I agree. I think L&F just wanted viewers to get mindf*cked and start arguing about their theories.
ha.
this chimes with something i was wondering about. Whether it is alternate realities, or time-lines, or dreams, or multiple subjective points of view, or unreliable narratives, or meta-fiction, or whatever, all of these are possible explanations of the same thing. If you asked eyewitnesses to describe the same event, you would get descriptions that broadly overlap, but differ in detail. The sum of their descriptions is the best evidence we have for what happened, but if what happened involves a VICTIM, or victims, none of those POV's alter the victim's perspective, or illuminate it. No one lies like an eyewitness, as they say. All those onlookers when the car hit that boy in ep #6, none of them can see what happened through the mother's eyes. Her suffering and her kid's death remain intact. It resists theory or explanation. The best you can do is as Carl Rodd did, show abit of human sympathy, be there, in the scene, by her side, not stand over there as an observer. But that doesn't CHANGE what happened.
Twin peaks at it's core has a detective, who solves crimes apparently by a mix of intuition and reasoned logic - perception rather than deduction. He can see the same information as we can, but finds a path through the forest of different theories or readings. At the end of many Agatha Christie books the detective gets everyone in the room and goes round the room one person at a time explaining how THEY could have done it, all the possible explanations. ( then at the end we are told the right answer). In episodes of Columbo, a similar thing often happens, but the solution has been exposed at the start - we, the viewer, have been shown the guilty party in the first ten minutes. For the rest of the programme, the interest is in the process of how Columbo arrives at that answer, exposes the mechanism.
So you could see Twin Peaks as a kind of psychological detective story which subverts itself. Laura died. Ruth Davenport died. We know the victims. We have all these clues. There are some story lines that are not resolved that are red herrings. But was it Judy, was it Bob , was it Leland, who is Sarah, who is Billy, what will bad C do when he meets good Coop, will part will Cole and Albert play, what's up with Audrey, blah blah,all these questions surround the victim, and then we have all those theories too. Sure you can kill the bad guy. You can explain the alternate realities. You can solve the surface mystery. But you can't change Laura's pain. That is hers, an hers alone. You can't get inside other people's heads, or change their experience, or see through their eyes. And you can't go back and rewrite history or pretend the the bad thing never happened, either, however much you'd like to. It's cyclical. You always end up back where you started. At the end we're left with this yin yang of Cooper and Laura. The detective and victim. The living and the dead.