Critique of John Thorne's Essential Wrapped in Plastic

[teddyleevin]

This review contains spoilers for the original series of Twin Peaks.

I really struggled with this one. I was looking forward to it as I have always found Thorne to be an engaging interview guest in blogs and podcasts. 3/5 of the book are a reworking of the episode guide published in the Wrapped in Plastic fanzine (which I've never read). As an episode guide, it's alternately perfunctory, deficient, and biased. Having read the superlative books on the original Doctor Who (About Time volumes 1-6), I have a pretty clear barometer on what satisfies me. No distinction seems to be made between synopsis and the additional notes provided for each episode (and, even then, major details are left out of the synopses). There is subjective critique for each episode which is presented as objective fact with unequivocal condemnation of particular scenes and episodes as being the worst scene or episode in the entire run alongside relative praise for the controversial Diane Keaton episode, not once mentioning that a lot of fans consider it one of the weakest in the series. There are errors and omissions: Thorne leaves out the well-known details about the original script for the the Pete/Andrew scene in Episode 29 (Catherine was to accompany Andrew). His alternate/deleted scenes info as per original scripts is normally so well-detailed. He also says that Windom Earle intentionally sandbagged Nadine because he knew Nadine would be able to physically overpower him. Nothing in the show would lead one to this conclusion.

However, that's Thorne's whole bag. Most people came here not for the bloated episode guide but for his notorious essays: namely his famous Deer Meadow theory. His theories on the film, Fire Walk With Me, are the highlight of Thorne's contribution. Unfortunately, his writing style often reads as a high school term paper with such phrases as "as this essay has shown" presenting his voice as the unquestionable voice of god. One heading is embarrassingly labelled "Conclusion" and he pads his writing with endless questions that he is, of course, able to all-too-easily answer. He actually uses the phrase "Coincidence? Probably not." which could be the most reductive and obvious statement said on a work by Lynch I've ever read. His work is not a text with which the reader can really interact, even though he presents it as such by saying things like "As we shall see..." when contextualizing his theories, as if to make us complicit in his scheme. His theories (especially the Deer Meadow one) are actually quite interesting, but I can't help but be insulted when he posits that, because of his theory "[Fire Walk With Me] emerges as a cohesive, meaningful film, at last" despite the fact that myself (and many views like me) have viewed it as a perfect film, long before I experienced his theory. He uses sideways logic, references a quote Lynch made about Lost Highway ("The clues are all there for a correct interpretation"), giving him free reign to feel like he's cracked the code and solved the crime, providing readers with the final, correct answer. Thorne's clues and assertions are so often compelling but one would appreciate if approached them with at least an ounce of humility or provided a more expansive view through more counter-viewpoints.

But that's the problem inherent in the book itself. It's not "The Essential Collected Criticism and Analysis of Twin Peaks." He briefly brings up other authors (Nochimson and Wallace, being two of the most notable) and provides extensive coverage of the critical backlash against Fire Walk With Me, but his primary source (his own magazine) is really a secondary one, and any semblance of well-rounded intake has been lost. The fact of the matter is that, even if Wrapped in Plastic was the most intelligent fanzine on the market, one cannot expect it to have the rigor and polish of proper analytical long-form, and to refigure the zine's material into a book like this is going to lead to some uneven representation.

However, this book contains one thing that makes it truly "Essential": relevant excerpts of cast/crew interviews originally published in the magazine. Contextualizing them as almost a dialogue (brilliantly handled, considering that the interviews themselves span over a decade of the zine's life) between different members of the Peaks world and looping them into the appropriate episodes and topics of the show really whets the appetite. I would love if he would republish all of the interviews top-to-bottom, but this is a really fun and engaging way to read them. It will be challenging to use the book to source the quotes in question, but I do see myself returning to them in future.

As a gripe, the book has a large amount of typos. Most are superficial, but there are some misspellings that show a pretty blatant lack of research (like "no-play" instead of "Noh play").

Maybe it wouldn't have been possible for Thorne to provide a more objective book without losing sight of his fanzine's original tack. Maybe it would have been improved if he had had the opportunity to collaborate with his original co-publisher, Craig Miller (sadly, Craig is no longer with us). And maybe another eye or two could have improved his rhetoric and improved the maturity of his prose. This is clearly intended as one person's voice against the world, but there is no sense that the world is present. Maybe flat out calling the "devil little Nicky" moment the low point of the entire series is hyperbole and open to massive debate, but Thorne is content to calmly proclaim his opinions to the void as if accepted fact. The back of the book makes this clear when it promises "to chart the creative highs and lows of the series." Maybe this could have been done with a more even tact (or at least a more humorous and self-aware tone as in the About Time series), but as it is, there's no way for it to really be what the book claims itself to be. The final two sentences of the back blurb are telling. "Twin Peaks offers many intriguing pathways to explore. The Essential Wrapped in Plastic is a vital guide to this remarkable work." Unfortunately, the book is only interested in one pathway to the material (outside of the diverse opinions expressed in the interviews, which are not editorialized upon). It is "a vital guide," sure, but one can't help think that Thorne views it as "THE vital guide."

[douglasb]

Well, as we say in Scotland - "Who stole your scone?"

The book is called The Essential Wrapped in Plastic. It's a collection of material, some of it almost two decades old. If parts of it now jar a little, well that's what happens over time.

Please provide a link to your book below.

[sneakydave]

As we also say in Scotland, who shat in your cornflakes?

Or is that just me?

[Jaipeur]

[CuriousWoman]

Well I am interested in your feedback although I could not get to read any Wrapped in Plastic yet (you seem to make valid points but not having read it personally I don't know how much true they are). It is refreshing sometimes to see the POV of an outsider.

Peoples on this forum seem to vastly enjoy the book, so don't expect a lot of people agreeing with you in here.

Based on your critique, I think that the book Reflections - An Oral History of Twin Peaks by Brad Dukes would suit your tastes much better since it is just a compilation of interviews.

[AXX°N N.]

I agree with a lot of what you've said, although I think you're being unnecessarily critical of certain aspects that weren't as misleading as you think or at least not knowingly so; the introduction is very clear that EWIP is re-contextualizing a magazine run, specifically one man's contributions to said magazine run, and that some things would jar in the translation. Other aspects of the book that don't quite work I believe to be unintentional, but this was sold as a condensation of a specific portion of a magazine and it is just that. I agree with you there is a certain tone of authority on the franchise Thorne takes, but that's inevitable in fan communities and in anyone writing a whole book about a TV show they didn't make; there's a possessiveness involved, but in this case I think Thorne was adequately self-aware about it; the book is clearly, from the start, in his voice. Half of the book is just his essays.

Where I think the format sort of overrides and even misleads from the function is exactly in the episode guides -- the book is half fact, half incredibly subjective opinion, but because of how the factual aspects of the book bleed into cast & crew comments, which are comments of relative authority, and then seamlessly lead into his own input ... it sort of frames his input as being tethered to the factual. I think if there's a mistake in the book, it was including the episode guide at all -- not only because it was supremely dry reading that I felt contributed nothing, and wasted about a third of my reading time (yes, I'm the type who never skips -- never), but because it results in the book having a sort of identity crisis.

As for his theories being sophomoric, that's harsh -- these are fan theories among obsessives for other fans; the bar is not so high that we should expect some sort of Harold Bloom or Nabokov academic treatise -- which don't get me wrong, that'd be great, but the only reason you feel gypped is you approached someone who, from the start, wasn't what you would have preferred.

[teddyleevin]

Thanks, AXX°N N. and CuriousWoman for your feedback.

I agree that the episode guide is not necessary (less the interviews associated with each episode). Quick-and-dirty episode synopses have their place, and I appreciate the act breakdown, but details are missing. They don't even need to be longer, but there are frequently missing scenes and developments (most synopses online are so overdetailed as to be rendered pointless by a swift viewing of the episode in question). Like AXX°N N., I read every last sentence, and, though there were nuggets to be found in the interviews, the rest of the episode guide didn't seem to prove useful as either a straight-read or a reference material. You're bang on about the identity crisis/tethered-to-the-factual issue. On top of that, most of the things that rubbed me the wrong way were in the commentary on the episode guide (condemnation of episodes as being "the worst" and unequivocal praise of Diane Keaton's directing [which, I actually am rather amused by and enjoy, but he should at least mention that opinion on it is quite divided!]). Those pages being devoted to more interviews and theories would have been a better buy, and honestly, I probably would have been more forgiving of my stylistic quibbles as it would have at least maintained a consistent feel and tack.

I didn't mean to say that the theories are sophomoric; they are actually quite compelling, and are refreshingly personal due to the fact that contextual/contradictory/supportive secondary sources are minimal. It's the style of the prose and structure that lacks polish and is frustratingly padded. I have enjoyed Thorne as a speaker on podcasts and in transcribed interviews, and I hoped that his writing would be as smooth, excited, and infection as his oratory, but I did not find this to be the case. I was hoping this to be thesis paper-level craftsmanship, so, yes, much of my problem comes from my expectation. But hopefully my attraction to Thorne as interview guest showed that my expectation came from an optimistically good place with regards to his rhetoric.

As for Dukes' book, I've been avoiding it a bit (or at least backburnering it) because I'm gently morally opposed to anyone who seems content to eliminate FWWM from history. I'm very much of the camp that considers it the crowning gem of the franchise (so I appreciate the attention Thorne gives it), and its the Lynchpin (sorry) of the whole kit-and-caboodle. The Dukes is next on my list, though.

[underthefan]

As for Dukes' book, I've been avoiding it a bit (or at least backburnering it) because I'm gently morally opposed to anyone who seems content to eliminate FWWM from history. I'm very much of the camp that considers it the crowning gem of the franchise (so I appreciate the attention Thorne gives it), and its the Lynchpin (sorry) of the whole kit-and-caboodle.

This. I couldn't agree more. It's an interesting book to read and lovingly created, but the treatment of FWWM is basically like a piece of excrement stuck to the sole of one's shoes that one desperately needs to remove as soon as possible... And that is what soured me on that book in a major way and left me feeling rather disappointed and not willing to go back to it again (in fact, I sold off my copy of it).

Despite the flaws you talked about in the Essential book, and I don't think you're wrong, I love the way Thorne gives proper critical consideration and analysis (like the chapter about "Dreams of Deer Meadow" or "The Realization of Laura Palmer") that most other sources never do.

[Mr. Reindeer]

FWWM might be my favorite piece of the TP saga thus far -- the only thing that rivals it is Episode 29. That said, I think it's unfair to give Brad crap for not covering FWWM. His book has the deliberate mission statement of covering the checkered, bizarre, rise-and-fall zeitgeist of the series. It's a singly unique behind-the-scenes tale, not quite like anything before or since in television history, and Brad's book is as close as we're like to get to a definitive telling. I don't see why anyone would dismiss it simply because it doesn't cover FWWM, which was a separate production and very much its own beast.

While I'd love to see a book similar to Brad's covering the production of FWWM, he put in a tremendous amount of work to compile the book he gave us, and I'm grateful for it. The book doesn't diminish FWWM in any way, it just chooses not to cover it. (And honestly, if he couldn't get DKL's cooperation, I don't know that it would have been worth covering FWWM even if he'd wanted to. Even moreso than the series, any source that covers FWWM without including interviews with DKL is going to be unsatisfying IMO. Frost is an OK substitute in the case of the series, but Bob Engels isn't gonna cut it.)

[AXX°N N.]

I didn't mean to say that the theories are sophomoric; they are actually quite compelling, and are refreshingly personal due to the fact that contextual/contradictory/supportive secondary sources are minimal. It's the style of the prose and structure that lacks polish and is frustratingly padded. I have enjoyed Thorne as a speaker on podcasts and in transcribed interviews, and I hoped that his writing would be as smooth, excited, and infection as his oratory, but I did not find this to be the case. I was hoping this to be thesis paper-level craftsmanship, so, yes, much of my problem comes from my expectation. But hopefully my attraction to Thorne as interview guest showed that my expectation came from an optimistically good place with regards to his rhetoric.

As for Dukes' book, I've been avoiding it a bit (or at least backburnering it) because I'm gently morally opposed to anyone who seems content to eliminate FWWM from history. I'm very much of the camp that considers it the crowning gem of the franchise (so I appreciate the attention Thorne gives it), and its the Lynchpin (sorry) of the whole kit-and-caboodle. The Dukes is next on my list, though.

You know, I do agree now that the problem is mechanical. I thought the essays were insightful too -- sometimes surprisingly so, although I think more in terms of the supporting arguments than the overall theses, which I feel were too singular and narrow -- but the way in which they were written really do undermine them at points, their content up to a better par than their style.

I didn't know that about Dukes' book, and I'm in agreement with everyone here on FWWM -- I just obtained a copy, so I guess I'm glad to be disappointed ahead of time. Mr. Reindeer is right though -- FWWM coverage would be heavily reduced without DKL. Come to think of it, that was a huge problem I had with Thorne's book, the sections on the rise and fall of the show are all pretty objective, what with the corroboration by cast & crew about how things fell apart (particularly hilarious, Kimmy Robertson getting fed up with her subplots), but when it got to FWWM Thorne pretty much just regurgitated a few bad reviews, deemed them stupid and wrong, conveyed a couple anomalous good reviews, and praised its speakers to high heaven -- it all came across as defensive and emotional, which, I totally empathize with because I too have an intimate association with FWWM, but it jarred so much and contributed to the identity crisis.

[David Locke]

Brad's book is excellent and while I love FWWM as much as anyone else, I don't see why one would expect it to cover FWWM when it clearly is only about the series proper. Unless the complaint is more that the book barely mentioned FWWM at all, in the ending section and such. Which I remember to be the case, basically, but still isn't that big of a problem. But yeah, I would like it if there was more of an epilogue referencing FWWM, even if a short one.

[underthefan]

While I do agree with many of the points you guys make, it doesn't change the way I feel about Brad's book (and this is not in any way a personal criticism of him, but only of his work). Honestly, I don't really buy the whole "oh, but the book is only about the series, not about the film" angle - I find that only to be an excuse, not a valid justification of why the film couldn't get even a single chapter devoted to it. Whether people like it or not, FWWM is part of the same universe, the same world, the same story of Twin Peaks (as evidenced by Lynch's insistence upon including the movie in the Entire Mystery boxset). It is not and does not deserve to be treated as an ugly stepchild unworthy or critical assessment and analysis. Dukes' book literally devotes 4 pages (out of 340) to the film and that is only to include people criticizing the film, and explain why they rejected to be a part of it. Not a single word from the primary participants in the films, not a single word from Sheryl Lee or Ray Wise (even though they were extensively interviewed for the book), and although I agree that the absence of Lynch is very much felt throughout the book and especially in this chapter, not a single counterpoint to the negative bias of the writer. Maybe if I knew that going in, I would feel less disappointed and feeling soured about "Reflections."

I will honestly admit that as someone who finds FWWM to be the highpoint of the whole TP saga, yes I am extremely sensitive and frankly sick and tired of the same old, same old negative narrative regarding FWWM that has been regurgitated for 25 years now (most recently, in EW's article on TP), which basically comes down to these things: 1) The film didn't have the character(s) I wanted to see; 2) The film doesn't answer the questions left over from the series; 3) The film doesn't have the humor/charm/feel of the series (e.g., cherry pies, donuts, and coffee). Now, I don't think that everyone has to love the film as much as I do, I realize it is an acquired taste and that it doesn't feel like the series. What makes me mad is more the explicit refusal to even discuss the film's virtues along with its flaws, and to analyze the film in terms of its intents, rather than one's expectations of it.

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to this. The series had a, how do I put this, let's say a "protective" or "safety" layer with the whole possession angle, that made it easier to digest for the mainstream masses (and understandably so for a mainstream network TV show). The film than snatches that layer away, pulls the carpet under you, and tells you, "no, this is what the heart of TP is really about - incest and filicide." And yes, it's ugly and unpleasant to watch, and it's in human nature to do our best to avoid to see the ugly, unpleasant truths in life in hopes that they will eventually go away if we choose to ignore them (and I am not excluding myself from this by any means - any time I see the news, I want to turn it off). Comments by Peggy Lipton and Kyle about this lack of humor/charm in the film point exactly to that. Ironically, this is part of what the series is about - the people of Twin Peaks taking refuge in their drugs of choice (coffees, cherry pies, and donuts) in order to lull themselves into never facing the prostitution, violence, incest and drug abuse taking place in their town and in their homes. The avoidance to see the reality, to try to mask it, to run away from it, to soften it as much as possible. And I feel like that is at the very heart of why people completely reject FWWM, and while they have every right to do so, I also reserve my right to critically analyze that decision.