#the sugar bowl (the maltese falcon) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

snicketsleuth · 7 years

Text

“I want a little sugar in my bowl”: narrative deconstruction in “A Series of Unfortunate Events”

Earlier this year (Link), we presented the first half of our takedown on the sugar bowl mystery. Now that we’ve gotten all the plot elements out of the way, it’s time to approach the solution in on a literary level. If there is, indeed, a solution to the sugar bowl mystery, what kind of solution a writer such as Daniel Handler would choose? Studying the series on a more thematical level gives very interesting results. If there’s one thing “A Series Of Unfortunate” does well, it’s making sure that the narrative fits the narration, that the plot fits the style (and vice-versa). Lemony Snicket uses absurdist humor, and his characters live in an absurd world.

youtube

We can’t prove that the sugar bowl really is empty, of course. What we can prove, however, is that an empty sugar bowl wonderfully suits the hallmarks that made “A Series Of Unfortunate Events” such a literary sensation.

There are three reasons for this:

It fits in with the series’ cultural baggage

“A Series Of Unfortunate Events” is rife with cultural (and pop-cultural) references. The sugar bowl is no exception. In Shirley Jackson’s “We Have Always Lived In The Castle”, a sugar bowl features prominently at the heart of a murder mystery. The following paragraph will spoil its ending, so feel free to skip it.

A family is poisoned at dinner. The only survivor of this deadly meal is their eldest daughter. The inquest concludes that the poison was slipped into the sugar bowl, whose content was later poured onto the blackberries the family ate. However, the eldest daughter did not put any sugar on her berries, and said sugar bowl becomes a determining factor in establishing her guilt. It later turns out that the eldest daughter was framed: the real murderer was not present during the meal, but knew the eldest daughter disliked sugar. This person used her culinary tastes against her, as she was unlikely to use the sugar bowl. It was poisoned well in advance.

What does the sugar bowl from “We Have Always Lived In The Castle” tell us about the sugar bowl from “A Series Of Unfortunate Events”? That it’s essentially misdirection. Something designed to look real when it really isn’t, meaningful when it’s meaningless. It’s exploiting the expectations of a gullible public for devious purposes.

It has also been said that the sugar bowl is also a (less overt allusion) to Dashiell Hammet’s “The Maltese Falcon”. The character of Dashiell Qwerty from “All The Wrong Questions” is a clear homage to this detective story. Lemony and his enemies seek an ugly carving of a strange marine creature, while the characters of “The Maltese Falcon” seek an ugly carving of the titular bird. Both are said to hold enormous value. The next paragraph will skip the ending of the story, so feel free to skip that one as well.

Throughout the story, we are told that the Maltese Falcon is made of gold and jewels, and that it was later covered with a black enamel so its owners could carry it without unwanted attention. Many characters fight and die over this prize, going to any lengths to steal it or recover it. It later turns out that the carving is made of worthless materials. Its owners made up the story so they could sell it to naive treasure seekers.

So it’s actually a far-cry from the plot of “All The Wrong Questions”: Lemony thinks the Bombinating Beast statue is actually worthless and that Hangfire is building up an urban legend around it. But the legends turn out to be true and the Bombinating Beast worth everything it was hyped up to be. But once again, we see Daniel Handler referencing a story where a legendary object is exposed as a lie used to manipulate and exploit people. And interestingly, the Maltese Falcon makes a cameo in “A Series Of Unfortunate Events” as well:

There were items that seemed to be part of the Baudelaires' story, such as a plastic replica of a clown and a broken telegraph pole, and there were items that seemed part of some other story, such as a carving of a black bird and a gem that shone like an Indian moon, and all the items, and all their stories, were scattered across the landscape in such a way that the Baudelaire orphans thought that the arboretum had either been organized according to principles so mysterious they could not be discovered, or it had not been organized at all. [The End, Chapter Nine]

To top it all, this carving of a black bird appears next to the stolen diamond from Wilkie Collins’ “The Moonstone”. Once again, spoilers ahead…

This detective story is a massive pile of evidence and counter-evidence: every time the reader believes he/she found the real culprit of the theft, later evidence shows he or she was framed. The stone changes hands for a while and acquires a sulfurous reputation. In reality, the diamond is not cursed: it is simply sacred. Because the stone was stolen from an Indian cult, its remaining members will stop at nothing to retrieve it and ruin the life of its unlawful owners. The curse is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy: the people who built up the legend make sure that the legend comes true.

Because literature is so important in Lemony Snicket’s world, and because classic books often end up as the solution to a code or a mystery, we felt it necessary to examine the different stories which inspired and influenced the way Daniel Handler built up the sugar bowl conspiracy. And what do they all have in common? A prized which stands at the center of the plot, yes, but which has no value of its own. Its importance stems solely from the fact that people have been told it’s valuable, and who therefore insist upon that fact against all available evidence.

If we are to solve the sugar bowl mystery, this is where we should start.

It ties up the plot in a more satisfying manner

For really, who in Lemony’s world really know what the sugar bowl or why it’s so important? Not a whole lot of people, apparently. This is why determining the answer is so difficult: because we see the story unfold through the Baudelaire orphans’ eyes, and because they never find out the truth of the whole affair, we have no real way of assessing the other characters’ expertise on the topic:

They could be lying about the sugar bowl’s actual purpose, spreading false information to confuse the enemy.

They could be pretending to know because they’re too ashamed not to know.

They could be assuming certain information they received is true or that they figured it out, when in fact it’s anything but.

There are a few characters who seem to at least have some intel and who frequently mention it:

The Baudelaire parents,

The Snicket siblings,

Captain Widdershins,

Esmé Gigi Geniveve Squalor,

Count Olaf,

The Man With Beard But No Hair and the Woman With Hair But No Beard,

Dewey Denouement.

Then again, it’s incredibly hard to ascertain what they exactly know and how much they know. When the Baudelaire orphans discuss this with Quigley Quagmire, he acknowledges that Jacques once told him finding a sugar bowl was important, and… that’s it, really.

The children know nothing about this war and yet, here they are, one book later, risking their lives to find the damn thing. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume a lot of other volunteers and villains are in the same situation. Their superiors tell them the sugar bowl is important, therefore it’s important, and as a result they do everything they can to steal it. Why would their higher-ups tell them anything more? Readers tend to assume that everyone in V.F.D. knows everything about their own secret organization, but the reality is much more opaque.

Let’s just call it: 99% of the people who are looking for the sugar bowl have no clue what they are doing.

What’s really amazing about the sugar bowl mystery is that Daniel Handler left the entire solution hidden in plain sight. There are many clues hidden within the story, but they’re not subtle: on the contrary, the author makes sure to obscure them with as many unnecessary details as possible. This is in keeping with another famous detective story, Edgard Allan Poe’s “The Purloined Letter”, which has a similar resolution.

What is the sugar bowl mystery left unresolved by the end of the series? Because it’s been solved in such an obvious, roundabout way that neither the characters nor the reader realizes it.

Let’s look at the first time the Baudelaire orphans ever hear of the sugar bowl:

"Sugar bowl," they said in unison, and looked at one another. "What could that mean?" Klaus asked. Violet sighed. "When we were hiding underneath the car," she said to Quigley, "one of those villains said something about searching for a sugar bowl, remember?" Quigley nodded, and took out his purple notebook. "Jacques Snicket mentioned a sugar bowl once," he said, "when we were in Dr. Montgomery's library. He said it was very important to find it. I wrote it down on the top of a page in my commonplace book, so I could add any information I learned about its whereabouts." He held up the page so the two Baudelaires could see that it was blank. "I never learned anything more," he said. Klaus sighed. "It seems that the more we learn, the more mysteries we find. We reached V.F.D. headquarters and decoded a message, and all we know is that there's one last safe place, and volunteers are gathering there on Thursday." "That might be enough," Violet said, "if Sunny finds out where the safe place is." [The Slippery Slope, Chapter Eleven]

It’s interesting to see that, throughout “The Slippery Slope”, none of the protagonists particularly care about what the sugar bowl contains. Their immediate reaction is to use Olaf’s and Esme’s obsession with the sugar bowl against them. They do this by planting false information to wreck their master plan, and by studying their reactions to extract information out of them:

"You will give us Sunny," she said, "because we know where the sugar bowl is." Count Olaf gasped, and raised his one eyebrow very high as he gazed at the two Baudelaires and their companion, his eyes shinier than they had ever seen them. "Where is it?" he said, in a terrible, wheezing whisper. "Give it to me!" Violet shook her head, grateful that her face was still hidden behind a mask. "Not until you give us Sunny Baudelaire," she said. "Never!" the villain replied. "Without that big-toothed brat, I'll never capture the Baudelaire fortune. You give me the sugar bowl this instant, or I'll throw all of you off this mountain!" [The Slippery Slope, Chapters Twelve/Thirteen]

The great irony, of course, is that in this moment they’re using the sugar bowl legend in the exact way the volunteers meant to exploit it. They solved the mystery without even trying. Their only preoccupation is to exchange information about the sugar bowl against the location of the last safe place, whereas the sugar bowl’s only purpose is to lure the villains into the last safe place.

It's only one book later that they change their minds and start considering the sugar bowl as something much more complicated. And it’s all thanks to Captain Widdershins’ misdirection. Before the start of their V.F.D. apprenticeship, the Baudelaire orphans could examine evidence critically. But once the brainwashing starts kicking in, they veer further and further away from the deceivingly simple truth.

One of the series’ biggest criticisms is that the author left the sugar bowl mystery unresolved. But if we consider that the sugar bowl is a scam, this alleged flaw evolves into something more interesting. Since “A Series Of Unfortunate Events” is first and foremost a parody of children’s literature, its biggest mystery can only be a deconstruction of detective stories. We’re led to see a mystery when there is none. Unfortunately, casual readers won’t get the joke.

It completes the series’ political stance

This fits wonderfully with the socio-political themes of the series. Looking back, the greater part of the series functions as a satire of various means of social control. Times and times again, Daniel Handler teaches children that most cultural trends are built on commonly accepted fictions. Most of the phenomena which rule our lives are scams or arbitrary rules. Various critiques emerge:

The Bad Beginning: Literal interpretation of the law

The Wide Window: Prescriptive linguistics

The Miserable Mill: Currency, capitalism

The Austere Academy: The Education System

The Ersatz Elevator: Fashion

The Vile Village: The Justice system

The Hostile Hospital: Charity

The Carnivorous Carnival: Beauty, ableism

The End: Leadership

The sugar bowl conspiracy plays into this extensive line of philosophical deconstructions. If we had to guess, it would be tempting to paint the sugar bowl as Daniel Handler’s hot take on religion. It has its own mystique, eschatology, and clergy. Volunteers have developed their own rituals and culinary recommendations around it, which seems topical in a series already brimming with Judaic symbolism. Given that Daniel Handler describes himself a secular humanist while embracing a Jewish identity, he would be well-placed to write a story where characters should reconsider their beliefs and confront them will the available evidence. The similarity of V.F.D.’s tactics with those of well-known cults have been noted more than once.

#0492 #analysis #Lemony Snicket #a series of unfortunate events #ASoUE #atwq #all the wrong questions #Sugar Bowl #count olaf #violet baudelaire #klaus baudelaire #Sunny Baudelaire #daniel handler #vfd #judaism #Edgar Allan Poe #Dashiell Hammett #wilkie collins #shirley jackson

706 notes · View notes