The Secret History of Twin Peaks

[mtwentz]

Anyone ever heard of Not Looking A Gift Horse In The Mouth?

[LonelySoul]

Anyone ever heard of Not Looking A Gift Horse In The Mouth?

I imagine many of us are just feeling what Star Wars fans were feeling when episodes I-III came out and when Lucas started fucking with the original movies (adding in shit, changing details, etc.).

For example, the issue of who shot first, Han or Greedo: When the film came out in 1977, this was a big thing for people and sparked a lot of fun debates. Then in 1997 Lucas changed things so Greedo did indeed shoot first, angering a lot of fans. Did this detail change the overall plot? Did it change what the films were all about? No. But it did piss off a lot of people and cause people to lose respect for Lucas. In fact, there's a whole documentary devoted to fans being mad at Lucas called The People Versus George Lucas. And even beyond 1997, Lucas has continued to fuck with that scene. This is just one example, but I hope it illustrates my point. If you add enough of these changes/canon alterations up though... well, is it really the same thing?

So here in Twin Peaks we have details like who owned the Ghostwood property when, what Ed and Nadine's backstory is, how old Laura was, and many others that are now different (in a book) than they were before. Sure, we are definitely getting something under the header of Twin Peaks that features a lot of familiar characters, it's beautifully bound, the history is interesting, etc. But Frost fucked with canon. Doesn't matter which specific details they are. It is completely unnecessary and, to me, sort of takes a dump on the actors, directors and writers of certain parts of the original TV series.

You can stamp this on things:



But what we ended up with, in my opinion, should be called something else at this point, especially since its creator doesn't seem to care anymore by virtue of not bothering to go back and seriously consider what came before. Or at least it should be relegated to the level of the Access Guide and kind of sort of loosely canon. We don't have to be happy or not complain just because Frost wrote this book.

[I'm the Muffin]

It's the 'Pete played checkers, not chess' bit that I can't believe. It's so specific an inconsistency. He couldn't possibly have forgotten all those chess scenes (could he?). It almost seems outright spiteful!

[PeaksCarnivaleLost]

It's the 'Pete played checkers, not chess' bit that I can't believe. It's so specific an inconsistency. He couldn't possibly have forgotten all those chess scenes (could he?). It almost seems outright spiteful!

That is the bad one to me. And as a chess player I thought the whole concept was a joke the way it was executed but it is unforgettable as far as a plot line.

And if it was only meant to explain he was not a Tough Guy mentally Frost could've gone another route.

I got the feeling Frost was exorcising some demons when he wrote this book. And I also get the feeling many parts of it were to be meant as liner notes to the series before it began. I bet he had this whole Lewis, FBI backstory etc for 25+ years.

Still I adored the book because I love seeing my favorite shows woven into history in a way that makes you think about the world as a whole and that more things are connected then we know.

Good to see Wilfred Talbot Smith again! It's been a while

[Audrey Horne]

Pete played checkers was a metaphor for how he lived his life -more about comparing it to Catherine playing hardball.

Anyone catch that Hank had known and worked with Jean Renault most of his life - whereas on the series he meets him at the end of the OEJs raid.

I've joked for two years now that Lynch and Frost probably wouldn't even rewatch most of the second season. And it looks like that is the case (final episode excluded of course.)
and yeah, I also got the sense that Norma does not have a sister - but certainly Annie will be brought back in the series in some way or form.

[Ross]

Pete played checkers was a metaphor for how he lived his life -more about comparing it to Catherine playing hardball.

Anyone catch that Hank had known and worked with Jean Renault most of his life - whereas on the series he meets him at the end of the OEJs raid.

I've joked for two years now that Lynch and Frost probably wouldn't even rewatch most of the second season. And it looks like that is the case (final episode excluded of course.)
and yeah, I also got the sense that Norma does not have a sister - but certainly Annie will be brought back in the series in some way or form.

The book also contradicts season 1 in that Laura is said to be 18 in the book. But yes, most of it is from season 2. And yeah, if Annie is brought back up, there will likely be no connection to Norma.

[LonelySoul]

From the Frost interview on the Brad Dukes Show (thanks, Brad!), these two quotes are particularly telling:

At 5:59...

I felt, given the way I was structuring the book and the style of the book - and what's traditionally known as an epistolary novel - that is, a novel comprised predominantly of... documents, of telling the story through other means... therefore we're filtering the story through the individual consciousness and point of view of whoever is speaking on that particular page. And in which case, as you know, life is a very subjective experience... Therefore, whether all the facts line up is immaterial. Nobody's got 100% recall and nobody gets everything right all the time and people's memories are faulty. And I felt it was important to not have that be a bug but a feature.

This might be true, and does speak to what some people were speculating about the errors. However, in some cases (like Harry's), characters weren't even around to know or not know certain things; in some cases (like Coop's) we have very scrupulous characters not reporting things accurately; in other cases we just have documents that don't line up with the show's timeline.

At 17:49, responding to a question on when the show's prospects of returning came about...

I don't tend to be somebody who lives in the past or dwells on what came before. I'm more interested in what comes next.

This doesn't specifically allude to the issues at hand, but it does describe Frost's personality and may hint at why we ended up with these issues.

From Twin Peaks Unwrapped around the 5:48 mark, Frost says the following when asked specifically if his book should be considered canon...

Canon is never a word that I use. I mean, the universe of the town and the people and the stories seem to me broad enough to encompass anything that comes along that's by one of the two primary creators. I mean, I have no trouble thinking of [MLMT and TSDoLP] as part of our ongoing development of this universe and I thought the book should actually continue in that vain.

I just don't know what to make of all this. It's like he just did not care at all about adhering to established events or even whether or not people would consider the book as canon because he doesn't like to restrict things that way. Especially coming from the who we all thought cared about this sort of detail.

I'm just really disappointed in it all.

[bowisneski]

I listened to the podcast and transcribed some of the sections important to this thread. There may be a word missing here and there/typos or slightly mixed up words. I did leave out a lot of uhhs, umms, and repeated words.

About the fans

The fans are the ones that kept this whole thing alive for a quarter of a century and we owe them a lot of thanks and a lot of gratitude for their faith and belief in this as a piece of work and a creation and, to the extent that we've built it, a world. And it obviously wouldn't be coming back and none of this would have happened without that support. So I feel a lot of gratitude and hope that this book serves as my way of expressing that gratitude. Because we couldn't have done it without you guys.

I am actually very grateful for the book, and think it is a great expansion in general of the lore. Just wish he would have thought more like a fan when writing.


About writing the book

My approach was, I thought what could I put between covers that would really expand, widen, and deepen the sense of world building around Twin Peaks.

About adhering to continuity

I felt that given the way I was structuring the book and the style of the book, in what's traditionally know as the epistolary novel, that is a novel comprised of predominately, the literal translation is of letters, but of documents of telling the story through other means. Therefore we're filtering the story through the individual consciousness and point of view of whoever is speaking on that particular page. And in which case as you know life is a very subjective experience. Or i assume you know that. Therefore whether all the facts line up is immaterial. nobody has got 100% recall and nobody gets everything right all the time and peoples memories are faulty. And i felt it was important to not have that be a bug but a feature.

About resolving some of the cliffhangers

I felt that one of the things the book could do was sort of close the circle on whatever some people might feel was unfinished business or dig a little deeper in to what they thought they knew to reveal there was more there.

I understand his point about people having fallible memories, but that doesn't explain cases where people remembered things they weren't present for. Such as Harry knowing exactly what Andrew said to Josie and what he and Eckhardt discussed. Many things I can explain away, but that is the one that digs at me.

If it might help anyone else who cares about canon, what follows are my explanations

Norma/Ed/Nadine/Vivian - Ed told an abridged version of the story to Coop, that still passed along the basics but didn't take as long as the actual story. Or maybe Ed just tells people that story because the other is too painful. And Vivian is Norma's step-mother or other relative that had a big part in her life growing up so she refers to her as mother(I'll call some of my friends mothers mom).

The Mill - Ben was still not good behind the scenes, Audrey discovers this but doesn't want to tip her hand until the reporters arrive. After the explosion, and a second fire a broken Catherine sells the mill to Ben on April 23rd 89. I know the document in the book says March 23rd 89, but that could just be a misprint.

Jacoby wanting Ben to surrender instead of win - He changed his mind while actually working with Ben.

Pete and chess - Briggs was just trying to get a point across about how simple Pete is to whoever might read the book.

Laura being 18 - she lied to Jacoby because she is smart enough to know that if she says she is 18, he won't have to report to her parents. He went along with it because he fell for her and knew that he could lie to the authorities if discovered.

Margaret's brand change - it transformed over time.


But I hope this does confirm to people that it's not a puzzle to be solved, it's just carelessness.


About the relation of Lynch to the book

Strictly my vision, he was not involved at all. He was making the show, he was consumed and I said look I want to do this and he said great, it should be your vision and obviously your name on the book so go for it.

And I think this confirms what many of us assumed regarding this.


EDIT* - I see LonelySouls beat me to some of the transcribing. Hope no one minds if I still leave mine up.

[Ross]

Thanks Brad for the interview. I'm glad we got to hear it directly from Mark about what his thought process was. I may not agree with it, but now we know for sure, and we can stop guessing.

[Tony Franciosa]

Thanks Brad for the interview. I'm glad we got to hear it directly from Mark about what his thought process was. I may not agree with it, but now we know for sure, and we can stop guessing.

Agreed - I would have been curious to hear his answer about why the focus changed from the originally announced "fill the gaps to S3" to the history of TP. His language around a second volume was kind of vague, so I think there may be more coming. He specifically referenced the time period between S2 and S3 as a gap in the mythos that could be filled.

[Sid]

Call me ungrateful but I am, as for now, cancelling my preorder.
If the show works for me I can still catch up with those faulty memories...pardon me, this new, subjective canon(?)

[bowisneski]

For those who want to avoid possible continuity gaffes, but still want to get all the great lore and intertwining with real history, my suggestion would be to just skip pages 155-233 of the US edition.

Despite the possible gaffes, I'd still suggest reading the whole thing. But for those who know it would ruin their enjoyment, just skip the section.

Pretty much true. Although 155-168 may only go against some things in the Access Guide, which doesn't bother me. But things go astray after that. There's also some glitches in the Teresa and Laura sections later though. Nothing huge.

I'm requoting myself and Ross, since it's now 20 pages back, for those of you out there who may still want all of the great things the book has to offer, but do care about continuity.

And, since I embarrassingly forgot in my last post, big thanks to Brad for the great interview, and asking questions that could have dug at us and lead to arguments for ages!

[N. Needleman]

I do not think this is in any way comparable to George Lucas and Star Wars. It's a tie-in with some fuzzy points of continuity. It's not Greedo shot first or the ballad of midichlorians.

I get tired of overheated geek culture dealing entirely in absolutes, with something being either perfect or the worst thing ever, some supreme violation. In the end, no, I do not think a book that contradicts or muddles the finer points of Ben's subplot or Ed and Norma's backstory to be something that destabilizes the core of Twin Peaks as we know it. But that's me.

[Tony Franciosa]

I do not think this is in any way comparable to George Lucas and Star Wars. It's a tie-in with some fuzzy points of continuity. It's not Greedo shot first or the ballad of midichlorians.

I get tired of overheated geek culture dealing entirely in absolutes, with something being either perfect or the worst thing ever, some supreme violation. In the end, no, I do not think a book that contradicts or muddles the finer points of Ben's subplot or Ed and Norma's backstory to be something that destabilizes the core of Twin Peaks as we know it. But that's me.

it's not just you. and I wish there was a "like' button for this post. spot on.

[Brad D]

Thanks Brad for the interview. I'm glad we got to hear it directly from Mark about what his thought process was. I may not agree with it, but now we know for sure, and we can stop guessing.

You are welcome - it was really fun to talk to Mark because I hadn't really done so since before the 2014 announcement. I hope anyone that is attending the signings can build on those questions to learn more.