The Secret History of Twin Peaks

[Jerry Horne]

haven't heard the audiobook but i wonder if the non-cooperish delivery by kyle is a hint that it ain't the good dale who we're listening to !

First thing that crossed my mind.

[TheArm]

Just finished the book last night. What does everyone think is the significance of substituting "I" for "1" throughout? I really couldn't figure it out, though it certainly seems of some significance given how consistently the Archivist/Briggs does it.

On the whole, I really enjoyed it! I do think it veers a bit close to the "X-Files" territory of mid-Season 2 (Project Blue Book, UFOs, government cover-ups, etc.) at times, which I felt like Lynch made a clear attempt to pivot away from once he returned for the finale and FWWM, thus bringing things back to the abstract and dreamlike/subconscious. I think the book was absolutely beautifully made/designed and just a pleasure to read. It gives us so many new threads and mysteries to chew on until S3, and some much new detail and texture to enjoy. I thought it deepened and broadened out the world and mythology of the series in a wonderful way. And I do think it's fascinating how Frost tried to ret-con much of Season 2 into being much more meaningful than it originally was, by tying in a trivial and silly character like Dougie Milford into the mythos, and even working a character like Andrew Packard, whose story seemed fairly disconnected from the A story, into the mystery of the woods by giving him his own "close encounter" from childhood. It certainly imbues more gravity to some of the more featherweight parts of Season 2. (Does it all hold up? I'm not sure, but it sure is an interesting stab at it.)

Interesting how little there was on the Haywards, besides a little bit on Will, though they got a lot of screen time in the original series. The book seems to tie up a lot of the folks who we know are not coming back for S3, like Lana, Hank, the Martells and Packards, etc. Given how there is no sign of Donna in S3, I had wondered if we would get a little info on what happened to her. Her complete absence from the book makes me wonder if she won't be showing up in S3 after all, in some form?

Also interesting to me was the fact that the book makes plenty of allusions to white Indians, giants, aliens, extra-dimensional beings, etc., but BOB himself, whose specter loomed so large over the original series, gets very little mention in the book. It makes me wonder if it's prepping us for a bigger emphasis on other, new spirits/beings in the new series, of which BOB was just one.

Either way, this book feels like the first new "heartbeat" of the world of Twin Peaks, and that alone gives me chills after nearly 25 years of it being "dead as a doornail." I know the continuity errors are bothering a lot of people, and I can see both sides. Some of it seems a little sloppy, yes. Some of it seems like the world's co-creator trying to streamline/clean up the events of the original into something a little less messy. And some of it does seem mysteriously deliberate. The ret-conning of Norma's origins seems like the most singularly egregious continuity error, but given how closely that story intertwines with Annie, I have to believe that it was intentional. But I guess we just won't know until S3 airs, whenever that is, so all we can do now is guess and theorize.

By doing so though, Frost is making us all into detectives and making us active participants in trying to solve the mysteries of Twin Peaks. That is a pretty exciting notion to me and feels very much in keeping with the spirit of the whole thing, and makes me feel very grateful, excited and happy to be a Twin Peaks fan in 2016.

[StealThisCorn]

Hi guys! As the poster of the Mark Frost comments, I just want you to remember those are not direct quotes, they are paraphrasing, at least what he said about Annie specifically. I was meeting the co-creator of my favorite TV show so my mind wasn't totally working properly haha. But it was very similar to what I posted. Just don't want anyone to freak out about him saying an exact replica of the Judy quote with Annie in her place because I can't remember if it was identical.

Oh no worries at all there! I was just making a joke about Frost saying the Agent Jeffries line with Annie instead of Judy. Not being serious. All of this contrived mystery surrounding Annie just made me think of the way Judy was treated in FWWM.

[ScibenX]

Unless it's just a mistake then Tamara is the one who altered the postcard. Or someone who had access to the dossier after it reached the FBI.

Did anyone pick up on this paradoxical postmark when the book trailer was first released? I wonder if Frost might have changed the stamp to something more obvious after no one caught it from the trailer. Of course, he had to know someone would spot it sooner or later, especially a spontaneous change...

[Cerulean]

Doing some research on Dougie Milford's 1947 (or should I say "I947") Buick receipt. As Coop would say, "there are some curious linkages here."

Let's consider the theory that both the receipt and Ben-Catherine's mill contract are forgeries (as evidenced by the "I" in place of a "1").
The receipt is not verified by Agent Preston at all, which immediately brings it into question (along with the "I"s). But she uses it to suggest (on page 100, footnote 6) that the "man in a black suit" and a black sedan who silences Harold Dahl is Dougie Milford. Milford is, interestingly, mentioned by Kenneth Arnold in the second paragraph of his article on the same page -- something which Preston doesn't even note.

The Archivist (on page 104) mentions the same sedan as following Arnold and Emil J. Smith, suggesting again that it is Dougie. The natural conclusion -- by following documents the Archivist presents and what he writes, and by following Preston's footnote -- is that Dougie is the man in black who is silencing UFO witnesses, etc.

Far later in the book are Dougie's private journals, which document the incident with him, Richard Nixon and Jackie Gleason. On page 292, the three men are driven to the facility by "an unadorned black sedan", which has an unidentified driver. The car is definitely not Dougie's, as on page 294 he specifically mentions his own car parked next to the sedan. These two pages (292 and 294) are the only other references to a sedan or a black car throughout the entire book. And Dougie's journals don't appear to be a forgery; they use "1", not an "I".

If you take the forged document theory into account, it seems to be done to deliberately imply Dougie was the man following Arnold, Smith, Dahl, Palmer, et. al around in the late 1940s. But his own journals (the only other references to a sedan, which I find significant) suggest (through sub-text, more than anything) that it wasn't him at all, as the Archivist and Preston imply. It seems the Archivist (or, more likely, the person impersonating him), forged the document to lead us to that conclusion about Dougie. And curiously, on page 116, the Archivist speaks of Dougie almost with contempt and even accuses him of "sabotage and murder". But, by the time of page 334 (where Preston notes the signifcance of the Archivist now using "I", as in the first person), the Archivist remembers him fondly. This seems to imply two archivists -- the latter page being Briggs, but the former being someone else.

My only question is why would someone forge the receipt to imply Dougie was a man in black in the late 1940s? He's already confirmed/verified throughout the rest of the dossier as being a fairly shady government figure from the 50s onwards. Maybe it's a trail or part of a larger subtext put there by Frost... or I'm just really overanalysing everything, which is definitely a possibility.

Also, in a major coincidence, the first Google Search result for the Buick receipt's address (12528 28th Ave NE, Seattle) is a Chevrolet dealership (and "Chevy" is clearly listed on the receipt too).

I'm starting to feel a bit like Fox Mulder. Time to brew some more coffee.

[Gabriel]

Re: alternate dimensions, I think that trying to examine this text and its implications for s3 under a sci-fi lens is misleading. Fringe this ain't...

Let's not forget Walter using Dr Jacoby's glasses in one Fringe episode. And didn't someone say somewhere that Walternate's mistress Yoko (played by Joan Chen) was supposed to be the alt-universe's Josie Packard?

(I josh of course, knowing full well these were fun homages, but nevertheless...)

[Gabriel]

What do we know about Jeffries' disappearance that is actually solidly canonical and not either fan spec or early material discussed by the creatives that never materialized onscreen (i.e., ties to Windom Earle which Bob Engels may have mentioned)?

- He was on assignment in Buenos Aires. He disappears there in 1987 ('damn near two years').

That said, Jefferies, if we're apparently supposed to take the Missing Pieces as canon, reappears in Buenos Aires an indeterminate time after he originally vanishes. Clearly, it's recent enough that the people who witness his return know him.

This throws up another question. From the perspective of Jefferies, he time jumps two years into the future where he meets Coop, Gordon and Albert in Seattle. Logically, therefore, he doesn't exist in that two year period. However, he seems to return to Buenos Aires more or less at the moment he departed, in the Missing Pieces, which therefore effectively erases the timeline he just visited, meaning the scene in Gordon's office never happens and vanishes like a dream.

So, do the events of the TV show happen in the timeline where Jefferies is missing or the one where he returned to Buenos Aires?

FWIW: I somehow doubt Lynch has ever forgotten about the dream sequence with Annie and Laura in FWWM. It is one of very few literal plot points he's ever gone out of his way to discuss in print with a journalist. Per what he says, I believe Laura did write about Dale in her diary and that the truth is waiting there to be found, possibly in an FBI or TP Sheriff's Department archive, wherever those pages ended up. Lynch was going to see it that Laura was responsible for saving Cooper and giving the story some kind of happy ending.

There's so much in the movie (and missing pieces) that can be argued to be setting up an upcoming third season: Annie's appearance in Laura's bed, the increased significance of the ring, the continuation of the final scene of season two. For me, no matter what anyone says, FWWM feels like a between-seasons spin-off, broadening the canvas of the TV show, introducing new characters and situations. Had a third season still been in the offing by the time of FWWM's release, I suspect a number of the Missing Pieces scenes would have made it into the released version.

I also suspect a third season made immediately post-FWWM (and perhaps using the ten years later idea) would have been a very much 'back to basics affair; in returning to the original location, using the original cinematographer, the film feels like it 'resets' some aspects of the series that were diluted in the course of season two. FWWM and the first season-and-a-bit comfortably fit with the tag line 'In a town like Twin Peaks, no one is innocent,' while season two increasingly becomes 'The good folks of Twin Peaks under siege from evil outsiders.'

And I do think some time travel will be involved, yes. I doubt anyone will be trekking around in a DeLorean or doing stuff like Fringe but FWWM has already demonstrated an interest in this, with both Annie and Jeffries.

Well, we don't know how much time has passed for 'good' Dale in the waiting room. In the post-season two scenes in FWWM, he can observe Laura's final days and make contact of a sort with her through dreams. It may be that he can observe or influence events from before and after the show. We saw BOB appear outside the curtains in Glastonbury Grove one time, not in possession of a human body, so maybe good Dale can eventually move around outside or have limited influence on bad Dale.

It's clear time isn't linear in Twin Peaks – look at the repetition of the Heidi scene – so self-contradiction seems built in to it. When we're introduced to Sheriff Cable in My Life, My Tapes, long before FWWM showed up, it's while Coop investigates Theresa Banks. The movie runs similar events through the point of view of Chester Desmond. Laura's diary finishes with her saying she knows who and what BOB is and is going to tell everyone, but the events of FWWM seem to preclude that. Laura's murder scene as depicted in the TV show is different from that in the movie.

So maybe the events keep on happening (again) in a circle, with variances each time. That way, the contradictions are simply part of the canon. If the latest book contains contradictions, that's fine too. I take it as a primer by one of the show's creators for the new show and am content that the show will broadly tie into the book's depiction of the Twin Peaks timeline. Maybe it's a different cycle of time. Maybe not... Can't wait to find out though!

[Gabriel]

Oh, and while my brain's buzzing.... People talk about things we read in the book being incorrect, but perhaps what we saw on the TV show was actually 'wrong' and the book is 'right...'

[OK,Bob]

As if wearing the ring and losing his arm wasn't Peaksy enough:

"The official police report claims that Parsons was attempting to mix fulminate of mercury in a small coffee tin. Working quickly, and with sweaty hands, Parsons dropped the explosive mix. The blast ripped off his right arm... Members of Parsons’ occult inner circle claim that on the day of his death he was working on creating a homunculus, a mythical miniature human."

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/features/ ... lt-genius/

[Jerry Horne]

And again from Mark tonight in L.A. :

"You may remember Dougie married Lana, Miss Twin Peaks 1989."

Thanks to our very own "TheArm".

[krishnanspace]

I haven't read the book,but could someone tell me why is Major Briggs collecting the information on Everyone?

Can someone please answer this?

[vicksvapor77]

And again from Mark tonight in L.A. :

"You may remember Dougie married Lana, Miss Twin Peaks 1989."

Thanks to our very own "TheArm".

I think he said that verbatim in his bigger speech to all of us, before I asked him at the signing table. I think his speech is all scripted, the clip I saw on YouTube of how he opened is more or less identical to what he said to our group. I'm sure he consistently says the same lines, plays the same audio clips and reads the same passages haha.

[Jerry Horne]

At least I know what to expect when I see him within the week

[TheArm]

When I went to have my book signed I said to Mark, "I'd ask you how Annie is, but if Lana is now Miss Twin Peaks 1989, she can't be doing so great." Mark laughed and promised me that we would definitely get into that next year. I think that this is most certainly a clear hint he is dropping, in part to maybe pre-empt some of the inevitable questions about inconsistencies. I have no doubt in my mind now that this is all leading somewhere and is not an accident.

I also asked about the "1" / "I" thing. He said it was meant to be a symbol of Briggs's feelings of personal responsibility and accountability (or something to that extent). I don't think it's meant to be read into beyond that.

Regardless, he was incredibly kind and a total gentleman, and the evening was a lot of fun. And Amy Shiels and Johanna Ray were there!

[Jerry Horne]

I haven't read the book,but could someone tell me why is Major Briggs collecting the information on Everyone?

Can someone please answer this?

I've only read the book once, but I'm not sure if anyone knows for sure.