The Secret History of Twin Peaks

[The_Trout]

One hint about Cooper's fate I might've missed up-thread: TP has a list of all the FBI agents we're familiar with, and only Cole and Albert are still in good shape, implying that Cooper befell a "terrible" fate like the others at some point. If nothing else, we also know that the FBI files on both Cooper and Major Briggs have been sealed following events we don't know about yet.

[Mr. Reindeer]

Full review of the book forthcoming (I have forty pages left to read). But I wanted to respond to a few of the things that have been said today.

First and foremost: Although I am very annoyed by the many MANY gaffes and/or retcons (and I am convinced that most - if not all - are either errors or deliberate retcons with no in-universe explanation), and they undeniably detracted from my enjoyment of the book, I STILL found it to be a great read overall, and I will be happily revisiting it at least twice in the next few months (once my audiobook arrives -- to check if there is any "bonus" material -- and again as part of my pre-S3 marathon).

I think it's probably obvious from my most recent posts in this thread that careless inconsistencies in fictional works really irk me. I like to be immersed in a fully-realized world where I can completely suspend my disbelief. Gaffes such as those present in this book derail that experience, and pull me out of the world. No matter how good the work is, that kind of thing is a bump in the road. And it's a shame when that happens. And I'm sad that it happened in this particular work,which I've been eagerly anticipating for a very long time.

And, yes, this IS different from stuff like the Secret Diary and My Life, My Tapes. I consider those things deuterocanonical at best; but I was hoping that this work, written as a labor of love by one of the architects of the TP universe, could be the first full-on legitimate expansion of the TP canon to the literary world. Now, having read it, I don't really think that that's the case. I'm always going to take the content of the show as the REAL canon first and foremost; and so, much of this book (despite some truly lovely expansions/additions to the lives of the characters we know and love) has to remain in the mushy realm of "sorta canon but not necessarily" in my mind. And that's a shame.

That being said: There is NOTHING productive to be gained from haranguing Mark or being confrontational with him. At this point, the work is what it is. And those who feel the need to confront him (as Lonely Soul said, "If he's not happy with me, so what?"), PLEASE remember that you're ruining things not only for yourselves, but for the rest of us. Think about it: every fan who takes an angry tone with Mark is just going to make him more reticent to engage with fans at all in the future. This is especially true at signings. Remember that there are hundreds of other fans there with you, whose goal is probably just to meet the co-creator of TP, hear some anecdotes, and have a fun night. If you bring down the room by pestering Mark with these issues and putting him in a bad mood, you're potentially going to cause him to shut down and be less cordial toward other fans. Put yourself in his shoes, and think about how you'd react if someone publicly challenged your ability to do your job. Would you be as willing to open yourself up to similar situations in the future (no matter how legitimate the criticism may have been)? I personally am very excited to meet the guy on Thursday, and hope to have a very positive experience wherein I can thank him for his work on this book and TP as a whole.

The proper venue to address these issues is a formal interview conducted by someone like Brad Dukes, who has earned enough street cred as a legitimate TP interviewer to ask the hardball questions. And -- hey, look! -- Brad did so! At this point, let me pause to say THANK YOU BRAD! He took the hit on our behalf to potentially risk his relationship with Frost to get us all some answers. I can't wait to listen to the podcast, and hope that the answers we get will prevent fans from harping on this during signings/etc.

Are you saying that Mark Frost, master storyteller, acclaimed novelist and television visionary, might actually...know what he's doing?

Nah. Surely it can't be that. Let's continue clutching our pearls.

The fact Mark is a very good writer doesn't mean he's immune to error, or that he's going to hit it out of the park every time. I think at least SOME of the inconsistencies in the book are pretty obviously errors; I would bet my pension that Robert Jacoby dying twice, seventeen years apart, is probably NOT track-laying for some mind-blowing S3 revelation. Mark's not perfect. (Slightly OT, but I would also add that fans of Mark's Young Adult series The Paladin Prophecy seem to generally agree that the conclusion of the series was a pretty big letdown. No matter how good you are, you don't hit a home run every time.) The fact is that NOTHING in the Secret History, text or subtext, indicates to me that Mark is self-aware about the errors or is playing some long game in terms of an in-universe explanation.

So we don't care if Lynch doesn't give a damn about continuity because he is a God among us but if Frost includes some discrepancies in his book, then he's sloppy and lazy. Sigh.

Well...kinda. It's not that Lynch can do no wrong (I think his painting and his solo music albums are pretty mediocre, I find The Elephant Man technically terrific but way too maudlin, and I hate On the Air and Dumbland))...but he has produced many of the most unique film works of our lifetimes, and (speaking personally) his films connect with me in a way that no one else's do. He is one of the few artists working in film that I would call a genius. Whereas the non-TP works by Mark that I've sampled (Storyville, The List of Seven) really haven't struck me as anything more than well-written, enjoyable, and ultimately forgettable. So, yes...if Lynch produces a work that really rattles my cage and gets my imagination going (as I fully expect him to), I'm probably more inclined to forgive him some gaffes.

The second aspect to this is that Lynch has always unapologetically lived in the creative realm of dream logic. Frost, on the other hand, has reinforced the typical assumption of the Lynch/Frost collaboration by writing this book: Frost is the left brain and Lynch is the right brain. This book (while ostensibly "a novel," according to the jacket), is an ambitious effort in (rather OCD) world-building, focused on dates, facts, and cataloguing/organization. In that respect, it is supremely non-Lynchian, and cements Frost as the "mythology-builder" in the partnership. If he willingly takes on that role, then I think we have more of a right to be critical if he doesn't pull it off super well in some places. Whereas Lynch has always been open about the fact that he's more interested in following his gut rather than any "show bible" or logic. It's more acceptable for him to go off the reservation, because it's expected (and the results tend to be stunning).

This ended up being a more negative post than I intended, but I did want to respond to some of the stuff that's been said. Again, I think The Secret History is great overall -- so good that I AM able to enjoy it in spite of the many annoying errors. Hopefully my forthcoming review will focus on the many, many positives.

[Ross]

For the record, the book actually says Earle went nuts "shortly [after]" Jeffries first disappeared in Buenos Aires. That's how I read it, anyway.

Ahh- I thought it was shortly after Desmond disappeared.

[Aqua]

Caroline 1979 as per mlmt, jeffries 1987 as per fwwm; who's doing the notes in the book on this?

Re coop - may have gone missing, as say did desmond

[N. Needleman]

For the record, the book actually says Earle went nuts "shortly [after]" Jeffries first disappeared in Buenos Aires. That's how I read it, anyway.

Ahh- I thought it was shortly after Desmond disappeared.

The wording is a little kooky, but the way I read it Briggs goes from talking about Desmond, then shifts to recounting Jeffries' original disappearance and says Earle stabbed/shot/etc Cooper "shortly thereafter".

I have not read MLMT in a long time but I don't remember Caroline's death or Earle's madness dating back to 1979. I always put it at maybe 1984. (Just checked and MLMT does say '79)

[Hockey Mask]

So disappointed in what I'm hearing. Not regretting cancelling my preorder since it seems on par with fan fiction. Still looking forward to S3.

It doesn't sound like the book wrapped up or set up much as far as storylines go so what is the point anyway. Cash grab? It sounds easily ignorable.

I doubt if anyone would be nearly as forgiving if it had been written by someone else.

[N. Needleman]

It doesn't sound like the book wrapped up or set up much as far as storylines go so what is the point anyway. Cash grab? It sounds easily ignorable.

This is the furthest thing from a cash grab. And it's not up to the book to do what you want it to when it's clearly not its aim.

I doubt if anyone would be nearly as forgiving if it had been written by someone else.

I 'forgave' all the other books, so nah.

[Hockey Mask]

What is its aim?

[N. Needleman]

What is its aim?

To explore the larger mythology and 'secret history' of Twin Peaks. And also turn this thread into an angry subreddit.

[BEARisonFord]

So disappointed in what I'm hearing. Not regretting cancelling my preorder since it seems on par with fan fiction. Still looking forward to S3.

It doesn't sound like the book wrapped up or set up much as far as storylines go so what is the point anyway. Cash grab? It sounds easily ignorable.

I doubt if anyone would be nearly as forgiving if it had been written by someone else.

Putting this in the same category as fan-fiction is a huge disservice to the work and Frost. I'm not saying these guys are infallible, but calling it fan-fiction is a 5 mile stretch.

[Ross]

For the record, the book actually says Earle went nuts "shortly [after]" Jeffries first disappeared in Buenos Aires. That's how I read it, anyway.

Ahh- I thought it was shortly after Desmond disappeared.

The wording is a little kooky, but the way I read it Briggs goes from talking about Desmond, then shifts to recounting Jeffries' original disappearance and says Earle stabbed/shot/etc Cooper "shortly thereafter".

Could be. Although it does go on to say a "fully recovered" Cooper then went to TP for the Palmer case.

[Hockey Mask]

To be fair I haven't read the book but if S3 is consistent with the first two seasons why would I put any weight into what the book has presented if I have to ignore parts of it. At that point it's just an interesting piece for fans to read that has no "credibility".

[Aqua]

And Briggs gets information on the fbi events where?

[N. Needleman]

According to that logic, MLMT and Laura's secret diary also have no credibility. But they do, and a lot of fans, writers, some cast (Sheryl Lee), etc. consider them 'mostly' canonical despite their issues - I know I do. It's just not 100% ironclad continuity-proof the way we often see merchandising fashioned in the post-Internet age.

I'm not outright excusing it, but it is what it is. If you are looking for a show that will jump through every hoop for the online audience and make its Wikipedia entries totally uniform and precise, TP has never been that and probably never will be.

All I'm saying is, read the book before dismissing it with a knee-jerk response and rushing to the Internet to register your displeasure.

[FrightNight]

What is its aim?

To explore the larger mythology and 'secret history' of Twin Peaks. And also turn this thread into an angry subreddit.

Also: to whimsically and arbitrarily alter the details of the narrative on which we've been swearing for 25 years, apparently just because its author felt like it. And just to add some real spice, the said author was supposed to be the cerebral part of the creative duo.