canonically more than one Sebald. And it was this man, who was misgendered by me and most fans who read LSTUA, is the person who holds the key to solving this mystery.
