The Secret History of Twin Peaks

[Aqua]

Oh, but there IS fish in the percolator, there should be, 1984 year thing eg shows it seems.
[edtd] Plus the ones who have read the thing already indicated abovr that it would appear that there is at least a possibility that we are getting vol 2 with years 1989-2014 before s3

[Ross]

Ok, Frost just lost my support. Unless there's a good reason for the changes.

Man, if you guys are freaking out over this then this forum is going to be unreadable when the actual show starts to air.

I have no doubt S3 will be divisive. I mean so were S2 and FWWM. We all have different hopes and expectations. And the more rigid those are, the more we set ourselves up for disappointment.

But continuity that completely erases a character seen in multiple episodes seems like a legitimate thing to question and be annoyed by.

[philosofish]

I'm guessing that there is an alternate reality/timeline aspect to the new Twin Peaks that may explain what at the moment appear to be significant continuity errors. That would be totally in keeping with the themes of the films Lynch has made since 'Fire Walk With Me'. The fact that Sheryl Lee and Ray Wise are on the cast list -- actors who portrayed characters who died in the original series -- also points in that direction, I think.

[Brad D]

Another observation. Why in the world didn't David Lynch read Cole's letter at the beginning? DL has a recording studio in his house. This would have been easy. I love DPK to death... but it would be much more exciting to dive back into TP with Lynch as Cole on the audiobook. But, alas...

[BEARisonFord]

Man, if you guys are freaking out over this then this forum is going to be unreadable when the actual show starts to air.

Seriously. I admittedly have high expectations for all new Twin Peaks works we are getting over the next couple years, but I've had to constantly remind myself that the more fervent and rigid those expectations are, the more they will only set myself up for more disappointment if I don't remain malleable and open-minded to what Lynch and Frost are doing. To spend this much time waiting for new Twin Peaks only to write off someone's work because of some minor inconsistencies seems like it'd just drain the joy out of all of this.

Expectations like getting the names and backstories of characters correct that they wrote in the TV show they created. It's really not a lot to ask.

I'm not saying no one isn't entitled to disappointment, and you're right, theoretically it's NOT a lot to ask. I have no doubt that there will be some things that really bother me about the new Twin Peaks (just as there were in the original), but i'm trying to remain open-minded, meet it as it comes, and absorb it as a whole. But if someone wants to write off Mark Frost over some undoubtedly minor things, that's their prerogative and ultimately a bummer.

[mtwentz]

Ok, Frost just lost my support. Unless there's a good reason for the changes.

Man, if you guys are freaking out over this then this forum is going to be unreadable when the actual show starts to air.

I have no doubt S3 will be divisive. I mean so were S2 and FWWM. We all have different hopes and expectations. And the more rigid those are, the more we set ourselves up for disappointment.

But continuity that completely erases a character seen in multiple episodes seems like a legitimate thing to question and be annoyed by.

I remember when Superman 2 The Richard Donner Cut came out. After years of waiting for this prized lost footage to be shown, a good portion of the posters on the forums I lurked could do nothing but complain and moan that it wasn't done perfectly. They nitpicked every little detail. I finally just got out of those forums and enjoyed the film for what it was- a really good movie that would have been even better had Donner finished it in 1980.

If I sense too much negativity here, I may just do the same thing. Not that I'm telling anyone what they should think, but c'mon guys, if something is a '9', complaining that it's not a '10' is not an attitude that enhances one's enjoyment of art and cinema.

Edit: BTW Ross, that was not directed at anyone in particular, but to everyone, including myself

[Aqua]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was supposed to be 'another' Twin Peaks that was accessible somehow and would feature in the originally planned third season. Maybe that's what all the talk about everyone being still alive was about at the end of season two.

If it is this - i.e. a multiple universe possibility in the 'Sliding doors' style, with a different continuity created after each key event - and not just time travelling via lodge, retroactive continuity adjustments and alike, there is a possibility that Lost highway and even Inland empire will seem meek by comparison (light bipolarity to an all-out ... multi-world reality, I think ) to what could be coming in that case. I may be wrong, and it may be comparably more simple/tidier

[Agent Sam Stanley]

Seriously. I admittedly have high expectations for all new Twin Peaks works we are getting over the next couple years, but I've had to constantly remind myself that the more fervent and rigid those expectations are, the more they will only set myself up for more disappointment if I don't remain malleable and open-minded to what Lynch and Frost are doing. To spend this much time waiting for new Twin Peaks only to write off someone's work because of some minor inconsistencies seems like it'd just drain the joy out of all of this.

I think there's a big difference between complaining because the book or the show is not up to our expectations, and complaining because the writer completely forgot about a character who was in the show for 3/4 episodes and even had a plot of her own (the whole MT Wentz thing). Doesn't matter if people think that the character wasn't important enough or that we should shut up and just be grateful the whole thing is happening, it's still pretty lazy.
But I agree, maybe there's a reason behind all this and Frost is laughing because he knows our jaws will drop to the floor when we discover there was a big thing planned all along. So let's wait and see.

[Soolsma]

Another observation. Why in the world didn't David Lynch read Cole's letter at the beginning? DL has a recording studio in his house. This would have been easy. I love DPK to death... but it would be much more exciting to dive back into TP with Lynch as Cole on the audiobook. But, alas...

It's for the sake of the ears of those who want to listen to the book with headphone's It would've been funny, to hear that letter BEING READ OUT LOUD

Alright, I'm bad at grading thing so I won't, but I've read about half or more of the book and it's truly a wonderful addition to the world of Twin Peaks! I've enjoyed reading it more than some of my least favorite TP episodes, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

[Soolsma]

But if anyone could find a situation in which they'd be able to ask Frost whether he is aware of Vivian Smythe Niles, that would be great,

I tried on twitter (which I'm totally unfamiliar with) but I only have a b**sh*t account I used to get points for some mobile game.

[sirpsychoswayze]

Hey guys, I'm brand new here and, like most of you, I've been foaming at the mouth to get a glimpse of The Secret History of Twin Peaks. I read in another thread that pages had leaked on iBooks UK but I can't seem to make an account there to access them. Is there any other way to get my hands on a copy? Any help would be appreciated!

[Ross]

Seriously. I admittedly have high expectations for all new Twin Peaks works we are getting over the next couple years, but I've had to constantly remind myself that the more fervent and rigid those expectations are, the more they will only set myself up for more disappointment if I don't remain malleable and open-minded to what Lynch and Frost are doing. To spend this much time waiting for new Twin Peaks only to write off someone's work because of some minor inconsistencies seems like it'd just drain the joy out of all of this.

I think there's a big difference between complaining because the book or the show is not up to our expectations, and complaining because the writer completely forgot about a character who was in the show for 3/4 episodes and even had a plot of her own (the whole MT Wentz thing). Doesn't matter if people think that the character wasn't important enough or that we should shut up and just be grateful the whole thing is happening, it's still pretty lazy.
But I agree, maybe there's a reason behind all this and Frost is laughing because he knows our jaws will drop to the floor when we discover there was a big thing planned all along. So let's wait and see.

I gotta agree that's here's a big difference between "quality" of a product and forgetting/ignoring/changing the existence of a character that appeared in several episodes and whose subplot spanned more.

For me the allure of the book comes from it deepening and adding to the universe and characters. Not confusing it or subtracting from it. I'm certainly not dismissing the book in any way- I just find those things frustrating. Trying to decide which things to believe or ignore.

I know people are thinking maybe there is a reason behind it. And who knows, maybe there is? I can't quite think of a reason 98% of things would be the same, and Norma would have a different mom. Or Ed and Nadine would get together a decade later. I can't see those details being part of S3. But again, who knows.

The only thing I can possibly come up with is the fact that "We're not going to talk about Annie". Perhaps the complete lack of her means something other than her just being retconned out. Maybe she's the new Judy? Maybe something happened to erase her? Not sure why that would change details like their mom, but something to think about until S3.

[Agent Sam Stanley]

To those who read it already, is Annie mentioned at all?

[Aqua]

Also, prev the date of the ending of season 2 has been discussed below -

http://www.dugpa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2526

and was guessed to be either march 27 or 28 (morning, if correct, in coop's room). is it confirned either way in the book, hopefully not too big of a spoiler if any (still waiting for my pre-order)

[adl345]

The absolute lack of Annie maybe means that her fate will be addressed in the series. I mean, the last line of the original series is 'How's Annie?' and Lynch brought her back in FWWM, which we know is canon. I don't think they'll just ignore her completely.

I think that's much more likely than the idea that they're retconning her out of existence. "How's Annie?" is one of the most famous cliffhangers in television history. If you're going to follow up on that, you'd want to save it for the show proper, not blow the reveal in some tie-in book released months before the premiere.