Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[Rialto]

Hi Yaxomomay,

Apologies again for not being clear enough - my post mentioning someone who had not been here for the previous 120 pages, and asking to be left alone, was not directed at you. It was directed at the guy who quoted your post in order to call me an 'internet troll'.

And again, there's nothing wrong with inferring meaning from any artistic work. I've just never seen such a huge gap before between what's there, and the meaning people are bringing/creating.

And I don't necessarily mean you there - I'm not necessarily talking about it evoking feelings, humour, etc in you.

I'm more struck by people on other threads who are all like: 'Well obviously Lynch is making a comment about x y and z, and Frost is parodying such and such real life person, and they definitely intend for Audrey to represent Cooper's subconscious', and the extrapolation from what was there, to what they are absolutely certain Lynch and Frost meant is huge.

People experiencing 'the cosmic emotion' in response to what's actually there, or responding to the humour, is a different matter altogether.

[N. Needleman]

No one of us is the arbiter of the objective meaning or value of this material. Which rather defeats the purpose of claiming this is a fascinating sociological study of other people's mass delusion in liking a TV show you don't.

Like it, don't like it, cool. But the constant attempts to recontextualize Lynch's choices or other folks' valid enjoyment of the show as some sort of phenomenon of disorder are really just another way to talk down to people AFAIC.

[The Gazebo]

I'm more struck by people on other threads who are all like: 'Well obviously Lynch is making a comment about x y and z, and Frost is parodying such and such real life person, and they definitely intend for Audrey to represent Cooper's subconscious', and the extrapolation from what was there, to what they are absolutely certain Lynch and Frost meant is huge.

I don't think there is a simple answer to this. Most humans try to seek out patterns they can recognize in order to "understand the world". Even those who wish for maximum surrealism and/or who say that the show is to be experienced, not analyzed, probably do this to a certain degree. Show the Audrey scene to a different audience, and they may be unshakable in their belief that she's on her period.

In general, social sciences are rampant with rather baseless assumptions and arguments created to fit into a preconceived conclusion. There may well be some good nuggets in there, but often you have to wade through a lot of noise. In the case of Dugpa I think we just have to take it for what it is: An attempt to understand what we're seeing.

[Novalis]

I do find it genuinely fascinating though - as a sometime tutor in semiotics to undergrads - the correlation between enjoyment of this season, and the ascribing of meaning/intention that simply isn't in the text...

I would not have thought a semiotics tutor would be the one to reduce meaning to a reception theory. Isn't the historical basis of semiotics precisely the externalized cultural matrix of meaning that subsists in Saussurian structures, langue, etc? I've never heard semiotics reduced to reader response theories before, and I have several bookshelves of readers on semiotics.

[kleio]

I'd love to speak to someone who had never seen any TP except for the Return. Perhaps they still get a lot out of it, because they haven't been exposed to anything this "off-the-charts weird" before. Maybe the lack of old threads that might or might not be driving the plot actually enhances the experience.Who knows.

Like you, I sincerely doubt there is a way in at all for people who aren't massive fans already.

A while back, they made a movie of one of my favourite childhood books. A terrible, terrible movie that stripped away most of the mythology that made the book (not Percy Jackson) interesting and gave the family “issues” just to make things more angsty. People who had read the book and loved it *hated* the movie because they knew the source material. People had never read the book thought it was an okay kids’ movie.

I suspect people who haven’t seen the original would hate the new one for its glacial pace and give up out of boredom or think it is an interesting quirky drama.

[Rialto]

Christ on a bike, I'm never opening my mouth again. Because here's what I said: 'the gap between what is in the text and the meaning some people are ascribing is wide. That's interesting.'

And here's what people heard: 'anyone who likes the show is an idiot!' 'finding meaning in this show is a sign of disorder!'

Talk about reading an intention the author didn't have...

[yaxomoxay]

Christ on a bike, I'm never opening my mouth again. Because here's what I said: 'the gap between what is in the text and the meaning some people are ascribing is wide. That's interesting.'

And here's what people heard: 'anyone who likes the show is an idiot!' 'finding meaning in this show is a sign of disorder!'

Talk about reading an intention the author didn't have...

Be proud, we analyze your posts with the same intensity we analyze TP:TR !!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Novalis]

Christ on a bike, I'm never opening my mouth again. Because here's what I said: 'the gap between what is in the text and the meaning some people are ascribing is wide. That's interesting.'

And here's what people heard: 'anyone who likes the show is an idiot!' 'finding meaning in this show is a sign of disorder!'

Talk about reading an intention the author didn't have...

Calm down; you are going to give yourself skin failure!

I find what you are saying very interesting, principally because semiotics, iconology and hermeneutics is also my field. I simply wondered if what Saussure called the arbitrariness (i.e. conventionality) of signs had slipped out of view. Clearly it hasn't, and you're talking about something that also fascinates me about modern TV series: the way that fanbases tend to synthesise a whole mythological universe from a relatively small number of provided significant meanings in a show. I'm actually looking forward to you saying more about this.

[Rialto]

Yamamoxay thank you for some much needed levity

[Rialto]

And Novalis, half of me is tempted to dig into this properly, I feel like it would be fascinating as a study of fandom and the creation of identity (as you can probably tell, my background in semiotics is grounded in Media and Audience studies).

But the other half realises it would entail many re-viewings of The Return, and full immersion in the world of the converted, and I'm not sure I have the temperament

I think I'll give my blood pressure a rest and go back to lurking...

[Novalis]

And Novalis, half of me is tempted to dig into this properly, I feel like it would be fascinating as a study of fandom and the creation of identity (as you can probably tell, my background in semiotics is grounded in Media and Audience studies).

But the other half realises it would entail many re-viewings of The Return, and full immersion in the world of the converted, and I'm not sure I have the temperament

I think I'll give my blood pressure a rest and go back to lurking...

Totally understand. If at any point you change your mind though, just know that you've at least one interested interlocutor that's not going to jump all over what you're saying.

[yaxomoxay]

Yamamoxay thank you for some much needed levity

Np
I also think that what you're saying is interesting. Your initial post probably fell victim of the communication vehicle and the intended meaning was somehow distorted on the way between your keyboard and my screen. It happens, forums are not necessarily the best way to communicate.

I think that one important point to be made - and here I am also reconnecting to the posts about water cooler conversations - is that modern technology is substantially influencing how we analyze TV series.
If you think about, until recently most of what we had was the proverbial water cooler conversation. We could've had a small circle of fans, but information sharing was quite limited and much slower.
Today? If I want to go back and see a single scene from episode 2, I can do it from my phone anytime I want. Even on my lunch break. I can skip and stream small portions of the program, and connect the dots as I see fit in just a few minutes.
More interestingly, I can spread my findings in a very fast way that also broadens the reach. More importantly and much more modern, I can also instantly share visuals/sounds about what I believe is interesting. Just check how many frames we analyzed here or on Reddit.
In other words, the possibility to initiate and contribute to international conversation aimed at very specific (and technical) components is so powerful that it inevitably leads to analysis and research of meanings in a way that is unprecedented. Complex products like TP can't be exempt from that, independently of what the artists intentions or the audience tastes are.
GOT is over analyzed, for example. Even a much "simpler" product like TWD has a huge community that does the very things we do on this forum or on the TP reddit.

One subject that you semioticians should look at is how modern technology is influencing the study and spread of symbology.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Gazebo]

In other words, the possibility to initiate and contribute to international conversation aimed at very specific (and technical) components is so powerful that it inevitably leads to analysis and research of meanings in a way that is unprecedented. Complex products like TP can't be exempt from that, independently of what the artists intentions or the audience tastes are.
GOT is over analyzed, for example. Even a much "simpler" product like TWD has a huge community that does the very things we do on this forum or on the TP reddit.

I'm pretty sure that The Return is made with the full knowledge that viewers will rewatch and obsess over tiny details. Or are we just more alert now? If the pilot was shown for the first time today, would we screenshot and study the artifacts around Pete and Catherine when he goes fishing?

On a slightly related note, alongside all the benefits of the new interactive landscape, there is one thing that's being slowly eroded: Common cultural experiences/symbolism/language/etc. on a larger scale. I'm a bit too young to remember all of these (as well as not being American) but I can only assume that the finale of M*A*S*H, the Frost/Nixon interview, Who shot JR? and so on became part of people's shared experiences. Today, it's all a bit fragmented. Even fans of GOT probably cannot throw out a reference to the show and expect the majority of strangers to "get it".

[Jonah]

I absolutely loved the waiter/Cooper scene in season 2. I could watch that all day. However, back then these kinds of scenes were used sparingly, to good effect.

Very much agree with this. I like slow sequences too - but I think they're being overused now. And some of them seem really ridiculous - such as the sweeping scene.

I'm pretty sure that The Return is made with the full knowledge that viewers will rewatch and obsess over tiny details. Or are we just more alert now? If the pilot was shown for the first time today, would we screenshot and study the artifacts around Pete and Catherine when he goes fishing?

I might get flamed for saying this, but I think the narrative of the original series - particularly episodes like the Pilot - was so strong (much stronger than the new series) that you got more swept up in the story itself and didn't need to focus as much on more outlandish theories. Just my 2 cents.

[The Gazebo]

I might get flamed for saying this, but I think the narrative of the original series - particularly episodes like the Pilot - was so strong (much stronger than the new series) that you got more swept up in the story itself and didn't need to focus as much on more outlandish theories. Just my 2 cents.

No, I agree. The original was like a gentle, enticing wave washing over you. The Return is a complex painting, cut into tiny pieces before being given to us here and there.