Season 4? Or is it over after this? Wisteria/Unrecorded Night? Something else? (Speculation thread.)

[TwinsPeak]

Yeah it doesn't look like Wisteria to me...It looks like a spring has sprung photo.

[madeleineferguson]

Fairly certain it's an echium fastuosum plant. They grow upward. Witseria is a tree whose blossoms droop downward.

- Mordeen

Thanks, Harold... err, Mordeen!

[Jonah]

If he replies to the comments with a suggestive wink or something or posts another photo with the #wisteria hashtag like Kyle and Andrea Hays did, that would be cool. Having said that, he did post a shushing suggestive post before a year or two back when the rumours were in full swing, so wouldn't be surprised if he starts hinting more.

[Stavrogyn]

This might be overreaching, so I apologize in advance, but couldn't it be possible that he thought it was wisteria and indeed intended it as a tease, even though it's actually another kind of plant? For a non-expert in these matters such as myself, it looks very similar until you google both plants and compare them side by side. His post could therefore still have the same implications.

The question is: does he post things like this occasionally, or is this completely out of the ordinary for him?

[Jonah]

It's definitely possible, but I think it was more about the bee. (Is it about the bee? It's not about the bee. No, it is about the bee. It's about the bee.) Both Kyle and Andrea Hays added "'#wisteria" to their posts and he didn't so I'm not sure, but it's definitely possible he thought it was wisteria and the post is about that and the bunny - I mean, bee.

[Soolsma]

It's spring. Flowers blossom. People take pictures and post them online.

overreaching

Yep He posts a bunch of flowers, cacti, trees. Half his photos are cats too. But hey, ya never know, maybe he mistook this as waldo: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBOWksjgKPK/

Don't worry, I applaud your enthusiasm Stavrogyn.

[Mr. Reindeer]

Stavrogyn writes:
This might be overreaching, so I apologize in advance, but couldn't it be possible that he thought it was wisteria and indeed intended it as a tease, even though it's actually another kind of plant? For a non-expert in these matters such as myself, it looks very similar until you google both plants and compare them side by side. His post could therefore still have the same implications.

The question is: does he post things like this occasionally, or is this completely out of the ordinary for him?

Definitely a possibility. Or, in the alternative, poor Michael saw a pretty plant and took a picture, with no idea what he was stepping into. I have to admit, I almost prefer this scenario because it’s funny.

He did post a couple of pictures of a redwood recently, but otherwise it looks like mostly pictures of his cat and of the jewelry he makes.

Soolsma writes:

I feel my post is being interpreted wrong in the sense that I meant he was a catalyst, not the as in singular. Of course there are larger forces at play, and smaller ones as well.Though I consider him to be the dreamer, I don't see how that would diminish the human reality of the show, we are talking surrealism after all, and certain truths don't exclude others.

Edit: Because imo that would be the same as saying Diane's nightmare (or take it as you will) makes Betty and Rita's relationship less real, which was probably the most elemental subject of MD.

I agree with you about certain truths not excluding others (Bob doesn’t absolve Leland, Mr. C’s sins are on some level Cooper’s even though they appear to be different people). However, I differ from you on the MD comparison. I DO think Betty and Rita’s relationship is “less real” than the Diane reality in the film, in the objective sense. The film makes that pretty clear. Now that doesn’t mean that it’s any less potent. It’s real to us as viewers because it’s real to Diane in her head, and we’re experiencing her psychological POV. That’s key to the experience of the film. However, I do not think that’s an apt comparison to TP, in my view. For example, I think Laura experienced the events of FWWM as a real, tangible, autonomous human being, as opposed to Rita in MD who didn’t actually experience anything—she was a psychological construct of Diane Selwyn.

But of course there are no right or wrong answers, and it’s always fun talking this stuff through and having my preconceptions challenged.

[Stavrogyn]

You see what great art can do to us? Now I'm searching the Internet for things like wisteria and echium fastuosum, comparing them, and exploring the kinds of bees and hierarchies in their family tree, while at the same time wondering what does all this have to do with Twin Peaks?

[Stavrogyn]

Mr. Reindeer writes:
Definitely a possibility. Or, in the alternative, poor Michael saw a pretty plant and took a picture, with no idea what he was stepping into. I have to admit, I almost prefer this scenario because it’s funny.

You almost preferring this scenario just because it would be funny is funny in itself, regardless of Michael Horse's true intentions, and I have to agree, nothing beats a good chuckle!

[Stavrogyn]

Jonah writes:
It's definitely possible, but I think it was more about the bee. (Is it about the bee? It's not about the bee. No, it is about the bee. It's about the bee.) Both Kyle and Andrea Hays added "'#wisteria" to their posts and he didn't so I'm not sure, but it's definitely possible he thought it was wisteria and the post is about that and the bunny - I mean, bee.

To conclude my little rant this evening, I also have to mention the very likely possibility that Michael Horse at some point in his life visited Norway, and, like myself, had a taste of a very special brand of beer there... Just google "mikro bryggeriet oslo twin peaks", and you will see.

So yes, my dear fellow Twin Peaks enthusiasts, it is about the bee, and all for the better!

[Soolsma]

objective sense

When watching Lynch, I've very much enjoyed not upholding such a notion. In fact, I feel he taught me how. Irrationality is key (I think Stravrogyn gets that ). To me, things are not more or less real than others, not even when the latter part of MD is obviously stylized to imply such a thing.

[Mr. Reindeer]

objective sense

When watching Lynch, I've very much enjoyed not upholding such a notion. In fact, I feel he taught me how. Irrationality is key. I think Stravrogyn gets it

I don’t disagree, and I totally get that. But in my mind, MD and TP (the original, I mean, everything is up for grabs by the time we get to TR) are a little more straightforward in their logic/rationality than say Eraserhead or INLAND EMPIRE, which are full-on surreal and almost impossible to nail down in rational language. YMMV of course! TR absolutely works on a LOT of different levels at once and is open to all kinds of interpretation, and the ways it fits with the original series are infinitely interesting.

[Soolsma]

About TP I agree to some extent, MD not so much. But here's a tough one for you then: out of Richard and Dale, who is more real?

(I haven't quite found out how these new quotes work)

[Mr. Reindeer]

Soolsma says:
But here's a tough one for you then: out of Richard and Dale, who is more real?

Heh, you’ve got me there. I’m not sure that there actually is a “Richard,” although it’s a convenient way to refer to that iteration of the character. He is confused when he reads the name in the letter, and he never takes ownership of it or uses it to refer to himself. (Of course, you could interpret this as his subconscious refusing to acknowledge the truth of his identity for any number of reasons, if you want to view the show as being really MD-like...I don’t think it’s that straightforward or simple, but it’s a valid working theory.) I think that character is still Cooper, but a more fully-formed version who has dropped the quirky Eagle Scout demeanor and is able to acknowledge the full darkness of the world and himself. Likewise, Mr. C is “real” as a separate character out in the world, but is simultaneously a part of Cooper, and everything he does “belongs” to Cooper. “Richard” is a version of the character who has to live with that, and I believe he has Mr. C reincorporated into him. Maybe that’s part of the reason he is so desperate to undo Laura’s murder: not only out of a white knight complex to save her, but also to undo “his” own sins which came about as a consequence of the investigation.

Anyway, my answer is, both are equally real...but “Richard” (or whatever we want to call him) is the more honest version of himself.

Re: Quotes. They’ve been working fine for me, except that they no longer add the name of the person you’re quoting into the message as posted. I’ve just been adding that manually by typing it.

EDIT: BTW, I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t otherworldly things going on in MD with the bum, the old couple, the Blue Haired Woman, etc. There clearly are. Just that the intended divide between the realities seems pretty clear to me, from that first shot of the pink pillow near the beginning of the film on.

[krishnanspace]

Hawks official Instagram. What the hell?