Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne

User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by StrangerDanger »

Gabriel wrote:Yes, I read it, StrangerDanger. If you explained it, it wasn't clear. You can't throw around terms such as 'romanticism,' 'objectivity ' and 'subjectivity' in an artistic context without being picked up on it.
OK Sorry. Hint: i was talking primarily about romanticism of the inconsolable critic, seems premature at <25% into Ser. 3. Then l moved onto a thesis about romanticism in Ser 1, 2, and FWWM. In the OP l tackled the same basic concept several times over, approaching from diff. angles. Hope you can see that :) peace, chill.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

StrangerDanger wrote:OK Sorry. Hint: i was talking primarily about romanticism of the inconsolable critic, seems premature at <25% into Ser. 3. Then l moved onto a thesis about romanticism in Ser 1, 2, and FWWM. In the OP l tackled the same basic concept several times over, approaching from diff. angles. Hope you can see that :) peace, chill.
Actually, having made some study of the Romantic movement and the philosophy of objective and subjective reality, I was 'profoundly derpy' that we weren't getting into that kind of debate!! ;)
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by StrangerDanger »

Gabriel wrote:
StrangerDanger wrote:OK Sorry. Hint: i was talking primarily about romanticism of the inconsolable critic, seems premature at <25% into Ser. 3. Then l moved onto a thesis about romanticism in Ser 1, 2, and FWWM. In the OP l tackled the same basic concept several times over, approaching from diff. angles. Hope you can see that :) peace, chill.
Actually, having made some study of the Romantic movement and the philosophy of objective and subjective reality, I was 'profoundly derpy' that we weren't getting into that kind of debate!! ;)
ok here goes

Romanticism seems materialistic, which is covetous, right?

And we have ppl loving selfishly - that's covetous too, right?

So that's in the same vein as romanticism, to me.


Loving selfishly = what u done for me lately? Make me squeal, l love ur lil stories. OR: I want to eat your striving, your hard work, the pain and sorrow, l demand all that's due for me, and upon finally getting my share >>> cut to scene of satisfied monkey in FWWM.

Good romance = appreciating the bouquet of series 1, 2, FWWM such that you think thrice about tearing the authors a new one, and you match their wisdom with your own patience. Sure, you can still grow to hate them (l reserve the right to hate Season 3, Lynch, Frost, any author, any work, and defend ur right to do so too, l'm just asking: is it justifiable?), wayyy deep into Series 3 or once it's finished, but until then if you truly loved the work for its own merits, you'd bee more prepared to take the rough with the smooth, rather than wanting it all sweet, all on your own terms. That is covetousness, a selfish love. Besides, Eraserhead already set the scene for the weird + slow + quiet feel of Pt. 1+2 (= the first 2 hours) of Ser. 3, so, well, it's hardly unprecedented.

I feel it broadly links up with Romanticism the movement, inasmuch as, they want Our Literature, Our Land, bla bla. Very covetous, superficial. Not true love. Not true appraisal of literature per se, or appreciation of the human condition, more like, Our authors of Our land, bla bla.

Having said that, l havent even googled Romanticism in ages, so l might have my basic principles all wrong.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

Yep. They're wrong. ;) But it's worth studying. I love romantic literature and miss the presence of romanticism in today's media. The original Twin Peaks had a romantic streak; the new one definitely doesn't.
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

Incidentally, I'm posting on my mobile phone which seems to log me out every 10 seconds, meaning constantly copying and pasting after replies get erased, so it's not the ideal way for me to make cogent remarks!! ;)
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by StrangerDanger »

Gabriel wrote:Yep. They're wrong. ;) But it's worth studying. I love romantic literature and miss the presence of romanticism in today's media. The original Twin Peaks had a romantic streak; the new one definitely doesn't.
I've just briefly scanned the Wikipedia page on Romanticism. What l've been able to gather about the Romantic tradition is that it is:
- A reaction to (against) the Industrial Revolution, stuffy societal norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and Rationalism
- Focused on intense emotional experience, heightened aesthetics
- Associated with liberalism, radicalism and paradoxically, nationalism

Therefore l'd say it's a blood and soil kinda movement within the Arts, and hence it can be liberal, hippie, naturalistic, but it can also be blood and soil as in nationalism.

Despite Wikipedia implying it was against the stuffy ideals of the Age of Enlightenment (such as?), l think l'd stereotype Romanticism as:
All about You, Me, Us as the Vitruvian Man, the centre of the universe. We become God's people, in God's own land, bla bla bla (think of the poem "Jerusalem" by William Blake). This would put us in the eye of the tornado, a whirlwind of emotions, aesthetics, hence the emphasis in Romanticism on intense emotions.

How does this idea of Romanticism as being at the centre of the universe and being possessed of an intense emotional, [pro]creative urge, connect to:
- Inconsolable critics of Series 3 vs. Series 1, 2, and FWWM?
- Coop being snared into the Black Lodge via Annie?
- Leland abusing Laura?


Maybe:
- The inconsolable critic sees themselves as the centre of the romance, like a Vitruvian Man, and they crave intense emotions, to the point of seeming disregard for the authors who supply the emotions, and deeper meanings, they just want the whirlwind romance to never end, and it doesn't really matter who this Garmonbozia comes from as long as it's spoonfed into their mouths. Hence a slow-paced intro episode offends.
- Coop saw a hot blonde and without much ado, screwed up his mission by chasing her, he was carried away by intense feelings for her
- Leland gorged himself on Laura over and over again, he fed off her (like in Laura's Diary, he enjoyed humiliating her, over and over). Maybe it was BOB feeding off her Garmonbozia. So you see a man, centre of his universe / household, gorging himself on intense emotions over and over again, like a fixation, or a spinning whirlwind, or that fan in Laura's house.


By the way, l agree that the early Twin Peaks had a lot of romanticism (notably lacking in Series 3, like that silhouette on the playing card, if that's a heart, yeah there's a black hole where the romance should be). Everything from the theme tune, some of the incidental music, the scenery shots where countless people lived and loved over the eons, and the 1,001 character subplots. The interactions between characters and the land, the romantic eddies and interactions - "the world spins". However, Laura Palmer made a selfless sacrifice in the end, rather than continue the vicious cycle of dark romance and manipulation and degrading of herself and others, she chose to end it, so l think she was ultimately one of the good guys, like Log Lady, Dr. Hayward, the Bookhouse Boys and other White Lodge types. So, yeah Twin Peaks was heavily romantic, but it was what l'd call Good Romance, and that entails not demanding all one's Garmonbozia after a slow first episode! That's Bad Romance!

Seriously though, l honestly don't care if someone really likes or despises some aspect of Twin Peaks or any other franchise, it's fiction, quite good fiction though. As you say, it's interesting to see ppl's reactions. In fact, now l remember: my OP was originally from observing someone that made a music video about Twin Peaks, where they seemingly fixated on nostalgic scenes to the point of being irrelevant, jumbled, jarring. Like, an unhealthy romantic fixation, lacking real meaning. I'm totally detached from it all, just thought it was an interesting talk point, and like l keep saying: i may yet come to dislike Series 3, l am not a fanboy, but l'm not an impatient bad romantic either.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

Dude. You don't know what it is. Your apology to me from before was a lie because it was an excuse to scuttle away and bone up on Wikipedia, which will tell you little, in order to retrofit an argument you weren't making because you didn't know what the words you were using meant. Let it go.
User avatar
BOB1
RR Diner Member
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by BOB1 »

I find this discussion very interesting even if some of the opening ideas are kind of unclear (Gabriel is right: you can't expect to juggle around with 'romanticism', 'objective/subjective' etc. at random, then use wikipedia to look up the meanings and not expect some controversy...). I don't wanna get into the discussion about Romanticism, though, and debate on how accurately, or inaccurately, you use words. I do feel that I know what you mean. But I don't agree with your diagnosis. And the answer has already been produced here so I'll just quote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:I get Lynch's game, but I honestly don't think the series can sustain itself on constant non sequiturs without a central mystery and a strong narrative thread
That's the point, at least that was my point after Parts 1 and 2. There was just no story. And I reject any argument like "it was only 4 hours and it's still the phase of exposition. Personally, I appreciate when the exposition os brief and to the point. And so it was in Part 3! I didn't like the very opening shot of Cooper whirling around and getting sucked into dunno what but right after that it was (with all its weirdness) brief and to the point.
I find that without a narrative thread you can make artistic experiments but not a good film.

And that has nothing to do with romanticism (however you'd understand it).
Bobi 1 Kenobi

B. Beware
O. Of
B. BOB
Post Reply