The Secret History of Twin Peaks

[The_Trout]

If Frost wants to rewrite history, that's his perogative. I don't have to agree with him, but it's his thing, he can do what he wants. Overall, I really liked the book! I hope people don't dismiss it out of hand because of the retcons.

It also occurs to me that Agent TP is gonna be interesting if/when she shows up in Season 3, if only because she'll be a stranger in town that already knows the history of everything!

(BTW, my favorite little tidbit of the book might be that Frost canonizes that the Welcome sign number is indeed a typo.)

[BEARisonFord]

I'm not even saying the specific things in the book will come up in S3. It just makes me nervous about continuity in general for S3 since Frost wrote both. And if the continuity in the book is that loose, that might be the same for S3's continuity. I think it's a legitimate concern.

I would say if continuity is a solid dealbreaker for anyone to enjoy S3 of Twin Peaks, there's a good chance they will end up disappointed.

[Panapaok]

I'm not even saying the specific things in the book will come up in S3. It just makes me nervous about continuity in general for S3 since Frost wrote both. And if the continuity in the book is that loose, that might be the same for S3's continuity. I think it's a legitimate concern.

I don't worry because I feel Frost retconed a few things from the second half of S2 on purpose. He wanted to fix his issues with those storylines. It wasn't a mistake. As far as S3 goes, I think they will be faithful to the things they're bringing back.

[vicksvapor77]

(BTW, my favorite little tidbit of the book might be that Frost canonizes that the Welcome sign number is indeed a typo.)

THAT'S AWESOME!

[squealy]

It may have all appeared in the thread already but can somebody who's read the book do a rundown of what it tells us about post-series events?

[N. Needleman]

I don't worry because I feel Frost retconed a few things from the second half of S2 on purpose. He wanted to fix his issues with those storylines. It wasn't a mistake. As far as S3 goes, I think they will be faithful to the things they're bringing back.

Yeah, I do think the apparent omission of "Good Ben" was a very deliberate choice - it was too major a (sub)plot point to be forgotten outright, as was Stop Ghostwood, etc.

After 25 years I think they're entitled to do as they please, but I am equally entitled to ignore that (relatively minor, IMO) retcon in the book. As it is, Episode 29 already seemed to potentially set up Ben reverting to bad type after being clobbered by Doc Hayward and (I think - or was this just in the original script?) bemoaning the failures of his choice to do good. I go by what's on the screen. If Ben is a black hat again in Season 3, I will assume it came about by way of Doc beating his head in, or simply human nature - not a tossed-off retcon in the text.

[Ross]

I'm not even saying the specific things in the book will come up in S3. It just makes me nervous about continuity in general for S3 since Frost wrote both. And if the continuity in the book is that loose, that might be the same for S3's continuity. I think it's a legitimate concern.

I would say if continuity is a solid dealbreaker for anyone to enjoy S3 of Twin Peaks, there's a good chance they will end up disappointed.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but is continuity really a big thing to want or expect in a TV show or sequel?

[vicksvapor77]

I don't worry because I feel Frost retconed a few things from the second half of S2 on purpose. He wanted to fix his issues with those storylines. It wasn't a mistake. As far as S3 goes, I think they will be faithful to the things they're bringing back.

Yeah, I do think the apparent omission of "Good Ben" was a very deliberate choice - it was too major a (sub)plot point to be forgotten outright, as was Stop Ghostwood, etc.

After 25 years I think they're entitled to do as they please, but I am equally entitled to ignore that (relatively minor, IMO) retcon in the book. As it is, Episode 29 already seemed to potentially set up Ben reverting to bad type after being clobbered by Doc Hayward and (I think - or was this just in the original script?) bemoaning the failures of his choice to do good. I go by what's on the screen. If Ben is a black hat again in Season 3, I will assume it came about by way of Doc beating his head in, or simply human nature - not a tossed-off retcon in the text.

It sounds like to me that the "Good Ben" we saw on screen for the final arc of the season was not genuine and "Bad Ben" was secretly still there and we didn't know it. So not an outright retcon but more of "offscreen Twin Peaks" we weren't aware of, hence the "secret history" title of the book. Not intended to "erase" what we saw happening on screen, though. At least, that's how I'm taking the situation. It's a convenient way to retcon the events and redefine we saw on screen as disingenuous, likely as a way to setup the third season plot with Ben.

[N. Needleman]

I think we can and should expect decent continuity, myself. But I don't think the kind of gaffes in the book are that much of a downer given the long time away and the relatively granular nature of the problem areas.

If S3 onscreen should turn out to be laden with similar issues then I'd potentially make a different call, but as it is now I chalk it up to "forget it, Jake, it's Twin Peaks spinoff stuff."*

* - with apologies to Roman Polanski's Chinatown

It sounds like to me that the "Good Ben" we saw on screen for the final arc of the season was not genuine and "Bad Ben" was secretly still there and we didn't know it. So not an outright retcon but more of "offscreen Twin Peaks" we weren't aware of, hence the "secret history" title of the book. Not intended to "erase" what we saw happening on screen, though. At least, that's how I'm taking the situation. It's a convenient way to retcon the events and redefine we saw on screen as disingenuous, likely as a way to setup the third season plot with Ben.

I'll have to re-read it because I didn't see it that way. That would be one way to go, I suppose. Upon rewatching those episodes recently I did think Beymer often had Ben chafing at his new halo, especially when dealing with people like Dick, or obtrusively pushing himself into Eileen's life. (Still hope Mary Jo Deschanel turns up in S3, BTW)

[bowisneski]

It may have all appeared in the thread already but can somebody who's read the book do a rundown of what it tells us about post-series events?

Cooper visits Briggs after the tooth brushing incident, leaving Briggs extremely worried about the Cooper... Cooper... Cooper... message

Pete, Dell, and Andrew died in the bank explosion, Audrey survived

Hank was shived by a Renault relative in prison

Lana stayed in town for about six month before moving away, dating Donald Trump, and marrying a hedge fund manager

Jacoby had his license to practice psychiatry revoked and moved to Hawaii to work on his memoirs

Sam Stanley became an alcoholic and was placed on administrative leave

Phillip Jeffries and Chet Desmond don't seem to have ever re-appeared



I believe that is everything.

[N. Needleman]

Also:

Catherine became a broken-hearted recluse.
Ben sat beside Audrey's bedside, riddled with guilt.
Cooper cannot be verified as still being on the FBI active duty roster in 2016. Cole and Albert are still active.

I will add the brief aside from Briggs where he theorizes ("a personal theory") that Lana was secretly an assassin sent to take out Doug Milford is not a theory I can ascribe to. Sorry, Briggsy.

[Aqua]

Donna?

[BEARisonFord]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but is continuity really a big thing to want or expect in a TV show or sequel?

Nah, that's not argumentative at all, and in 9 out of 10 cases i'd agree with you. I personally just think Twin Peaks sits outside of the norm. Nothing about David Lynch's work has proven to be conventional, and that can aggravate a lot of people (sometimes justifiably, sometimes not). I've always maintained that Lynch is a very fluid, dynamic, malleable, spontaneous, and sometimes frustrating filmmaker, and Twin Peaks is no exception to that.

[BEARisonFord]

Donna?

I didn't notice any mention of Donna at all.

[Panapaok]

Donna?

I didn't notice any mention of Donna at all.

At all? Damn, that's weird.