Is Audrey a tulpa?

[Mr. Reindeer]

I agree that American Girl is a separate character from Ronette, but there’s not a doubt in my mind that DKL chose her for the role to evoke Ronette in the audience’s mind, not just at random (as opposed to, say, the reuse of Matt Battaglia or Bellina Logan, which were probably just because DKL wanted to work with the actors or felt they were right for the roles).

And speaking of difficulty separating actors from characters...you do realize we’re discussing DKL here, right? The Blue Rose scenes alone blur the line between real-world and in-world relationships between characters and actors more than almost any other production I can think of (as Bell has recently noted).

[Xavi]

I agree that American Girl is a separate character from Ronette, but there’s not a doubt in my mind that DKL chose her for the role to evoke Ronette in the audience’s mind, not just at random (as opposed to, say, the reuse of Matt Battaglia or Bellina Logan, which were probably just because DKL wanted to work with the actors or felt they were right for the roles).

And speaking of difficulty separating actors from characters...you do realize we’re discussing DKL here, right? The Blue Rose scenes alone blur the line between real-world and in-world relationships between characters and actors more than almost any other production I can think of (as Bell has recently noted).

I am sorry, but I can only speak on behalf of my own thinking and not, like you, according to what Lynch (DKL) had in mind.

[Audrey Horne]

I imagine Lynch would say it’s whatever you think it is... which naturally is both beautiful and frustrating.

Going into the finale I thought the Audrey storyline was pretty exciting precisely because of the Diane setup. Since Diane is a character we’ve never met prior to this season, we take her characteristics at face value... we know no different. However Audrey is a beloved character, and all we know is she’s practically the opposite of how she’s behaved before and that she has moments of feeling, “I’m not me”. ...soon to be echoed by Diane. And both tied together by the implication that they have been violated body and soul by Mr. C... no matter what, Diane’s tulpa retains the pain her original experienced.

I choose to believe Audrey is not a tulpa and it is merely a setup to put the audience on edge about a fan favorite... since her true fate is exposed in the same episode we find out the terrible truth about Diane. We’re meant to be on edge that the same could happen to Audrey, so it raises the suspense. I think the mirror reveal is the first step to Audrey realizing she’s actually in a much more perilous situation that her previous thought dead end life. If the series continues I imagine this Audrey will always be the actual Audrey. And yes, I believe it fully changed from the original treatment that Frost’s book dealt with.

[Mr. Reindeer]

I am sorry, but I can only speak on behalf of my own thinking and not, like you, according to what Lynch (DKL) had in mind.

Fair enough. Certainly we’re not mind readers, and DKL’s process is about as elusive as any artist’s. But for me, it seems a logical inference. I think many other fans on these boards have reached a similar conclusion. You certainly don’t have to agree; but, in a similar vein, you seem to have embraced your own theory to a degree where you find it “remarkable” that anyone hasn’t come to the same conclusion, which is a tad presumptuous.

[laughingpinecone]

I agree with you completely, if we’re taking TFD into account. And I have no doubt that the backstory from TFD was more or less Audrey’s original scripted arc (this has been confirmed by multiple sources). Ergo, in the original script, Audrey probably wasn’t a tulpa, at least not immediately following the rape.

However, DKL threw out the entire initial arc to appease Fenn and came up with something RADICALLY different. At that point, I think there’s a strong possibility that DKL saw an opportunity to tie Audrey’s character more closely to Diane’s arc, and certainly didn’t feel bound to the earlier scripted material that (as far as he was concerned then) wouldn’t see the light of day. So, in the show’s continuity and DKL’s intent in writing those scenes, I think there is a strong argument to be made that Audrey was tulpa-fied right after the rape, like Diane. Mark’s work in TFD scuttles this, but IMO this is one of those instances where David wrote without Mark and vice versa, and the two came to contradictory outcomes. YMMV, of course.

Richard has memories of his mother making heart eyes at a picture of Dale Cooper, though? And I'm still intrigued by the fact that the climax of Audrey's plot has zilch to do with Mr C or any acknowledgement whatsoever of her rape. There's Charlie, there's her impossible dance, there's her impossible dance being interrupted... But of course, YMMV, agree to disagree and all that! o/

[Audrey Horne]

All that Richard said was he recognized Cooper from a photo his mom had... yes it’s clarified from Frost’s book, but that scene may have been filmed early in the process before Fenn’s role was finished being rewriten. As it stands one coukd view it that it belonged to his mother who he never knew because she was still in a coma.

[Diane]

Can you give birth while in a coma?

[laughingpinecone]

"Look, Richard, these items belonged to your poor mother you've never known... her impressive collection of stunning knitwear... an earmarked copy of The scarlet letter... unopened math textbooks... a photo of that guy she crushed on for like two weeks..." I find it really hard to believe he'd have remembered that photo with an absent Audrey, or even that it would've been shown to him by Sylvia, Ben or Jerry.

Anyway the book is right there with a timeline for the character that recognizes the show's plotline. I understand the fun of trying to figure out all the behind-the-scenes backgrounds of which plot change influenced what, and I certainly understand picking and choosing one's own version of canon, personally disregarding events big and small. But when discussing 'the' situation of a character, I will say that this fandom's attitude of actively going against whatever the books say is baffling. And kind of insulting to Mark Frost in certain cases.

[Diane]

Well, Mark Frost didn't exactly pay attention to what happened in season 2.

[Mr. Reindeer]

"Look, Richard, these items belonged to your poor mother you've never known... her impressive collection of stunning knitwear... an earmarked copy of The scarlet letter... unopened math textbooks... a photo of that guy she crushed on for like two weeks..." I find it really hard to believe he'd have remembered that photo with an absent Audrey, or even that it would've been shown to him by Sylvia, Ben or Jerry.

Anyway the book is right there with a timeline for the character that recognizes the show's plotline. I understand the fun of trying to figure out all the behind-the-scenes backgrounds of which plot change influenced what, and I certainly understand picking and choosing one's own version of canon, personally disregarding events big and small. But when discussing 'the' situation of a character, I will say that this fandom's attitude of actively going against whatever the books say is baffling. And kind of insulting to Mark Frost in certain cases.

Yeh, I actually wanted to make a post even before you said this clarifying that I mean no disrespect to Mark. I love the books, particularly TSHoTP, and the layers and detail they add to the world of the show, as is hopefully evident from all that I’ve written in the book threads (as well as my various posts speculating about Mark’s contributions and influences to the show — including starting a thread dedicated to that very topic). Mark is an intelligent, talented guy (and, having met him, I will add that he is incredibly cordial and giving to fans — I wish he’d done signings for TFD so I could have met him again!). However, in instances like Audrey’s situation, the identity of 1956 Girl, and the effects of Cooper’s actions in Part 17, I much prefer the “room to dream” that the show provided, personally — and particularly in the instance of Audrey’s situation, I get the sense that David and Mark might have very different interpretations, given the kooky writing process, as I mentioned above. We know for a fact that DKL both wrote and directed those scenes solo, and insofar as authorial intent is a factor in interpretation, I’m not convinced that what L/F wrote together for Audrey previously or how Mark chose to interpret those scenes subsequently in his book needs to inform my viewing of them. So in that particular instance, I do feel particularly free to take the liberty of viewing TFD as soft canon. (Let’s face it, as TP fans, particularly when it comes to the books, we HAVE to pick and choose canon given how many inconsistencies there are!)

[Audrey Horne]

Ha, lord knows I choose my canon with this show (basically cherry picking everything after the original episode fifteen)

I only meant that if the show continues I wouldn’t be surprised if Audrey’s situation is still tied to that coma and new white world going forward, and the whole Charlie and hairdresser story never mentioned again.

[Jasper]

The thing that freaked me out in relation to Audrey was when The Arm said, “Is it the story of the little girl who lived down the lane? Is it?” That was an electric moment. What could it mean? Some possibilities;

1. It was in the script before the Audrey story was updated, at which point Lynch gave Audrey the lines as well (for some reason maybe he doesn’t even understand).
2. Audrey is in some sort of weird state where she’s either in a supernatural realm (convenience store, lodge, etc.) or she’s at least psychologically connected to such a place, and keeps slipping into it, even though she’s physically in Twin Peaks in a psychiatric facility or what have you. Because she’s somehow connected to one or more of these other realms, she and The Arm therefor have some sort of unconscious communication resulting in such mirroring.
3. It’s just another example of other realms reflecting or otherwise influencing the relatively mundane earthly realm (sort of like the As Above So Below idea).
4. The Audrey we’ve seen is a tulpa, as already suggested, and she’s therefor somehow synched in some way with lodge goings on.

Of course even if one of these possibilities is correct (and one could certainly come up with many more), it doesn’t do a whole lot to explain what the lines mean, and what, if any, connection there is to the 1974 novel and 1976 film, both of which share the title The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane.

For all we know Lynch included it because he saw an advertisement for a showing on TV, or overheard someone in the crew mention it, or simply had it spring to mind for some reason, and it for whatever reason it reminded him of the story he was refashioning for Audrey.

[chromereflectsimage]

The thing that freaked me out in relation to Audrey was when The Arm said, “Is it the story of the little girl who lived down the lane? Is it?” That was an electric moment. What could it mean? Some possibilities;

1. It was in the script before the Audrey story was updated, at which point Lynch gave Audrey the lines as well (for some reason maybe he doesn’t even understand).
2. Audrey is in some sort of weird state where she’s either in a supernatural realm (convenience store, lodge, etc.) or she’s at least psychologically connected to such a place, and keeps slipping into it, even though she’s physically in Twin Peaks in a psychiatric facility or what have you. Because she’s somehow connected to one or more of these other realms, she and The Arm therefor have some sort of unconscious communication resulting in such mirroring.
3. It’s just another example of other realms reflecting or otherwise influencing the relatively mundane earthly realm (sort of like the As Above So Below idea).
4. The Audrey we’ve seen is a tulpa, as already suggested, and she’s therefor somehow synched in some way with lodge goings on.

Of course even if one of these possibilities is correct (and one could certainly come up with many more), it doesn’t do a whole lot to explain what the lines mean, and what, if any, connection there is to the 1974 novel and 1976 film, both of which share the title The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane.

For all we know Lynch included it because he saw an advertisement for a showing on TV, or overheard someone in the crew mention it, or simply had it spring to mind for some reason, and it for whatever reason it reminded him of the story he was refashioning for Audrey.

The thing I keep coming back to regarding that quote, whether it's talking about Audrey or Laura, is that the girl in that movie becomes a murderer to avoid abuse. In TPTR, we eventually see Audrey choking Charlie, and Carrie has a dead man on her couch.

[Snailhead]

If there's a S4, I can almost imagine the opening scene features Audrey waking up in a psych ward and going for breakfast with Annie.

[claaa7]

for me the Audrey scenes almost completely seem to be outside of the "regular" narrative, and i don't think a Tulpa is the right word for her in my interpretation of her state. like "Inland Empire" had a few scenes that didn't at all seem to be connected with the narrative, the Audrey storyline seems to work like that as well. because she was in the original series and she is obviously "living in" Twin Peaks still it's easier to go with but her arc could almost be a different short feature in it's own right.. i actually tried watching all the Audrey scenes in order on their own once and it was a very interesting experience. i once recommended Mr. Reindeer and others to watch episode 13 before episode 12 but i came to realize that this fucks up the Audrey arc way too much and her scenes are VERY important to play in the correct order as each segment she is coming closer to the truth and enlightenment (as i view it). (i have another suggested way of watching ep. 11 / 12 / 13 but i'll write that in the episode thread).

so no i don't think Audrey is a tulpa anymore than i think that Nikki / Sue or Diane / Betty are tulpas. she is always Audrey but she certainly is experiencing something very strange and confusing and i doubt that Charlie is a real person (nor her shrink) but rather a part of her own mind. the part of her mind that tells her "she can't" and is always putting down herself. luckily she is able to break free of this negative rubber clown suit which is beautifully represented by her classic dance (look how happy she is). notice how Charlies face after the dance turns into a miror with her own face in it. just beutiful!