Page 9 of 10

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:11 pm
by Mr. Reindeer
Jonah wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:Annie is said to be born in 1973 and is 12 in 1985, which would make her 16 when Cooper sleeps with her!
:shock:
Ironic considering Heather Graham was already several years younger than Fenn when she was brought in to replace her as Cooper's love interest when Audrey was considered by Kyle to be too young (and the LFB stuff too).
Yeah, IIRC the book makes it clear that she is older than that given how many years pass in her storyline. The timeline just doesn’t make sense. There are too many years’ worth of events jammed into an impossible period between 1985 and 1989.

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:42 pm
by Jonah
Quoting from another thread.
Jerry Horne wrote:Saw Mark tonight in Portland.

He said "You are going to like where Hawk ends up".

"You might remember Lana Milford, Miss Twin Peaks 1989".
Did anything ever come of this? How did Hawk end up?

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:53 pm
by Mr. Reindeer
Jonah wrote:Quoting from another thread.
Jerry Horne wrote:Saw Mark tonight in Portland.

He said "You are going to like where Hawk ends up".

"You might remember Lana Milford, Miss Twin Peaks 1989".
Did anything ever come of this? How did Hawk end up?
TFD reveals that Frank is only interim sheriff once Harry gets sick, with Hawk intended to take over in 2018.

Lana became Miss Twin Peaks as the runner-up after Annie remained unconscious (which makes sense).

Just read the books, Jonah. :mrgreen:

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:55 pm
by Jonah
:lol: I also thought perhaps Hawk and Lana get together - he was quite taken by her!

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 10:57 pm
by Mr. Reindeer
Jonah wrote:Lol. I also thought perhaps Hawk and Lana get together - he was quite taken by her!
That was Hawk’s worst moment in the series. I always hoped we could meet his girlfriend, Diane Shapiro, PhD. So many mysterious Dianes on this show.

No, Lana goes on to date Donald Trump and a bunch of other rich people. It’s also implied that she was an assassin who killed Dougie Milford!

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:04 pm
by Jonah
Mr. Reindeer wrote:Dougie Milford
Speaking of which, in reading about the books, it seems like he became a very interesting character!

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:08 pm
by Mr. Reindeer
Jonah wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:Dougie Milford!
Speaking of which, in reading about the books, it seems like he became a very interesting character!
Yeah, I really enjoy what Mark did with him. As a sort of “blank slate” character whose backstory could be filled in, Mark really took him to some very fun places. He’s really the backbone of TSHoTP, and the way Frost weaves him in and out of various conspiracy theories is a big part of why I loved the book. In TFD, Mark also takes advantage of the fact that Dougie does indeed appear to be wearing a jade ring in all his series scenes!

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:17 pm
by Jonah
Mr. Reindeer wrote:In TFD, Mark also takes advantage of the fact that Dougie does indeed appear to be wearing a jade ring in all his series scenes!
It's weird how he could remember something like that or rewatch it and notice it and then make use of it, but forget/not notice the whole Vivian thing, as you pointed out earlier (especially as there's overlap as her last episode is Dougie's first!). (Wonder if Mark was going by memory - hardly for the ring thing, which implies he rewatched the mid-Season 2 stretch - or rewatching and if so why those weak post-reveal episodes, Dougie appears in pretty much the same but somewhat worse section of the show than Vivian.)

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:23 pm
by Mr. Reindeer
Jonah wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:In TFD, Mark also takes advantage of the fact that Dougie does indeed appear to be wearing a jade ring in all his series scenes!
It's weird how he could remember something like that or rewatch it and notice it and then make use of it, but forget/not notice the whole Vivian thing, as you pointed out earlier (especially as there's overlap as her last episode is Dougie's first!). (Wonder if Mark was going by memory - hardly for the ring thing - or rewatching and if so why those weak post-reveal episodes, Dougie appears in a worse stretch of the show than Vivian.)
Again, this is the skeptic in me (I really like Mark! But he self-admittedly didn’t revisit the old episodes before writing). The material about Dougie wearing the jade ring in the original show (and specifically in his death scene) is only in the second book. By that point, he had already made a big deal about Dougie as a character and about the ring, as separate (but closely intertwined) things, in TSH. A number of fans tweeted at him between books, with screen shots of Dougie wearing a green ring. I think he only made this connection after fans noticed it, although it was certainly a nice bit of serendipity, and he did a great job of taking advantage of it.

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:34 pm
by Jonah
Well, both things do appear in same set of episodes, so sounds right.

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 6:24 am
by mtl
The Joker had Green hair and Mauve suit

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:15 am
by Histeria
Does it matter if the inconsistencies were intentional or not?

Whether going on memory to force himself into inconsistencies that then become part of the storytelling frame (unreliable narrator and imperfect workmanship on the "author").

Or he knew the inconsistencies and did them on purpose

Or they were completely accidental and contrary to the intent these books be perfectly sourced.

What does it change? If someone who thinks the inconsistencies are unintentional and the result of negligence gains the ability to read Frost's mind, why would discovering he intended every single one suddenly make the book better or worse?

I don't know if they're all intentional. Some probably aren't. Or maybe the best way to write unreliable narration is to force yourself to do it from memory yourself after two decades. After all, the themes of subjectivity and memory and the passing of time are key to the book and the third season. More obvious and telling examples wouldn't have led to so much discussion and debate.

But some, I feel, are surely intentional. In The Final Dossier, it tells of how Cooper went to the Great Northern upon leaving the Red Room. Then soon after, it tells of how he disappeared straight from the hospital. It could be a mistake on Frost's part, or Tammy's.

Or it could be me misremembering and conflating the event where Cooper rapes Audrey with the fact he went to the hotel. But then either way, someone is conflating two unrelated events, as tends to happen with memory.

But like I said, I don't think it matters either way. I recall my childhood (aborted) attempt at keeping a diary and remembered how the journal I had was one year behind.

Extratextually, the most likely explanation of why Laura's diary in the JL book is the wrong year comes from the change of setting between S1 and S2. By the time they decided to jump forward a year during production, the book was already written.

But if JL suddenly said that was all intentional because Laura could only afford clearance bin journals left over from previous years, would that suddenly make the book more "canon" or legitimate as a text within the TP story? Seems like such a Marvel Cinematic Universe concern, and even they change things when it better suits the story being told at the time.

I saved a draft of this post earlier today. Just before coming back to post it, I checked twitter and saw this: https://twitter.com/mfrost11/status/1474978782251417602 :mrgreen:
Mark Frost tweet wrote:But is Smallville considered “canon”?

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 7:53 am
by 4815162342
The intention doesn't inherently make it better or worse, but it does help in evaluating the extent to which the author achieved his goals. In any case, the contortions about Norma and Annie are extremely unconvincing, not to mention the other nonsense (Audrey had a hair salon, etc).

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:29 am
by JackwithOneEye
Re the subjectivity / inconsistency of memory.

anecdotally -
Isaac Asimov here in 1986 is promoting his autobiography, talks about how much people forget over time,
some people forget their own lives.
He looked at his old diaries, thought things happened in some years, actually happened in others.
in one diary entry, he wrote "this is the worst day i've ever had in the lab and I'll never forget it", and decades later,
looks at what he had written and he had no idea what he meant or what he was referring to
yet thinks of himself as a person with a good memory...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYzj4yyM8Ws

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:47 pm
by Histeria
4815162342 wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 7:53 am the contortions about Norma and Annie are extremely unconvincing
Theory: Mark Frost researched a 500 page compendium of fictionalised American history that acts as an epilogue to the original Twin Peaks series and prologue to the revival he himself wrote. But the research doesn't extend to the town that lends his book its title. For that, he didn't bother doing research and not for any creative reasons, either. He simply overestimated his own memory despite memory being the key theme of the book and series it preceded.

He references stories from almost every episode of the original series, including a plethora of minor characters with a handful of lines each. He remembers all of their full names and relations with each other and writes extended biographies of many of those characters that appear to have a very strong grasp of the origal material far beyond what merely writing from thirty-year-old memory should support. But in one case, he misremembered character so egregiously that even those casual viewers who watched the series once were able to spot the discrepancy.



That theory is certainly possible. But I don't think it's anywhere close to being the most parsimonious one once you factor in all the implications that come from asserting "he just made a huge unintended error that he'd have corrected if made aware of it." The padding above will form the test to the hypothesis if not included in it.

On an unrelated note, it was mentioned in this thread that he didn't watch the original series in preparation for S3. Is there a source for this? From what I've read, he watched the whole thing while Lynch concentrated on the pilot, finale and FWWM.