The Secret History of Twin Peaks

[Harry S. Truman]

So for those who think the continuity things are all part of a puzzle/plan, what do you think of some of Frost's comments like:
"Nadine, Ed & Norma didn't really have a backstory before now"
And
"Lana being the winner of the Miss Twin Peaks contest"
Do you think these comments are all part of his "plan"?

I Don´t Know if Frost will have a plan or not, ( I am sure yes), but all this errors continuity are Deliberated !!

Or you think that if you ask for all these errors frost will tell the truth?


A normal writer does not make this type of failure, much less Frost. one thing is that you forget one or two dates, and another is to change almost everything.

[Ross]

So for those who think the continuity things are all part of a puzzle/plan, what do you think of some of Frost's comments like:
"Nadine, Ed & Norma didn't really have a backstory before now"
And
"Lana being the winner of the Miss Twin Peaks contest"
Do you think these comments are all part of his "plan"?

I Don´t Know if Frost will have a plan or not, ( I am sure yes), but all this errors continuity are Deliberated !!

Or you think that if you ask for all these errors frost will tell the truth?


A normal writer does not make this type of failure, much less Frost. one thing is that you forget one or two dates, and another is to change almost everything.

I guess it depends on what we mean by deliberate. I'm sure not all the changes are "mistakes", meaning he just didn't know the original details (although I think some are).

But there are two ways the continuity problems can be deliberate:
1. Some complicated reason that will come out later in S3 or Volume 2 that shows these are not really errors.
Or
2. Frost knew the details but just felt like changing them and wasn't really that concerned with things lining up correctly.

Either of these could be true.

[laughingpinecone]

So for those who think the continuity things are all part of a puzzle/plan, what do you think of some of Frost's comments like:
"Nadine, Ed & Norma didn't really have a backstory before now"
And
"Lana being the winner of the Miss Twin Peaks contest"
Do you think these comments are all part of his "plan"?

I Don´t Know if Frost will have a plan or not, ( I am sure yes), but all this errors continuity are Deliberated !!

Or you think that if you ask for all these errors frost will tell the truth?


A normal writer does not make this type of failure, much less Frost. one thing is that you forget one or two dates, and another is to change almost everything.

I guess it depends on what we mean by deliberate. I'm sure not all the changes are "mistakes", meaning he just didn't know the original details (although I think some are).

But there are two ways the continuity problems can be deliberate:
1. Some complicated reason that will come out later in S3 or Volume 2 that shows these are not really errors.
Or
2. Frost knew the details but just felt like changing them and wasn't really that concerned with things lining up correctly.

Either of these could be true.

3. Not even the show was consistent with itself. Bug is now feature.

Honestly, at this point, in my wildest dreams, s3 will make offhanded references to YET ANOTHER set of details, sometimes confirming past versions of canon, sometimes steamrolling them, and YOLO.

ETA I am fully aware this is an unpopular opinion, I'll stop now. As soon as I don't have work, though, I'd like to compile a list of old canon details TSHOTP definitely adhered to, divided by source. Off the top of my head, the Access Guide got preferential treatment, but Lana's thing was there almost verbatim and I think the book shows a clearer grasp on the Packard subplot than the average TP nerd possesses.

[crossoverman]

I am liking John Thorne's thoughts about the nature of time in Twin Peaks.

[Noidea]

I am liking John Thorne's thoughts about the nature of time in Twin Peaks.

I like this theory too. If Annie's existence and warning to Laura has been erased and this becomes part of the plot/mystery in season 3, that would explain why Heather Graham's name was left off the cast list.

[Ross]

I am liking John Thorne's thoughts about the nature of time in Twin Peaks.

I like this theory too. If Annie's existence and warning to Laura has been erased and this becomes part of the plot/mystery in season 3, that would explain why Heather Graham's name was left off the cast list.

It's what I've been thinking as well. I think Annie's absence in the book and Heather not being in the cast list hints at something like this.

[LonelySoul]

but Lana's thing was there almost verbatim and I think the book shows a clearer grasp on the Packard subplot than the average TP nerd possesses.

It is weird how he got certain things right on or how he even bothered including some characters like Lana or Eckhardt. This, however, makes me think that he did go back really pay attention to at least some of the show now because, how the hell else would you remember some of this stuff if you haven't looked at it in years? Some of these probably are features, not bugs. My stance is continuously evolving now.

[krishnanspace]

I am liking John Thorne's thoughts about the nature of time in Twin Peaks.

I like this theory too. If Annie's existence and warning to Laura has been erased and this becomes part of the plot/mystery in season 3, that would explain why Heather Graham's name was left off the cast list.

It's what I've been thinking as well. I think Annie's absence in the book and Heather not being in the cast list hints at something like this.

But if Annie's existence is erased then Cooper wont also be stuck I the waiting room right?

[AgentCoop]

It would be interesting to see just how many of these glitches can be connected back to Annie somehow.

[Mr. Reindeer]

1. ...badly worded but true? Rewatching that scene after the trailer showed us that Hank&Norma postcard, I found a glaring hole there: Norma's motives. The backstory was there but incomplete... that sudden thing with Hank is very suspicious and smacks of plot hook for future dramatic reveals... if it was complete, Norma was kind of an object there, not a full character with agency. Now the story is factually different but the same tragedy at heart, and everyone acts in a way that's coherent with the core traits of their personality.

I completely agree with this. As I've said before, Norma marrying Hank was never explained well (or at all) in the series, IMO. The book gives Norma much more depth, and I appreciate that. From that perspective, I'm growing to actually prefer the book version, once I move past my knee-jerk reaction of "the show is sacred."

Of course, Frost still could have probably fleshed Norma's motivations out without contradicting the Episode 8 version (or doing so minimally). In particular, I think changing the date and facts of Nadine losing her eye adds very little to the characters or the narrative. (Others' mileage may vary -- I could see someone thinking that Nadine's jealous stalking being the cause of the incident adds to her character's tragedy, but it didn't do anything for me.)

[Clueless]

Of course, Frost still could have probably fleshed Norma's motivations out without contradicting the Episode 8 version (or doing so minimally). In particular, I think changing the date and facts of Nadine losing her eye adds very little to the characters or the narrative. (Others' mileage may vary -- I could see someone thinking that Nadine's jealous stalking being the cause of the incident adds to her character's tragedy, but it didn't do anything for me.)

Agreed, but I sort of like the idea that the book events are true and Ed purposely tells an altered story to Cooper that (consciously or unconsciously) hides Harold's obvious and victorious sociopathic scheme while supplanting Nadine's stalking with his own carelessness when it comes to the shooting incident. It fits nicely into the "double lives" and "stories/lies we tell ourselves" theme of Twin Peaks nicely, and kind of gives a more explicit look at how Ed struggles to make sense of the mess that is his life.

The whole section was actually my favorite part of the book. I also loved how Hawk was able to drop a couple of curses in that journal, always got the sense that Hawk (and Bobby/Mike) would have had sailor's mouths once in a while.

[Mr. Reindeer]

I'm about halfway into the audiobook (having already read the whole book in print form). I have to say, it's a little disappointing that Kyle seems to be trying to sound as much like a traditional audiobook narrator as possible, deliberately steering clear of typical Cooper intonations. I know his voice is deeper than it was 26 years ago, but still -- the cadence and emphases are almost defiantly non-Cooperish. Even so, I got chills hearing a much older MacLachlan saying "Sheriff Harry Truman" and "Douglas firs." Eeeee!

(Michael Horse, on the other hand, is a delight and nails it. I am beyond excited for Hawk's allegedly large-ish role in the new season -- hopefully with plenty of blue language!)

I also think I've reached a point where I can definitively say that I am not liking the audiobook portrayal of Agent Preston (consensus seems to indicate that this is Annie Wersching, although no one seems 100% sure). Every interjection, regardless of its content, has the same rise-and-fall snarky delivery (with the occasional pregnant pause). Part of this is due to the fact that the character just isn't very well-written, one of the biggest shortcomings of the book IMO; but I think a better actress could have given a more nuanced reading.

[Annie]

So did anybody in here post a review on Amazon; I'm waiting until I move next week to order the book.

[laughingpinecone]

1. ...badly worded but true? Rewatching that scene after the trailer showed us that Hank&Norma postcard, I found a glaring hole there: Norma's motives. The backstory was there but incomplete... that sudden thing with Hank is very suspicious and smacks of plot hook for future dramatic reveals... if it was complete, Norma was kind of an object there, not a full character with agency. Now the story is factually different but the same tragedy at heart, and everyone acts in a way that's coherent with the core traits of their personality.

I completely agree with this. As I've said before, Norma marrying Hank was never explained well (or at all) in the series, IMO. The book gives Norma much more depth, and I appreciate that. From that perspective, I'm growing to actually prefer the book version, once I move past my knee-jerk reaction of "the show is sacred."

Of course, Frost still could have probably fleshed Norma's motivations out without contradicting the Episode 8 version (or doing so minimally). In particular, I think changing the date and facts of Nadine losing her eye adds very little to the characters or the narrative. (Others' mileage may vary -- I could see someone thinking that Nadine's jealous stalking being the cause of the incident adds to her character's tragedy, but it didn't do anything for me.)

Oh yes, changing it was as arbitrary as about 75% of the rest of the changes. I only really see the Audrey stuff as a sort of "sorry we messed up" retcon, getting her back on track at the expense of Ben (vs the show subordinating her to Ben's plot) and offhandedly stating that wanting an confederate victory isn't a cool and hip character trait to possess. Maybe some of the Josie stuff too.
But, yes, if Mark Frost says that the trio there lacked a back story, I am inclined to agree with him.

Agreed on Nadine (I'm also mourning her sharpshooting skills in this version!) but on the other hand I appreciate an open mention of a history of mental illness and that development is sort of directly tied to it, so for me it's win some, lose some there.

[Jerry Horne]

Finished the book tonight and spent the last few hours catching up in this thread.

I love the way the book builds up to the end. I wasn't expecting to read about the post series scene of Cooper meeting Briggs. Oh man.

Oh, was it only me? Given what we think we know about Sherilyn Fenn, on set, what Harry Goaz wrote about her and recently slagging Twin Peaks on Twitter, that the first four lines of her letter on page 229 (written by Frost) may have some double meaning?

Some interesting thoughts from Mark here including the fact that we may never be able to work things out:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-30 ... ign=buffer

10:46 audio interview.