N. Needleman wrote: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.
I agree about the Lucas thing not being an exactly apt metaphor. George took the time and effort to make the changes to his original work(not saying this is a positive thing at all, just that he actually changed what was seen on screen), while it seems Frost is just being careless.
For me, the issue is like the page in MLMT about Coop investigating Teresa that contradicts FWwM. It doesn't really affect the overall story or who the characters are, it just makes it harder to get lost in fiction. Sort of like reading a bad newspaper article. When the facts don't line up, you begin to wonder what else is incorrect in the work that you are reading.
bowisneski wrote:I agree about the Lucas thing not being an exactly apt metaphor. George took the time and effort to make the changes to his original work(not saying this is a positive thing at all, just that he actually changed what was seen on screen), while it seems Frost is just being careless.
And yet the difference for me is that this book on a whole works as expanding the story and mythos, while the Star Wars special editions and prequels - a nice idea on paper and in some concepts - completely destabilized Star Wars for years to come.
TSHOTP does the opposite IMO. The difference is that in the case of Star Wars you had a brilliant idea man fixated on the minutiae and artifice as he chose to conceive of it, while completely losing track of the spirit of his story.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
bowisneski wrote:For me, the issue is like the page in MLMT about Coop investigating Teresa that contradicts FWwM. It doesn't really affect the overall story or who the characters are, it just makes it harder to get lost in fiction. Sort of like reading a bad newspaper article. When the facts don't line up, you begin to wonder what else is incorrect in the work that you are reading.
Yes, this is a lot of it. Surely the purpose of a book like this should be to add to the show's verisimilitude, not detract from it. Oh, well.
Haven't read every post here, and am currently still going through the (audio)book, but the comment about Pete playing draughts actually made me chuckle, and before I could even think of any discrepancy, I took it as something that gives more of a spiritual nudge into the shoulder of Pete's character like "I always took him for a draughts man rather than a chess man" type thing, only worded blunter. Just my take but that's how I immediately took it.
N. Needleman wrote: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.
Exactly how i feel about the book.
And I feel lucky to have material (book and series) by L&F. And that Frost embraced the FWWM additions!
I wouldn't have dared dreaming about it two years ago. Man, two years ago, Twin Peaks had no future.
GQ: Just in organizing all of the details regarding the characters and everything that happens in Twin Peaks, how did you get everything together while writing the book? Mark Frost: ...Given that the book takes place largely in the universe of the first series, it was fairly easy to keep them organized and straight. In preparation, I went back and revisited the first series more extensively than I had even before the series itself.
GQ: Just in organizing all of the details regarding the characters and everything that happens in Twin Peaks, how did you get everything together while writing the book? Mark Frost: ...Given that the book takes place largely in the universe of the first series, it was fairly easy to keep them organized and straight. In preparation, I went back and revisited the first series more extensively than I had even before the series itself.
Not sure if this has been posted yet but Mark was on the Brad Dukes podcast and talked about his approach for the book. He says some interesting things.
About Frost's GQ interview, here we go with semantics again... By "First series" he Could be referring to season 1 or he Could be calling Twin Peaks 1990-1991 as The First incarnation as whole, just like Showtime, who refers to season 3 as a "New series". If that's The case then he did rewatch all of it
EDIT: Yep, in another question of The interview he clearly refers to The original series as "First series". So he did rewatch....
Is that major OUR major? He has done the time travel thing before.
I've only read to that page (82) so if this is premature, I apologize. I don't quite know where to post this stuff, but i thought the book spoilers page would be as appropriate as any.
PS. really enjoying the book. There are many who are not avid readers (and that is NOT a comment on anybody's intellect; literature is just another medium to access entertainment/art. I consider well read people no more or less intellectual or educated than well-watched people. Film/literature; all just ways to access stories). I would suggest that Frost's book is not "easy reading" and one should keep that in mind when some of us pick up a book for the first time since we graduated (again not a value judgement). Firstly there is no one writing style to which the reader may grow accustomed; with each page we are introduced to a new "author". Second is the font; even the typed section of the dossier is not easy on the eyes and then when the 19th century cursive notes appear....fogetaboutit!! Various accounts, vague "facts", contradictions abound, this book takes a little effort to mine the narrative (like i imagine would be the case for a real-deal detective). I will conclude with one observation: David Foster Wallace, probably the greatest literary voice of get-X, once mentioned that one of his greatest gifts was the ability to mimic the voice and writing style of his contemporaries (actually he was referring to fellow students for whom he was writing term papers "with a complicated system of rewards") I think with this book, M. Frost certainly proves he is in league with DfW; he flawlessly moves from stilted FBI "beurocratese" to 19th century "prospector-speak" by way of 1990's "teenie bopper" and 50's "homemaker".
Last edited by FredTruax on Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Is that major OUR major? He has done the time travel thing before.
I've only read to that page (82) so if this is premature, I apologize. I don't quite know where to post this stuff, but i thought the book spoilers page would be as appropriate as any.
PS. really enjoying the book. There are many who are not avid readers (and that is NOT a comment on anybody's intellect; literature is just another medium to access entertainment/art. I consider well read people no more or less intellectual or educated than well-watched people. Film/literature; all just ways to access stories). I would suggest that Frost's book is not "easy reading" and one should keep that in mind when some of us pick up a book for the first time since we graduated (again not a value judgement). Firstly there is no one writing style to which the reader may grow accustomed; with each page we are introduced to a new "author". Second is the font; even the typed section of the dossier is not easy on the eyes and then when the 19th century cursive notes appear....fogetaboutit!! Various accounts, vague "facts", contradictions abound, this book takes a little effort to mine the narrative (like i imagine would be the case for a real-deal detective). I will conclude with one observation: David Foster Wallace, probably the greatest literary voice of get-X, once mentioned that one of his greatest gifts was the ability to mimic the voice and writing style of his contemporaries (actually he was referring to fellow students for whom he was writing term papers "with a complicated system of rewards") I think with this book, M. Frost certainly proves he is in league with DfW; he flawlessly moves from stilted FBI "beurocratese" to 19th century "prospector-speak" by way of 1990's "teenie bopper" and 50's "homemaker".
Interestingly enough, the style of writing actually reminded me more of Mark Z. Danielewski than DFW... Even the format is somewhat reminiscent of House of Leaves.
https://thirtythreexthree.wordpress.com/ - 33x3: 33 favourite films by 33 directors, 33 favourite books by 33 authors, 33 favourite albums by 33 musicians and 3 favourite TV series
N. Needleman wrote: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.
Wasn't aware there's a division between a good (ie. positive) and a bad (ie. negative) geek ... Oh, well, you learn something new every day ... Kudos to you, Needleman, for falling into the right compartment of geekdom (since you post here practically every day, I hope you don't mind me calling you a geek). Us negative geeks who actually dare to bother with something called continuity and sticking to previously established facts (including such unimportant trivia as character names, per example) will just have to live with being "whining assholes", as we're known on Reddit.
Last edited by FrightNight on Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
One thing I'm very interested in is the journey of the ring. It seems that it is as follows
-unknown "white people"(I'm assuming lodge spirits) give the ring to Twisted Hair
-Twisted Hair gives it to Lewis and tells him that it is related to owls and the "spirit world" and tells Lewis "with emphatic gesture" that it "should be left in its pouch and under no circumstances worn"
-It is stolen from a deceased Lewis by Major James Neely, on October 11th 1809, who then disappears.
-The ring re-appears on the hand of Jack Parsons by December 3rd 1949, as noted by Dougie.
-The next time it is seen it is on the hand of Richard Nixon, on February 19th 1973.
-At some point between 73 and 88 it manages to travel from Nixon to Teresa Banks as seen in the FWwM photo.
-Teresa is murdered and Chet Desmond and Sam Stanley investigate and notice the ring is not on her finger. Chet returns to the Fat Trout and find the ring, but vanishes when he touches it.
-We next see it on the one hand Mike has remaining in 1989.
-It then passes to Laura, first in a dream(which I believe happens prior to the Mike incident, but I just wanted to combine the Laura stuff), and second after it is thrown in to the train car by Mike, and she is murdered while wearing it.
-Annie then posses it when she exits the lodge and it stolen by the nurse.
What a long and storied history. I wonder where it was during all of the gaps, and where it has been since.
