I remember reading somewhere that the original intended season three would have involved another Twin Peaks town. It would tie in with remarks from the likes of Windom Earle such as: 'They're all still alive!' and doppelgänger Leland saying: 'I did not kill anybody.'dronerstone wrote:
Both crazy and really good. Involving a lot of stuff that I had flying round my head the last weeks...
Something is off, that much we can almost be sure.
Just think of that hideous gigantic green jacket of his.
Something weird is going on here.
The Secret History of Twin Peaks
Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
-
underthefan
- Great Northern Member
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:21 pm
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
Well, I finally finished the book and reading through this thread (which took longer than the book and was at times more entertaining!). In all honesty, I was one of the people yelling "cash grab" after finding out about the book's second volume and after it was revealed that the book would not be bridging the 25-year gap as it was originally announced (which I think was a bit of advertising that was really detrimental to what the book ultimately turned out to be), but I was determined to read it with an open mind, forgoing my hopes and expectations and just going with what the book is rather than what I wanted it to be. All in all, I found the book to be a bit of a mixed bag, with some astounding sections and some that were frankly a plod to get through.
First off, I absolutely love the design of the book and I think it was lovingly created and put together. That being said, a Kindle version is near-impossible to read, and I was not that interested in the audiobook (as I generally am not so much into audiobooks).
I think, perhaps most importantly, that the book gets the creepy, disturbing, unsettling atmosphere of the show and the film just right, which makes for a genuinely interesting reading in keeping with the world that we all know and love.
I loved the Lewis and Clark stuff (which at first I thought I would have zero interest in), the stuff regarding our beloved characters, especially Margaret, Audrey, Josie, Briggs, Jacoby, Carl Rodd, etc. and the hints and bits of revelation given to us for post-S2 stuff. If I'm to be perfectly honest, that is what I REALLY wanted this book to be, but perhaps that would reveal too much going into S3, which is why it was scrapped. I also loved Jack Parsons stuff, and I was particularly intrigued with the whole Devil's Gate Dam (in fact, being pretty close to it makes me want to go visit, though perhaps I shouldn't.... Anyone on here brave enough to come with??)
What I was much less interested in was the UFO sections, as I feel that topic has been done to death already and to be frank, done better. It feels too long, obvious, and repetitive, and it wasn't holding my interest as much as the other sections. Same with the Nixon transcripts, and the only moment in the book that really made me groan with incredulity was the mention that Nixon is wearing the Owl Cave ring. That was probably the one thing that really felt ridiculous to me, though I see some people on here liked it.
As far as the many inconsistencies, I am in the camp of: some intentional, some mistakes. The Norma/Annie stuff is just too obvious to be a mistake (and Frost himself seems to suggest as much), Jacoby's mention of Laura being 18 I think is his way of justifying his own actions (retconning them, if you will), Audrey fighting against Ben may be suggesting that Ben was never really "good" (at least that makes most sense to me), and some of the stuff is easily ascribed to subjective memory. The rest of it (e.g. Jacoby's date of death, etc.) I think are just simply rushed mistakes, and yes I think that does take away from the book, but it didn't necessarily ruin my enjoyment. However, I do understand and sympathize with those fans for whom it did.
In the end, I'm glad I read the book and I generally liked it, though perhaps not loved it as much as I wished I would, and I doubt I will really go back to it and explore it further. In fact, I have a feeling it will play no (or very little) role in the new series. But I was wrong about it being a cash grab. I think it was done too lovingly and painstakingly to really be considered that. I can appreciate it for what it is and not for what I wanted it to be.
Finally, one question that I haven't seen discussed here much. Who may be "the walking owl" mentioned throughout? BOB?
First off, I absolutely love the design of the book and I think it was lovingly created and put together. That being said, a Kindle version is near-impossible to read, and I was not that interested in the audiobook (as I generally am not so much into audiobooks).
I think, perhaps most importantly, that the book gets the creepy, disturbing, unsettling atmosphere of the show and the film just right, which makes for a genuinely interesting reading in keeping with the world that we all know and love.
I loved the Lewis and Clark stuff (which at first I thought I would have zero interest in), the stuff regarding our beloved characters, especially Margaret, Audrey, Josie, Briggs, Jacoby, Carl Rodd, etc. and the hints and bits of revelation given to us for post-S2 stuff. If I'm to be perfectly honest, that is what I REALLY wanted this book to be, but perhaps that would reveal too much going into S3, which is why it was scrapped. I also loved Jack Parsons stuff, and I was particularly intrigued with the whole Devil's Gate Dam (in fact, being pretty close to it makes me want to go visit, though perhaps I shouldn't.... Anyone on here brave enough to come with??)
What I was much less interested in was the UFO sections, as I feel that topic has been done to death already and to be frank, done better. It feels too long, obvious, and repetitive, and it wasn't holding my interest as much as the other sections. Same with the Nixon transcripts, and the only moment in the book that really made me groan with incredulity was the mention that Nixon is wearing the Owl Cave ring. That was probably the one thing that really felt ridiculous to me, though I see some people on here liked it.
As far as the many inconsistencies, I am in the camp of: some intentional, some mistakes. The Norma/Annie stuff is just too obvious to be a mistake (and Frost himself seems to suggest as much), Jacoby's mention of Laura being 18 I think is his way of justifying his own actions (retconning them, if you will), Audrey fighting against Ben may be suggesting that Ben was never really "good" (at least that makes most sense to me), and some of the stuff is easily ascribed to subjective memory. The rest of it (e.g. Jacoby's date of death, etc.) I think are just simply rushed mistakes, and yes I think that does take away from the book, but it didn't necessarily ruin my enjoyment. However, I do understand and sympathize with those fans for whom it did.
In the end, I'm glad I read the book and I generally liked it, though perhaps not loved it as much as I wished I would, and I doubt I will really go back to it and explore it further. In fact, I have a feeling it will play no (or very little) role in the new series. But I was wrong about it being a cash grab. I think it was done too lovingly and painstakingly to really be considered that. I can appreciate it for what it is and not for what I wanted it to be.
Finally, one question that I haven't seen discussed here much. Who may be "the walking owl" mentioned throughout? BOB?
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
Hey guys! I apologize if this has already been brought up (haven't read through the whole thread), but I found another possible clue to the whole Annie thing.
Page 177 - in the article about Andrew Packard's death, Dwayne Milford is quoted saying "Andrew was like a younger brother to me. Like the brother I never had." Then, in the margins, TP writes "A curious statement from someone who, as we know, MOST DEFINITELY HAD a younger brother."
We most definitely know Norma had a younger sister, but by reading the Norma section of the book, it's like she never had one.
This is likely a hint from Frost, don'tcha think?
Page 177 - in the article about Andrew Packard's death, Dwayne Milford is quoted saying "Andrew was like a younger brother to me. Like the brother I never had." Then, in the margins, TP writes "A curious statement from someone who, as we know, MOST DEFINITELY HAD a younger brother."
We most definitely know Norma had a younger sister, but by reading the Norma section of the book, it's like she never had one.
This is likely a hint from Frost, don'tcha think?
-
krishnanspace
- Bookhouse Member
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:15 am
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
We the reader know Norma has a sister, but Agent Tp isn't aware of it.Snailhead wrote:Hey guys! I apologize if this has already been brought up (haven't read through the whole thread), but I found another possible clue to the whole Annie thing.
Page 177 - in the article about Andrew Packard's death, Dwayne Milford is quoted saying "Andrew was like a younger brother to me. Like the brother I never had." Then, in the margins, TP writes "A curious statement from someone who, as we know, MOST DEFINITELY HAD a younger brother."
We most definitely know Norma had a younger sister, but by reading the Norma section of the book, it's like she never had one.
This is likely a hint from Frost, don'tcha think?
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
I came up here to express my sentiments about TSHOTP, but this pretty much sums it upunderthefan wrote:Well, I finally finished the book and reading through this thread (which took longer than the book and was at times more entertaining!). In all honesty, I was one of the people yelling "cash grab" after finding out about the book's second volume and after it was revealed that the book would not be bridging the 25-year gap as it was originally announced (which I think was a bit of advertising that was really detrimental to what the book ultimately turned out to be), but I was determined to read it with an open mind, forgoing my hopes and expectations and just going with what the book is rather than what I wanted it to be. All in all, I found the book to be a bit of a mixed bag, with some astounding sections and some that were frankly a plod to get through.
First off, I absolutely love the design of the book and I think it was lovingly created and put together. That being said, a Kindle version is near-impossible to read, and I was not that interested in the audiobook (as I generally am not so much into audiobooks).
I think, perhaps most importantly, that the book gets the creepy, disturbing, unsettling atmosphere of the show and the film just right, which makes for a genuinely interesting reading in keeping with the world that we all know and love.
I loved the Lewis and Clark stuff (which at first I thought I would have zero interest in), the stuff regarding our beloved characters, especially Margaret, Audrey, Josie, Briggs, Jacoby, Carl Rodd, etc. and the hints and bits of revelation given to us for post-S2 stuff. If I'm to be perfectly honest, that is what I REALLY wanted this book to be, but perhaps that would reveal too much going into S3, which is why it was scrapped. I also loved Jack Parsons stuff, and I was particularly intrigued with the whole Devil's Gate Dam (in fact, being pretty close to it makes me want to go visit, though perhaps I shouldn't.... Anyone on here brave enough to come with??)
What I was much less interested in was the UFO sections, as I feel that topic has been done to death already and to be frank, done better. It feels too long, obvious, and repetitive, and it wasn't holding my interest as much as the other sections. Same with the Nixon transcripts, and the only moment in the book that really made me groan with incredulity was the mention that Nixon is wearing the Owl Cave ring. That was probably the one thing that really felt ridiculous to me, though I see some people on here liked it.
As far as the many inconsistencies, I am in the camp of: some intentional, some mistakes. The Norma/Annie stuff is just too obvious to be a mistake (and Frost himself seems to suggest as much), Jacoby's mention of Laura being 18 I think is his way of justifying his own actions (retconning them, if you will), Audrey fighting against Ben may be suggesting that Ben was never really "good" (at least that makes most sense to me), and some of the stuff is easily ascribed to subjective memory. The rest of it (e.g. Jacoby's date of death, etc.) I think are just simply rushed mistakes, and yes I think that does take away from the book, but it didn't necessarily ruin my enjoyment. However, I do understand and sympathize with those fans for whom it did.
In the end, I'm glad I read the book and I generally liked it, though perhaps not loved it as much as I wished I would, and I doubt I will really go back to it and explore it further. In fact, I have a feeling it will play no (or very little) role in the new series. But I was wrong about it being a cash grab. I think it was done too lovingly and painstakingly to really be considered that. I can appreciate it for what it is and not for what I wanted it to be.
Finally, one question that I haven't seen discussed here much. Who may be "the walking owl" mentioned throughout? BOB?
Will post some other questions and considerations later!
"Your log and I are on the same page."
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
Couldn't wait
In addition to the former post of underthefan, which I agree with 95% (I actually found the ‘Nixon is wearing the ring-part’ kinda cool), I would like to add the following things about TSHOTP.
I absolutely love the artwork and design of the book. The only thing that doesn’t work for me in this department is the plastic sleeve that ‘wraps’ the cover of the book (I think it’s called a dust jacket in English?). I don’t understand why they did that, it covers up the beautiful artwork on the cover of the book. I removed mine as soon as I got it in my hands and will probably never place it back on…
Overall, I Think it’s a very entertaining read. The ‘errors’ are sometimes frustrating, but I assume most of them will lead us somewhere. Others are just (small) mistakes that don’t ruin the experience for me. In fact, what bothers me more than the ‘errors’ is the fact that Tamara Preston doesn’t come across as a very bright person…
The whole ‘classic’ UFO-parts bored me at some times, but all is made well at the end of the book, where it is clearly explained that all this is a way of trying to explain the strange forces we get a glimpse of in the series en FWWM. For me, it’s clear that that whole world is not necessarily extraterrestrial but rather ‘extradimensional’. An angle of approach which I, personally, like very much. It’s also insinuated that those beings are probably here longer than mankind. Which makes you wonder who the ‘alien’ actually is. I really like the final thoughts that Doug Milford gives to Garland Briggs on this subject in the book.
Some random thoughts:
- The way Doug Milford is approaches in the book changes drastically from a ‘bad guy’-perspective to a ‘good guy’-perspective near the end of the book. I think this is an important detail.
- I love how a seemingly trivial character from the series (Milford), plays such a large roll in the book.
- I wonder if Denver Bob = BOB. Maybe he got caught in the red room and found a way out in (in our timeline) the 50’s and met Mike.
- Final thought: I’m curious to see if they’re going to adjust some of the ‘errors’ in a second print of the book.
In addition to the former post of underthefan, which I agree with 95% (I actually found the ‘Nixon is wearing the ring-part’ kinda cool), I would like to add the following things about TSHOTP.
I absolutely love the artwork and design of the book. The only thing that doesn’t work for me in this department is the plastic sleeve that ‘wraps’ the cover of the book (I think it’s called a dust jacket in English?). I don’t understand why they did that, it covers up the beautiful artwork on the cover of the book. I removed mine as soon as I got it in my hands and will probably never place it back on…
Overall, I Think it’s a very entertaining read. The ‘errors’ are sometimes frustrating, but I assume most of them will lead us somewhere. Others are just (small) mistakes that don’t ruin the experience for me. In fact, what bothers me more than the ‘errors’ is the fact that Tamara Preston doesn’t come across as a very bright person…
The whole ‘classic’ UFO-parts bored me at some times, but all is made well at the end of the book, where it is clearly explained that all this is a way of trying to explain the strange forces we get a glimpse of in the series en FWWM. For me, it’s clear that that whole world is not necessarily extraterrestrial but rather ‘extradimensional’. An angle of approach which I, personally, like very much. It’s also insinuated that those beings are probably here longer than mankind. Which makes you wonder who the ‘alien’ actually is. I really like the final thoughts that Doug Milford gives to Garland Briggs on this subject in the book.
Some random thoughts:
- The way Doug Milford is approaches in the book changes drastically from a ‘bad guy’-perspective to a ‘good guy’-perspective near the end of the book. I think this is an important detail.
- I love how a seemingly trivial character from the series (Milford), plays such a large roll in the book.
- I wonder if Denver Bob = BOB. Maybe he got caught in the red room and found a way out in (in our timeline) the 50’s and met Mike.
- Final thought: I’m curious to see if they’re going to adjust some of the ‘errors’ in a second print of the book.
"Your log and I are on the same page."
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
I find this very hard to believe. It's kind of like actors stating that they never watch their own work. Right. He co-created this town and all of its characters, the mythology, etc., I think human nature would make it very hard for him to not read the book to see where Mark took things. Not to mention, I think that aspects of that would be important for continuity's sake in Season 3.Mace wrote:Lynch may not have read the book. Lynch may never read the book.
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
I think it is extremely doubtful he will ever read the whole book.Aerozhul wrote:I find this very hard to believe. It's kind of like actors stating that they never watch their own work. Right. He co-created this town and all of its characters, the mythology, etc., I think human nature would make it very hard for him to not read the book to see where Mark took things. Not to mention, I think that aspects of that would be important for continuity's sake in Season 3.Mace wrote:Lynch may not have read the book. Lynch may never read the book.
https://thirtythreexthree.wordpress.com/ - 33x3: 33 favourite films by 33 directors, 33 favourite books by 33 authors, 33 favourite albums by 33 musicians and 3 favourite TV series
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
The usual apologies if this has been posted......in relation to the 'changes/mistakes' did we not have the Tremonds in the series and then the Chalfonts in FWWM?? I'd like to think any storyline/continuity issues arising from the book have their roots in the same place as our lovely 'name changing' old lady and grandson. They seemed more helpful in the series than in the movie and I always figured this linked in with the name change.
I also can't see Frosty (the snowman) taking such a slapdash approach as to confuse, forget and mix up so many things.
I also can't see Frosty (the snowman) taking such a slapdash approach as to confuse, forget and mix up so many things.
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
What makes you say that?djerdap wrote:I think it is extremely doubtful he will ever read the whole book.Aerozhul wrote:I find this very hard to believe. It's kind of like actors stating that they never watch their own work. Right. He co-created this town and all of its characters, the mythology, etc., I think human nature would make it very hard for him to not read the book to see where Mark took things. Not to mention, I think that aspects of that would be important for continuity's sake in Season 3.Mace wrote:Lynch may not have read the book. Lynch may never read the book.
Re: RE: Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
Lynch didn't even bother to read his daughter's book...Aerozhul wrote:What makes you say that?djerdap wrote:I think it is extremely doubtful he will ever read the whole book.Aerozhul wrote:
I find this very hard to believe. It's kind of like actors stating that they never watch their own work. Right. He co-created this town and all of its characters, the mythology, etc., I think human nature would make it very hard for him to not read the book to see where Mark took things. Not to mention, I think that aspects of that would be important for continuity's sake in Season 3.
This is - excuse me - a damn fine cup of coffee.
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
Hello everyone. This is my first post here. I have been a big Lynch and Twin Peaks fan for many years. I watched the series for the first time when it was airing on Bravo in 1993 with the Log Lady intros. It immediately left a life-changing impression on me and I have been fascinated ever since. I sought out some online discussion after having read Mark Frost's new book, which is why I am here posting...
I have read through most of the comments here. You all are so intelligent and observant. Thank you for being here to share your thoughts! I am personally of the opinion at this point that the dossier is the creation of Gordon Cole and he has presented it to Tamara Preston as a vessel of clues or hints, similar to how he presented Desmond and Stanley with his "cousin Lil", the big clue in the dossier being the absence of Annie.
Regarding the status of TSHoTP as canon, I think it certainly should be considered canon, as it is written by a co-creator who is co-running the new season, but I very much doubt that the majority of the details in TSHoTP will come into play in season 3. It seems safe to predict that with Lynch directing every episode there will be a much more mysterious, ambiguous, visceral feel. Literal interpretations will be left entirely up to the viewer - Lynch has repeatedly made it clear that he thrives on mystery and allowing his audience to think for themselves, rather than having anything spelled out. In this regard, I predict that TSHoTP will serve as a backdrop to whatever happens in season 3, but not as a central piece. I do hope, however, that whatever happens in this next season sheds some light on the errors, discrepancies, mysteries and secrets in this dossier.
One last thing - on Instagram I follow Rinaldo Zoontjes - he makes some interesting images relating to Twin Peaks. Maybe he's on here. If you haven't seen his images you should check them out. Anyway, he claims to have found the true meaning to TSHoTP. Anyone know what he's talking about? Or has anyone yet seen an argument in support of any one clear, definitive answer to this mystery with comprehensive support? Got any links?
I have read through most of the comments here. You all are so intelligent and observant. Thank you for being here to share your thoughts! I am personally of the opinion at this point that the dossier is the creation of Gordon Cole and he has presented it to Tamara Preston as a vessel of clues or hints, similar to how he presented Desmond and Stanley with his "cousin Lil", the big clue in the dossier being the absence of Annie.
Regarding the status of TSHoTP as canon, I think it certainly should be considered canon, as it is written by a co-creator who is co-running the new season, but I very much doubt that the majority of the details in TSHoTP will come into play in season 3. It seems safe to predict that with Lynch directing every episode there will be a much more mysterious, ambiguous, visceral feel. Literal interpretations will be left entirely up to the viewer - Lynch has repeatedly made it clear that he thrives on mystery and allowing his audience to think for themselves, rather than having anything spelled out. In this regard, I predict that TSHoTP will serve as a backdrop to whatever happens in season 3, but not as a central piece. I do hope, however, that whatever happens in this next season sheds some light on the errors, discrepancies, mysteries and secrets in this dossier.
One last thing - on Instagram I follow Rinaldo Zoontjes - he makes some interesting images relating to Twin Peaks. Maybe he's on here. If you haven't seen his images you should check them out. Anyway, he claims to have found the true meaning to TSHoTP. Anyone know what he's talking about? Or has anyone yet seen an argument in support of any one clear, definitive answer to this mystery with comprehensive support? Got any links?
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
As I re-read the book, one inconsistency that really puzzles me is the Robert Jacoby thing. How could Jacoby report on missing elementary-school aged Margaret Coulson in the Twin Peaks Gazette, and then many years later, pay tribute to her by saying they were grade school friends and classmates? On top of that, TP makes a point of verifying Robert Jacoby's identity and backstory after his first article, but at no point questions how a young child might have been moonlighting as lead reporter for the Gazette (or, why an old man might have fabricated memories of Margaret). If this is an oversight by Frost, it's an especially glaring one, as he must have known we'd pay special attention to anything regarding the Log Lady. (Plus, it would have been so easy to just make up a different reporter.) On the other hand, if it's intentional, I can't fathom the purpose.
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
Wow, now this is a theory I like. And I think you could really be onto something there. Great thinking! And honestly I was wondering this myself. Having read/seen/played many things about time traveling and many worlds theory I certainly wasn't screaming "inconsistencies! Reckoning!" to the top of my lunges but rather "Hmmm, look like someone wandered in the past and created a new timeline!" Now as for the Someone in question... May be good old Coop or Jeffries indeed.MaiTaiRob wrote:THEORY: Truman has not been re-cast. Forster IS playing Sheriff Truman, but it's Harry's brother Franklin.
Someone has altered the past, which I think is consistent with the stamp, Norma's revised history, and other changes from the original show.
I think it's either Cooper, or someone closely related to him, and I think they did it to protect the people he loves. Norma's changes protect Annie, so what if this person also altered Truman's family history to save his future self from Coop/BOB. Franklin stays sheriff, Truman never picks up the badge.
Originally, Phillip Jeffries was to play a part, and we know he has at least some time travelling abilities. He could have done it, or maybe "Good Dale." Perhaps if you figure out how to exit the Lodge, you can do so at any time. Perhaps Coop left the Lodge in the 70's or 60's (thus the stamp) and set about altering history to shield the people closest to him.
This could also explain allegedly-living characters of Leland and Laura, and would explain the weird "Doing it, then not doing it" stories surrounding Ontkean's involvement. I've always smelled misdirection when it comes to Ontkean's and Graham's involvement, so maybe they can still both come back if the timeline is righted during season 3.
Or, they're really out, because Coop cared enough about them to place them on paths that never cross his own.
Thoughts?
-
Robot Butler
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:48 pm
Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks
I'm looking forward to finally finishing the book this weekend.... I'm a slow reader and I have a day job.
I'm perfectly fine letting this book be its own thing. It doesn't change how I look at the original series or color my expectations of new the series. I'm not looking for clues. I'm not interested in reinterpreting it.
It's just sorta.... there.
I like it well enough for the most part, but I think it's going down as a footnote in Twin Peaks history. I think a year from now, most of us will have stopped thinking about it.
I'm perfectly fine letting this book be its own thing. It doesn't change how I look at the original series or color my expectations of new the series. I'm not looking for clues. I'm not interested in reinterpreting it.
It's just sorta.... there.
I like it well enough for the most part, but I think it's going down as a footnote in Twin Peaks history. I think a year from now, most of us will have stopped thinking about it.