Submitted by AggravatingStudy2084 t3_115efg1 in books

Note that there will be spoilers in this post, too many to mark individually though none very detailed.

I remember loving ASoUE in late elementary and early middle, and though I never finished them all I did get to book … 9? or 10? (Idk, one or two after they live at the circus.)

I wish I’d seen the series to the end, but … I dunno, I got bored with it. At some point the books required too much cumulative suspension of disbelief to be taken at face value, and had too many open plot holes to be taken as effective fantasy. Each subsequent book was reading, at least in outline, like a clone of the previous ones:

  1. The orphans go somewhere new (Point in the “win” column: Handler does have an art for writing imaginative and macabre settings, not one of which I remember finding dull.)

  2. They are welcomed by one or more authority figures. About half are downright malevolent; the rest are stupid, craven, or both. None of them show any sympathy for the poor kids — two homeless, recently-orphaned middle schoolers and the baby they are raising alone.

Well, some do, but none who live to tell the tale.

  1. Enter Count Olaf, the world’s dumbest villain and distant-2nd-dumbest human being overall, with Mr Poe and all the other guardians (except Monty and Esmé) in an ignoble tie for first. The man wears disguises that any blindfolded orangutan could see past, but when the plucky kiddos try to tell an adult, they are scoffed at, in a conversation with more or less this structure:

”Yo, you know that new teacher/firefighter/accountant/concert pianist named ‘F.O. LaCunto’? He isn’t [occupation] at all! He is a COUNT — a count named OLAF!”

”Nonsense! I specifically asked him ‘Are you Count Olaf?’ and he said ‘no’! And just to be sure, I made him promise he wasn’t lying!

  1. With no outside support, whatsoever, from anyone (poor babies), they put their respective skills to work in ways that — another solid W — are clever and even instructive. I like the literary and scientific references; kids’ books where the heroes are avid readers and learners are rare gems.

  2. Mr Poe shows up to yell at them for something stupid right before they unmask Count Olaf. Everyone is absolutely stunned at this revelation, he runs away, and the cycle of doom repeats.

Now about those plot holes. Yes, I get that there’s a magical-realist-steampunk motif, but two big ones still bug me:

  • In the first book, they are whisked away from Justice Strauss — not even allowed to spend one night with her — because she is not a relative. But with the exception of Olaf himself, neither are any of the other guardians. There’s an old Chinese proverb that says “you can’t be related to a village.” Wise words; you also can’t be related to a boarding school.

  • Seriously, was Mr Poe working with Count Olaf? Even setting aside the first plot hole, I simply refuse to believe that any independent adult — never mind a wealthy bank executive — could be that dense. The first time not recognizing Olaf, fine: the kids could be traumatized, having flashbacks, whatever. The second time? I’ll allow it: it may well seem far-fetched that he’d put on a second disguise given how sort-of-miserably the first one sort-of-failed. I will not allow a third chance, Poe, let alone a sixth or seventh. Get yourself examined for brain worms immediately.

To be fair, Handler did make things interesting by adding new puzzles to the books (the eye tattoo, the Quagmire triplets, “VFD,” etc.). These were effective cliffhangers for the first, say, six books. But even fantasies need internal logic, and with fundamental, show-stopping questions — at least the two big ones listed above — remaining unanswered after twelve or so books, that logic started falling apart. All the codes and secret organizations and schisms were like bricks being added to the top of an increasingly wobbly Jenga tower.

The books lend themselves well to the visual, and I like the Netflix series a lot and am not too far in. Given all the above plus the roughly-20-year hiatus since I stopped reading the book series, I’ll probably just fill in the gaps with the Netflix show and move on. So please, stop me now if I’ve got it all wrong and need to go back before I finish watching.

Or — yaknow — just tell me your own thoughts :)

67

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kaysn t1_j91ajoh wrote

I did finish all 13 books when I was 16. So it’s been a while. “Adults are stupid” is the recurring theme in the series. It doesn’t change. The only adults who seem to think are the Snickett siblings and Count Olaf. Mustache twirling villain that he is.

A Series of Unfortunate Events is a caricature. The absurdity is dialed up to the extreme. I would like to think that the real message is people who refuse to listen are at best unhelpful and at worst, perpetuating the crimes and abuse being committed. And they will choose to keep not listening. Because acknowledgement means they are guilty. Nobody wants to say they, along with the world have been horrible.

145

AggravatingStudy2084 OP t1_j91ckly wrote

You know … I think you have a point that clicked when I read your word “abuse.” (Brace yourself, I’m about to get dark.)

Think about the Catholic Church abuse cases. Systematic, epidemic child abuse. A phenomenon that would have sounded like unhinged, hard-boiled paranoia if not for the fact that it actually happened. And not only did it actually happen, it went on for years with the same perpetrators because at every opportunity to stop priests that they knew were molesting kids, the Catholic Church either

  1. ignored the claims in spite of overwhelming evidence or

  2. did worse than nothing by merely moving the offending priests around after no or effectively no punishment.

So there really are Mr Poes in the world — not actively evil like the Count Olafs, but permissively evil by failing to stop them

My points still stand, but I’ll grant that I now see Mr Poe’s character in a slightly less critical light.

24

Causerae t1_j92tziz wrote

"Adults are very stupid" - an adult

Seriously, any contested custody case proves the books are quite realistic. Yes, I couldn't finish them, either. Sure, they felt unrealistic.

Are they unrealistic? Maybe, but not in portraying adults as stupid and obtuse, utterly blind to abuse and malevolence. That part was entirely accurate.

17

AggravatingStudy2084 OP t1_j92w23g wrote

First of all, I’m 7. (Just kidding, I’m 69.)

It’s curious that you chose this particular comment to reply to when it seems to grant a lot of your point. I’m also confused as to whether you agree that adults are stupid or are citing me critically. Or, idk … maybe both?

1

Causerae t1_j96relf wrote

My point was that the books do indeed portray abuse and neglect, portray children being chronically unheard and mistreated and mistrusted, they are indeed dark. I think the darkness is prob very clear to the children who made the series so popular. Not every kid can put into words the experience of being cast out and hurt, but the books portray it as a norm and thus are super validating.

Plus, I am am adult and I say adults are stupid. I mean, we are really stupid. Right?!

If I were getting into a serious, dark discussion, I'd also mention that what is portrayed as adult stupidity is often actually systemic violence, unhealthy social hierarchies (like churches) and well meaning adults who are thwarted when they try to help vs adults, are merely stupid.

From a child's perspective, yes, I think "stupid" suffices as a good enough description. As an adult, I can see a larger system. Individual adults may not be responsible for their own powerlessness and inaction (they tried, after all), but the children are still harmed. No one does well in the books, and that's a pretty fair depiction of life as I know it. Adults are stupid, but it's not really their fault. Not an uplifting thought, but that's why I stopped reading the books. They're bleak.

1

ImprobableGerund t1_j93i471 wrote

It gets crazier if you keep reading the series. Olaf starts to make more sense and your start to empathize with him and the kids start making questionable choices and start seeming to be more like the bad guys. There is evil, there are people that make no sense, and everyone thinks their bad choices are justified. It is unfortunate, but sometimes so is life.

9

Rilenaveen t1_j92uewu wrote

I LOVE the idea of a kids book where “adults are stupid” is a central theme. BUT we don’t need 13 books of them being stupid in the same exact way. Ya know? Make them stupid in different ways!

7

HildaMarin t1_j92hctq wrote

I think kids telling an adult that the adult is deluded and has been conned by an obvious fraud and charlatan and abusive manipulator is something that does happen. The reaction, as in these books, is nearly always to deny the child's claims as wrong, fanciful, or spiteful, and to defend the charlatan, and to punish the child.

Talk to any survivor of childhood abuse and they will tell you all the times they reached out to those they trusted that they were punched down. One of the worst situations is telling one's mother they are being abused by their stepfather and the mother takes it as a personal accusation against herself and punishes the child for lying about the mother's heroin addicted or otherwise questionable boyfriend who provides the needy mother with affirmations in return for pedophilic access, a trade.

This capitalistic dynamic I find to be the aspect of these books that is the most realistic detail.

35

AggravatingStudy2084 OP t1_j92wcdf wrote

You have an excellent point, Hilda — did you see my reply about the Church abuse cases?

Also, I get the feeling that your example is autobiographical — in which case, I am very sorry and hope that you are finding peace. (hugs)

[To whoever downvoted this comment: I sincerely apologize for trying to be kind to someone who might have been hurting. Please get a life.]

3

HildaMarin t1_j94iu16 wrote

Hi, thanks, I did not downvote you FWIW. Anecdote I told matches several friends over my life who disclosed to me step-parent, foster-parent, and mom's-latest-boyfriend you-are-to-call-uncle sexual abuse.

My abuse was of a different nature which I do not really like to get in to. In particular to all the people who keep telling me therapy, spent a lot of money and wasted incredible amounts of time on that and it keeps coming down to that I have to "forgive" them. Yeah, no. I want reform of laws so abusers can legally kill their perps. That's what I want. Legal. Not illegal. And the people who say this means I need more therapy can bleep right off with that abuse. We need legal reform so victims can legally kill their perps. Like in Saudi Arabia where victims have the option to behead those who have wronged them. But with far more judicial review and for real crimes, not that Saudi BS.

4

Rilenaveen t1_j92td67 wrote

I don’t think op is arguing that adults ignoring children is something that doesn’t happen. It’s that it KEEPS happening and the adults continue to ignore the children. It’s the opposite of the boy who cried wolf.

2

CatGirlIsHere9999 t1_j91l0ji wrote

I loved these books and still do. I know the first seven or so are repetitive but then it branches out in a crazy way.

29

Roland_D_Sawyboy t1_j91sly7 wrote

Yeah you've really got to love the conspiracy/secret society aspect, I totally disagree with the OP. That was a great way to keep me coming back, and in retrospect as an adult it meshed really well with the suburban gothic aesthetic.

25

PurpleDreamer28 t1_j92jsgw wrote

So little fun memory: A few years back, Lemony Snicket/Daniel Handler did a Q&A on Tumblr (essentially their version of an AMA). I tried asking what was really in the Sugar Bowl, but he didn't answer. I knew he probably wouldn't, but I thought I'd just throw it out there. And I'm guessing I wasn't the only one who asked that either.

15

QuothTheRaven713 t1_j91rxx2 wrote

I loved the book series when it came out (even if the ending was underwhelming in some ways) and I still rearead it at times. I think that series really kickstarted my love for whimsical macabre, quirky narrative tone, and neo-Victorian/steampunk aesthetic, all of which I've incorporated into my own work in different ways.

I'm catching up on the Netflix series now and I feel like they really captured the books a lot, while also making it more cohesive by introducing the VFD plot earlier (if I recall Handler started introducing them only in the 5th book because that was when he got the go-ahead to do the full 13 books he wanted, so the first 4 were pretty standalone).

14

DarthSalyavin t1_j91c1f8 wrote

I read them all and as the series says it was a very anticlimactic ending if I recall.

13

hannahbaba t1_j93g0dq wrote

It has a very quiet, semi-tragic conclusion that I appreciate a lot more as an adult than I did as a kid.

15

Frosty_Mess_2265 t1_j92s4nc wrote

I've read the books many times and loved them every time, but I recognise they are kind of odd. When I was a kid, I always interpreted the adults' incompetence as a satire of the 'we know better' attitude that a lot of adults adopt whenever a kid tries to tell them something is wrong

12

boringbonding t1_j93wmfj wrote

I absolutely loved these books in middle school, which I see as the perfect age range for them. Elementary schoolers arent really ready for the subject matter or the humor present.

The books are a very beautiful and gentle ode to the Baudelaire siblings, while also being a cutting take on the banality, tragedy, and absurdity of growing up.

OP I really think you kinda missed the subtler aspects of the books. They are meant to be very exaggerated and farcical because they are satirical. They are meant to show the best and the worst of humanity. And yes they are meant to be repetitive because that adds to the tragedy and the farce.

11

ViniVidiVelcro t1_j92yfbr wrote

I never read the full series but as a child I enjoyed the ones I did read as a child. To me, the books are meant to be darkly humorous and absurdist rather than realistic so criticizing them on the grounds of not being realistic seems to miss the point of the books. It is like thinking that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is meant to be realistic. Not everything is meant to be realistic.

It is common for children’s books to feature cartoonishly evil or incompetent adults (think of books like those by Roald Dahl for example) and series often feature repeated plots and recurring villains. That is part of the appeal for many readers.

10

idk-lol-1234 t1_j93qrp9 wrote

To put it simply: You missed the entire point of the series.

10

Ren_763 t1_j94df2a wrote

What is the point according to you?

1

idk-lol-1234 t1_j94ec2d wrote

Its bringing awareness to the fact that most kids experiencing child abuse are ignored, and the foster care system only makes it worse.

1

AggravatingStudy2084 OP t1_j94g8f0 wrote

That’s weird; I seem to recall addressing this very point with a specific example.

1

hummingbird_mywill t1_j92fk83 wrote

In a little bit of defense, Monty from the second book was made out in documentation to be an uncle of theirs, as well as the late Ike, husband to Josephine.

But of course, it’s very ridiculous that they don’t return to the idea of Justice Strauss after those two don’t, erm, work out. And Poe’s ideas just get more and more outlandish compared to Justice Strauss as the series goes on. So that does require suspension of disbelief. But the plot begins to get much more interesting and complicated as the books go on, so it’s not too difficult to forget about.

My thoughts on this series are that the beginning was absolutely unexpected, and I didn’t love it. I think I will watch the rest of the show though.

8

AggravatingStudy2084 OP t1_j92x17q wrote

Huh, the documentation must have surfaced in one of the last books.

As for Josephine, still not buying it. Even if Ike is related to them by blood, he is still presumed dead at the time they’re adopted. Especially since Josephine had no children of her own, calling her their “relative” in a legal sense seems doubtful (though maybe we should get a second option from r/LegalAdvice). Don’t their parents have any living siblings?

1

hummingbird_mywill t1_j932vty wrote

It’s heavily implied that they weren’t actually related to Ike by blood, but their parents would have made it appear so to Poe.

It is an interesting question if an aunt by marriage would get priority in custody if you’ve never even met. I’m actually a lawyer lol but not a family lawyer. Just going off what I remember from the bar, custody would be determined based off the best interests of the child. If goes to a non-blood aunt meant that they remain in a similar cultural setting to what they grew up in, then that might be in favor of her.

However, I forget, is Justice Strauss from the same city they grew up in? The stability of staying in the same city would heavily be in favor of her in that regard. And Violet and Klaus’s opinions would be taken into account.

3

Rilenaveen t1_j92u48r wrote

Hahahah. Op if I didn’t know better I would have thought I wrote this post. Agree with everything you said.

I didn’t read these books as a kid or teen, but as an adult reading them with/to my kid (from the age 7 to 9). And he loved them at first. But somewhere around book 8 he asked if it was going to be just like the other 7 books? And once we read it and it was a copy paste of the other 7, he said he didn’t want to read anymore.

I do wish we had skipped to the last one but when a 9 y/o is pointing out the writing flaws, you have a problem.

But I will say the Netflix series did a great job of streamlining the books.

3

SuperShinyStar3 t1_j953f21 wrote

Some of the quotes were iconic though. My personal favorite is “what can’t be beat?! A dead horse!!!”

I still use memento mori in casual conversation to this day 😂

3

FionaGoodeEnough t1_j96z60l wrote

It’s absurd and dialed up to eleven, but after a lifetime of watching politicians and celebrities go through scandals that the public forgets about quite quickly, and having to explain VERY RECENT history to people at election time every two years, it’s not as absurd as I would like, and I think it’s actually a pretty great perspective.

3

NotThisTime1993 t1_j94erk5 wrote

I read the books as they came out. The last one came out when I was 13. I’ve always found them excellent. Of course they’re not a “realistic” mystery series, they weren’t from the start

2

frizzyfox t1_j94vse1 wrote

Please tell me you watched the 2004 film. If you enjoyed the settings of the books, you'll love the film's production value and set design. (I so wish we got another movie of books 4-6 and 7-9, that would've been epic. Netflix series doesn't compare, imo.)

As to your points – I do see what you mean, but most of those things never bothered me. Someone else mentioned that ASOUE is a caricature and I agree. They're not meant to be totally realistic. Part of the fun is all the crazy behaviour and dialogue from Mr. Poe, Olaf, Esmee, and all the absurd situations the Baudelaires are put through.

Think of a Leslie Nielsen movie (The Naked Gun movies). You're not supposed to take them seriously, and the fact that they're so absurd is part of the appeal. ASOUE strikes a similar vein, just with a darker undertone, but they are very much comedic at their core.

And as a kid reading these, the tone and style of these books was so unique and different from other children's books, that they were immediately compelling, despite any plot holes or lack of realism.

I think the only issue I had with the series is that when you get to the last book, many of the VFD mysteries and questions are left unanswered. So the series ended for me without that catharsis that you feel when you get a really tight ending to a series (i.e. Deathly Hallows, for example).

It's a bit of a bummer, because up until book 13, I did actually believe that Handler (Snicket) would actually be able to tie up all the loose ends and basically pull off a magician's trick. So to find out that, no, there was no grand ending that would tie up all the mysteries, that he was just leaving a bunch of things ambivalent, after 12 books of build-up, was a bit disappointing.

That being said, I'll always have fond memories of these books. The locations, the characters, the dialogue, the 'steampunk'/Victorian style, the clues and mysteries... there's something really quirky and cozy about these books (cozy might seem like a weird word for ASOUE, but I think you know what I mean... maybe my memory of reading them is cozy, and that affects my perception).

For a more realistic series with clues and mysteries, check out Chasing Vermeer by Blue Balliett, or The Mysterious Benedict Society.

Also: His Dark Materials. Totally different from ASOUE, but what an epic trilogy, and beautifully written. I wouldn't even call them children's books, tbh.

Edit: Btw, the fact that I see an ASOUE thread on /r/books once every few months is very heartwarming. It just goes to show how, despite any criticism of the books, they really have touched something within all of us. These are technically kid's books, yet here we are, years later, still engaging with any thread that mentions them :)

2

SuperShinyStar3 t1_j953b3d wrote

I’m sorry but Carrey was not that count olafy compared to nph that man is exactly how I pictured Olaf

1

Siareen t1_j95jggt wrote

I love this series. I think you are expecting it to be something different than it is, though.

It's not meant to be realistic. It's supposed to be over the top and exaggerated. Some commenters below mentioned that it's supposed to be about adults not believing children when they try to tell them something bad is happening, and I agree.

It's also important to realize that these are children's books. I read them in elementary school for the first time. I remember waiting eagerly for books eleven, twelve and thirteen. I loved that at the time because most series I was reading also were about children solving their own problems (Harry Potter, the Boxcar Children, even Narnia), where the adults are mostly useless and the kids have to get themselves out of the mess on their own. If you compare it to Harry Potter, especially the first four books of Harry Potter- Voldemort is doing something bad, none of the grownups believe the kids, and then Harry Ron and Hermione have to solve the problem themselves. Formulaic and "unbelievable", just like most children's series, especially the long ones. I'm reading The Magic Tree House to my nephews right now, and that entire series is the more formulaic thing I have ever read. And kids love it, because they are the audience.

As a kid, I felt like the adults didn't understand me, and when bad things were happening, didn't believe me or tried to discount what I was saying to placate me. A Series of Unfortunate Events reflects that reality.

It's also supposed to be an ubsurd story with quirky antics (one of the reasons I absolutely loved the Netflix series- I think they captured the tone so so well. One of my all time favorite book to screen adaptations).

I reread the entire series about a year ago, and I loved it just as much as an adult- less so for the plot, which can be simplistic, especially in the first few books, but moreseo for the writing and deeper meanings. First of all, I find the narration really funny and very witty. I love the wordplays and the puns and the codes and all the secrets. When I was a kid, I hated that the book didn't end in a super satisfying way. As an adult, I cried at the end. I was also much more aware of just how horrible the kids lives are, and the TV show also made me see it more. It's tragic and they are alone and just trying to survive.

I always say that the best children's literature are the books you like as a kid, and still like as an adult. So I can still enjoy Narnia and A Series of Unfortunate Events, because there is a second layer of meaning going on in those series, but I can't really enjoy the Magic Tree House or the Boxcar Children. Same goes for movies- I love most Disney and Pixar movies, but then there are things like Trolls or the Paw Patrol movies which are clearly only meant for kids and I was bored (I watch/read a lot of kids things because of my nephews).

I think you need to suspend you belief and appreciate the series for what it is. And if you don't like it, then it's just not for you. Plenty of other books out there to enjoy.

2

leilahlove1996 t1_j93qekc wrote

Haven’t read these books since middle school but I loved them so much I’m naming my newborn to be Violet.

Was thinking of re-reading to refresh, but based on your stand point maybe not… lol

1

akira2bee t1_j947y77 wrote

I just finished collecting there series because I remember loving them back in elementary school. I too, was hoping to reread and I had heard others say that they're perfect for enjoying as a kid and an adult, but OP isn't wrong that there's a clear formula. I'm only hoping that since I always knew the formula was the same, ie new adult, bad situation kids have to think out of, etc, that I won't be disappointed rereading them but who knows. I'm a little nervous now tbh

1

ShinyBlueChocobo t1_j93sy5i wrote

I read them all last year and a lot like the Oz books I really like them up to a point and then they drop off hard. For ASoUE it was everything after the Hostile Hospital and for Oz it was everything after book 3

1

abc123def321g t1_j947xqh wrote

I loved these books so much when I was a kid. I started the series when I was in 3rd grade and ended up reading all the books. I own them now too.

I haven't read them as an adult for the very reason of finding unrealistic elements and major plot holes that would have gone unnoticed as a child. I love the memories the series holds for me and I'm a little hesitant that rereading them might ruin it.

Maybe I'll give it a go at some point.

1

Sivy17 t1_j9arh6j wrote

I think your complaints fall off generally at the seventh or eighth book when the Baudelaires find themselves more or less completely on their own. I really enjoyed the series as a kid along with Dahl. Tried to watch some of the Netflix series and didn't care for it at all. Wish it had been darker and Patrick Warburton was not the right choice to play Snicket, or maybe the better choice would have been to have him as just a narrator rather than appear in person.

1

learnedastronomer112 t1_j9gy4i5 wrote

I see and appreciate the points you make. For me, the absurdity of it all adds to the intense dreaminess of the series. It has that trying-to-run-but-can’t dreadful feeling of a dream. The utter lack of competence and care from adults reinforced that feeling for me.

1

HitboxOfASnail t1_j92gonv wrote

do the kids ever get away and survive and live happily ever after? I grew out of them and never bothered finding the conclusion

−1

PurpleDreamer28 t1_j92iq5k wrote

>!Count Olaf dies in the last book,!< and the kids do survive, but I don't know if I'd describe the ending as "happy." It wasn't bad either, but it seemed more open-ended. If I remembered it better, I'd be able to describe it better.

10

worm600 t1_j968cz9 wrote

It was a crushing disappointment for me. I know Handler was trying for an ambiguous ending that doesn’t provide all the answers, but I found it incredibly unsatisfying and a lousy way to end a children’s series.

2

turboshot49cents t1_j930gu0 wrote

Those books are great when you first start them. But the author seems to be a one-trick pony and the series did not need to be as long as it was. I also got to book 9 or 10 and stopped because they were becoming so repetitive.

−1

slappythechunk t1_j929zj1 wrote

Never got into these books as a kid, but I was friends with people who were into them. The common thread was that the kids who liked them a lot were bright kids who knew they were bright and would stop at nothing to ensure that everybody knew how bright they were. While they didn't necessarily always end up in the top of the class, they did better than most with relatively little perceived effort. Indeed, they tended to exude apathy for any subject they weren't very much interested in but made sure to do well enough to maintain the perception that they were simply more clever than their peers. In their minds, they had already surpassed the adults in their lives intellectually, and these books played right into that fantasy. Eventually, as they got older, the curtain of life was slowly peeled back a bit to reveal that life is more difficult and complex than they thought. They realized that maybe either they aren't as smart or everybody else isn't as dumb as they believed, and the fantasy ASoUE played into so well was shattered.

I did watch the Netflix series. It was entertaining, but anything more than the three seasons they did would be tedious.

−19