The Secret History of Twin Peaks

[LonelySoul]

Added bowisneski to the editor list. He now has editing capabilities.

I also added the first entry to the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing).

Page no. - 171, 174
Alleged Error - Josie's age at the time of her marriage to Andrew Packard is reported on pg. 171 as being 19 on her , but then on pg. 174 it's stated that she claimed she was 21 at the time of meeting Andrew.
Content Author - TP suggests in the margin that Dale Cooper might have put together the information
Actual Events - Unsure, no confirmation in TV series
Possible Explanations - - Josie claimed to be 21 when she met Andrew, but then when they got married her age was "confirmed" to be 19 (even though she was actually 27)
Other Notes -

(I'm re-reading the book right now and happened to be on this part.)

[madeleineferguson]

I now think the dossier was altered from its original form, or just completely fabricated by an unknown party. In the video to promote the book, there were a few glaring discrepancies that we all noticed immediately; the Log Lady's tattoo, Norma's parents and several dates not lining up. I believe those particular documents were purposely included in the video to alert us, the real Twin Peaks nerds.

It seems that the existence of Annie Blackburn has been completely redacted from the dossier. But rather than blacking out Annie's name, facts have been altered, stories changed and documents fabricated. The question is: why?

I think we should start a new thread that lists all the inconsistencies between the book and the series. It seems there are a lot of them. But I think these inconsistencies or "mistakes" are actually clues, and meant to help us discover the true origin and purpose of this dossier.

[LonelySoul]

Right, hence the new spreadsheet. Maybe you're right - maybe it should go in its own thread so we can keep all this stuff together. But I think you're onto something.

[herofix]

The inconsistencies to 'known' canon and the internal inconsistencies are intentional. I doubt we need to conjure up a parallel universe to explain why. When you have a mystery dossier why assume good faith on the part of the narrator(s)?

On page 344 we are treated to a photo of a typewriter.

On page 347, during the 'transcript' of Briggs' purported conversation with Doug MIlford we see, "...August 1979", using the '1' key as opposed to the 'I' as is 'The Archivist's' normal m.o.

I'm sure that is deliberate.

In a similar vein, try 'The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner' by James Hogg, a true classic of Scottish literature. Or simply read the Wikipedia summary even. "Many of the events of the novel are narrated twice; first by the 'editor', who gives his account of the facts as he understands them to be, and then in the words of the 'sinner' himself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Priva ... ied_Sinner

[gonetocroatan]

What if we started compiling all the known "errors" (i.e. either things that seem to not jive with the original seasons or things that don't jive with each other in the book) in chronological order of appearance. That way we can organize them and see if it leads us anywhere.
What we need for each alleged issue is the following:

- Specific issue
- page number it appears on or starts on (US edition, but we can add in other language page numbers as they are released if possible)
- author speaking at the time (suggested by crossoverman) such as Dougie, the Archivist, etc.
- what "actually happened", i.e. what we saw take place in the show or what someone said that casts doubt on a claim in the book
- possible explanations (other than just "mistake" as we're assuming any of these could be mistakes and it'll also save space to leave that out)
- Other notes (perhaps context in the book, interesting facts or other things)

Then I'll start compiling them into this publicly accessible Drive spreadsheet in order of page number and we can see what there is to see, if anything.

Spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Yep, this exactly! The more we can cross-reference the discrepancies, the more connections we'll find--I think a few other people already noticed that 1984 seems to have been a weird year for the people of Twin Peaks. This would fit under 'possible explanations' but lets consider what motivations a character might have in making these changes--who benefits from the new account? LonelySoul, i know you were bummed when the continuity issues popped up; its rad that instead of taking your ball and going home you're willing to try and Calvinball our way through this. Who knows how dark the woods'll be once we have Frost and Lynch working together to break our minds?

[LonelySoul]

LonelySoul, i know you were bummed when the continuity issues popped up; its rad that instead of taking your ball and going home you're willing to try and Calvinball our way through this. Who knows how dark the woods'll be once we have Frost and Lynch working together to break our minds?

Perhaps I was a little too rash and got angry for no reason. It's possible, given what we're discovering now. But boy, the first read got under my skin. The compilation of "errors" sounds really fun though. It's an opportunity to learn more.

[Ross]

So for those who think the continuity things are all part of a puzzle/plan, what do you think of some of Frost's comments like:
"Nadine, Ed & Norma didn't really have a backstory before now"
And
"Lana being the winner of the Miss Twin Peaks contest"
Do you think these comments are all part of his "plan"?

[madeleineferguson]

I've created another thread to catalog the mistakes/inconsistencies.

We've got to allow Mark Frost some leeway when it comes to being quoted about the minutia of Twin Peaks. He's going to misspeak sometimes, it's only human. But the contents of the book, which was crafted with care for many years... I'm trying to take it as bible.

[laughingpinecone]

So for those who think the continuity things are all part of a puzzle/plan, what do you think of some of Frost's comments like:
"Nadine, Ed & Norma didn't really have a backstory before now"
And
"Lana being the winner of the Miss Twin Peaks contest"
Do you think these comments are all part of his "plan"?

I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory, but my €0.02 on the matter:
1. ...badly worded but true? Rewatching that scene after the trailer showed us that Hank&Norma postcard, I found a glaring hole there: Norma's motives. The backstory was there but incomplete... that sudden thing with Hank is very suspicious and smacks of plot hook for future dramatic reveals... if it was complete, Norma was kind of an object there, not a full character with agency. Now the story is factually different but the same tragedy at heart, and everyone acts in a way that's coherent with the core traits of their personality.
2. That, I think, ties in perfectly with Kmac's statement (I think? someone's statement, anyway) that Annie's status is "complicated". Six months or so to some answers maybe...?

[Gabriel]

Of course, let's not forget Norma's mother is also Annie's mother...

[LonelySoul]

Of course, let's not forget Norma's mother is also Annie's mother...

I was thinking about this... Is Norma's mother really Annie's mother? Is this ever explicitly stated? Let me explain.

Given the name problem in which the mother's name is apparently (maybe?) Lindstrom and not Blackburn, could it be possible that Marty Lindstrom committed infidelity, which gave rise to Annie Blackburn (who got her own mother's last name instead of Marty's)? That way she's half sisters with Norma.

There is a scene of Norma and Annie sitting at the diner bar together in latter season two in which Norma asks Annie about mother and Annie responds like, "Well I could be happy or sad - gonna go with happy." and she doesn't elaborate any further. So I guess it's possible Annie was referring to her own mother (not Vivian/Ilsa).

Or maybe Annie was adopted.

[mtwentz]

I've created another thread to catalog the mistakes/inconsistencies.

We've got to allow Mark Frost some leeway when it comes to being quoted about the minutia of Twin Peaks. He's going to misspeak sometimes, it's only human. But the contents of the book, which was crafted with care for many years... I'm trying to take it as bible.

Good for you.

It's like when you go on IMDB- they have a separate area for people who find that kind of thing interesting.

[Audrey Horne]

I feel that is way too complicated. And if it was part of the mystery it would be slightly alluded to in some manner. My gut tells me the Norma past as been cleaned up. And the Annie character will be more in the realm of The Girl Cooper loved.

[LonelySoul]

I feel that is way too complicated. And if it was part of the mystery it would be slightly alluded to in some manner. My gut tells me the Norma past as been cleaned up. And the Annie character will be more in the realm of The Girl Cooper loved.

Yeah, it is pretty complicated sounding. I guess time will tell.

[mtwentz]

I feel that is way too complicated. And if it was part of the mystery it would be slightly alluded to in some manner. My gut tells me the Norma past as been cleaned up. And the Annie character will be more in the realm of The Girl Cooper loved.

And it's also possible that Norma's parentage will never be mentioned in the new Season. I have to believe Annie will be at least mentioned in Season 3.