SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Moderators: Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D

User avatar
FlyingSquirrel
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:26 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby FlyingSquirrel » Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:29 am

Hmm. Maybe Briggs had already picked his own successor just like Milford had done with him?

Though I'm also increasingly perplexed by the tone and content of Tammy's notes in terms of how the dossier's discovery could fit with what we see in TP:TR. She comes across as someone who doesn't know a whole lot about Cooper, and towards the end, she has a list of agents - Cole, Jeffries, Desmond, Earle, Stanley, Cooper, and Rosenfield - and observes that all of them except Cole and Rosenfield met with unpleasant fates and seems to wonder what they had in common. But she knows as of a couple episodes ago that, aside from Earle and Stanley, all of them were Blue Rose agents, so why doesn't she even mention that in her notes?

Maybe I could accept that she was given the dossier and made all her notes at some point during the earlier episodes of TP:TR, and it was just never mentioned on-screen, but she also says that she's on some sort of administrative leave at the end, so that doesn't really fit either.
Manwith
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Manwith » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:32 am

FlyingSquirrel wrote:Hmm. Maybe Briggs had already picked his own successor just like Milford had done with him?

Though I'm also increasingly perplexed by the tone and content of Tammy's notes in terms of how the dossier's discovery could fit with what we see in TP:TR. She comes across as someone who doesn't know a whole lot about Cooper, and towards the end, she has a list of agents - Cole, Jeffries, Desmond, Earle, Stanley, Cooper, and Rosenfield - and observes that all of them except Cole and Rosenfield met with unpleasant fates and seems to wonder what they had in common. But she knows as of a couple episodes ago that, aside from Earle and Stanley, all of them were Blue Rose agents, so why doesn't she even mention that in her notes?

Maybe I could accept that she was given the dossier and made all her notes at some point during the earlier episodes of TP:TR, and it was just never mentioned on-screen, but she also says that she's on some sort of administrative leave at the end, so that doesn't really fit either.


Could the dossier investigation have taken place before the TV show? I'm not the kind of person that pays attention to internal dates and timelines, so I'm not clear on that.
User avatar
sylvia_north
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby sylvia_north » Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:06 am

The dates are a bit wacky. I haven't seen the Timeline thread here updated lately. Last I compared, the dossier came before the events in the show.

I guess there's evidence TR could be 2014 or 2016, or both. 8/4/16 is when the dossier is dated, it was found 7/17/16

http://twinpeaksgazette.com/2017/07/26/ ... he-return/ - suggests mobius strip theory
http://welcometotwinpeaks.com/discuss/t ... ear-is-it/ an inconclusive discussion thread with some interesting observations
People on this board have noticed recycled costumes in different parts

From Twin Peaks wikia Timeline entry:

Twin Peaks (2017)

The current dating scheme originates from dialogue in Part 9, which indicates that the date in Twin Peaks, South Dakota, and Las Vegas is September 29. As the events surrounding Dale Cooper in Las Vegas have covered only a few consecutive days, this allows for a reasonable extrapolation of each episode to a particular date. In Part 3, the date of Cooper's car crash is "9/22," although this may be an oversight.

The year is not stated. If William Hastings' interrogation on a Saturday (Part 1) is taken to be five days before September 29, this would point to 2016 as the real September 24, 2016 was a Saturday. The Search for the Zone website indicates that Hastings last updated the blog in November 2015.

It is unclear to what degree the events taking place in and around Twin Peaks are concurrent with those involving Dale Cooper and the doppelganger, or even other Twin Peaks-set scenes. For example, the Great Northern Hotel key mailed by Jade in Part 5 arrives in town at some point during Part 7, which (if set contemporaneously) would require a transit time of less than a day. Andy Brennan's watch in Part 7 shows that the date is the 10th, possibly September 10 or October 10.
i .. am .. not ... your... foot
User avatar
FlyingSquirrel
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:26 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby FlyingSquirrel » Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:53 pm

I guess that makes a little more sense, i.e. the dossier review taking place before the series. Though if that's the case, we still don't know where the crime scene was where it turned up. And Tammy doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that their investigation of Cooper's reappearance touches on a number of individuals and events that are mentioned in the dossier. She even asks who Jeffries is towards the end of Part 4, but she should know who he is if she's already reviewed the dossier.
Manwith
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Manwith » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:39 am

FlyingSquirrel wrote:I guess that makes a little more sense, i.e. the dossier review taking place before the series. Though if that's the case, we still don't know where the crime scene was where it turned up. And Tammy doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that their investigation of Cooper's reappearance touches on a number of individuals and events that are mentioned in the dossier. She even asks who Jeffries is towards the end of Part 4, but she should know who he is if she's already reviewed the dossier.


I'm guessing the explanation for Tammy not mentioning it in the TV show is pretty mundane: the scripts for Twin Peaks: The Return were written before the Mark Frost book. Lynch and Frost wouldn't have known to reference a book Frost probably hadn't planned yet. When the scripts for the show were written, it was for a pitch, and they had no idea if the show would be greenlighted and filmed. I doubt planning for a tie in novel was on their minds.

The other thing is only a small percentage of viewers are going to read the tie in novel, so the show works better if its completely stand alone.
User avatar
FlyingSquirrel
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:26 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby FlyingSquirrel » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:28 pm

Manwith wrote:
FlyingSquirrel wrote:I guess that makes a little more sense, i.e. the dossier review taking place before the series. Though if that's the case, we still don't know where the crime scene was where it turned up. And Tammy doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that their investigation of Cooper's reappearance touches on a number of individuals and events that are mentioned in the dossier. She even asks who Jeffries is towards the end of Part 4, but she should know who he is if she's already reviewed the dossier.


I'm guessing the explanation for Tammy not mentioning it in the TV show is pretty mundane: the scripts for Twin Peaks: The Return were written before the Mark Frost book. Lynch and Frost wouldn't have known to reference a book Frost probably hadn't planned yet. When the scripts for the show were written, it was for a pitch, and they had no idea if the show would be greenlighted and filmed. I doubt planning for a tie in novel was on their minds.

The other thing is only a small percentage of viewers are going to read the tie in novel, so the show works better if its completely stand alone.


You may well be right, and I'm not one of those people who demands absolute 100% consistency when it comes to continuity. (Hell, I'm an X-Files fan too, so I'm well-practiced at shrugging off minor discrepancies like this.) I'm just not sure why Frost has her mention Jeffries in the book in that case, since he'd have known that they already wrote her as not knowing who he is.
User avatar
FlyingSquirrel
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:26 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby FlyingSquirrel » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:28 pm

Manwith wrote:
FlyingSquirrel wrote:I guess that makes a little more sense, i.e. the dossier review taking place before the series. Though if that's the case, we still don't know where the crime scene was where it turned up. And Tammy doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that their investigation of Cooper's reappearance touches on a number of individuals and events that are mentioned in the dossier. She even asks who Jeffries is towards the end of Part 4, but she should know who he is if she's already reviewed the dossier.


I'm guessing the explanation for Tammy not mentioning it in the TV show is pretty mundane: the scripts for Twin Peaks: The Return were written before the Mark Frost book. Lynch and Frost wouldn't have known to reference a book Frost probably hadn't planned yet. When the scripts for the show were written, it was for a pitch, and they had no idea if the show would be greenlighted and filmed. I doubt planning for a tie in novel was on their minds.

The other thing is only a small percentage of viewers are going to read the tie in novel, so the show works better if its completely stand alone.


You may well be right, and I'm not one of those people who demands absolute 100% consistency when it comes to continuity. (Hell, I'm an X-Files fan too, so I'm well-practiced at shrugging off minor discrepancies like this.) I'm just not sure why Frost has her mention Jeffries in the book in that case, since he'd have known that they already wrote her as not knowing who he is.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1550
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:01 pm

Not an inconsistency, per se, but it's interesting how the book presents the US government as sinister and enmeshed in coverups (in the manner of much conspiracy fiction), but the show doesn't take this tack at all, presenting what we've seen of the military and FBI with the same '50s-style straightforwardness of the original show (right down to the delightfully sincere fist-pump moment, "I am the FBI"). True, we've mostly focused on the truth-seeking Blue Rose group...but even there, the book presented Gordon as a bit more of a puppetmaster and the unit overall as a deep-cover shadow organization, involved in their own coverups, implied to be continuing the work of the Freemasons, and founded by the likely-murderous Dougie Milford. On the show, they seem more like the X-Files, a merry band whose well-meaning explorations into the paranormal are at a high level of clearance to be sure, but there's nothing in the show to indicate that they are hiding or working against the upper tiers of the Bureau or the military.

I get the sense that a lot of TSHoTP was stuff that Mark was interested on exploring in the show, but DKL exercised his veto power. (Don't get me wrong, I think plenty of Mark survived into the show, and I would hope that he exercised his veto power equally in the partnership.)
User avatar
windh
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:07 am

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby windh » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:02 pm

Uhm... sorry, I might be out of my head completely. But why does it say (as written by the Archivist) that Lana was married to DOUGLAS Milford?

Wasn't it Dwayne...?


Once again, I apologize if I'm a total moron.
/windh
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby mtwentz » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:11 pm

windh wrote:Uhm... sorry, I might be out of my head completely. But why does it say (as written by the Archivist) that Lana was married to DOUGLAS Milford?

Wasn't it Dwayne...?


Once again, I apologize if I'm a total moron.


She married Douglas, who later died of a heart attack after a night of lovemaking- then was accused by Dwayne of being a 'witch' and killing Dougie. Later, Lana seduced Dwayne and promised to marry him if she won Miss Twin Peaks.
User avatar
FlyingSquirrel
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:26 pm

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby FlyingSquirrel » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:55 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:Not an inconsistency, per se, but it's interesting how the book presents the US government as sinister and enmeshed in coverups (in the manner of much conspiracy fiction), but the show doesn't take this tack at all, presenting what we've seen of the military and FBI with the same '50s-style straightforwardness of the original show (right down to the delightfully sincere fist-pump moment, "I am the FBI"). True, we've mostly focused on the truth-seeking Blue Rose group...but even there, the book presented Gordon as a bit more of a puppetmaster and the unit overall as a deep-cover shadow organization, involved in their own coverups, implied to be continuing the work of the Freemasons, and founded by the likely-murderous Dougie Milford. On the show, they seem more like the X-Files, a merry band whose well-meaning explorations into the paranormal are at a high level of clearance to be sure, but there's nothing in the show to indicate that they are hiding or working against the upper tiers of the Bureau or the military.

I get the sense that a lot of TSHoTP was stuff that Mark was interested on exploring in the show, but DKL exercised his veto power. (Don't get me wrong, I think plenty of Mark survived into the show, and I would hope that he exercised his veto power equally in the partnership.)


I didn't necessarily see the book as implying anything unpleasant about Gordon himself. About Milford, yes, but the fact that he handed off to Briggs indicates that not everyone involved in Blue Rose investigations and/or the military part of this operation is necessarily ethically slippery. (Briggs certainly isn't, on the show or in the book.) To the extent that Gordon keeps secrets, I suspect that it's partly to avoid endangering his own agents, given that, as noted by both Tammy (in the book) and Albert (in The Return), many of them seem to have disappeared or otherwise had something nasty happen to them after they started investigating. I'd agree that it is a somewhat different tone from the show in terms of how the government is portrayed. Though it seems like the *official* government only has a very limited grasp on the situation anyway, given the role played by Nixon.

I actually think X-Files is a better example of a story where the heroes *are* working against the upper tiers of the Bureau and the military. Mulder and Scully have a few allies on the inside, but the rest of the Bureau and the military are often at best well-meaning dupes who have been tricked into protecting the conspiracy. They never had the sort of institutional support that the Blue Rose team seems to have.
User avatar
windh
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:07 am

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby windh » Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:13 pm

mtwentz wrote:
windh wrote:Uhm... sorry, I might be out of my head completely. But why does it say (as written by the Archivist) that Lana was married to DOUGLAS Milford?

Wasn't it Dwayne...?


Once again, I apologize if I'm a total moron.


She married Douglas, who later died of a heart attack after a night of lovemaking- then was accused by Dwayne of being a 'witch' and killing Dougie. Later, Lana seduced Dwayne and promised to marry him if she won Miss Twin Peaks.




Ah, got it. Thanks. That really didn't come through to me in the book.


Btw, I love how every Douglas from now on also will be a Dougie. :D
/windh
User avatar
AgentEcho
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby AgentEcho » Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:25 pm

It took until the finale but we finally got a clue why there were so many intentional discrepancies in the dossier. Not sure what the implication is. Is the dossier from the world of Richard, Linda and Carrie? Laura still dies but one of the discrepancies was her age at death. I can't recall if the date of her death is mentioned though.

Cooper didn't seem to save Laura from her overall situation. She's still in a home with a murderous predator who is intent on killing her and we're given no indication he changed that, so Laura is still in danger.
User avatar
Trudy Chelgren
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:07 am

Re: SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Trudy Chelgren » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:53 am

So the grid pattern on the cover of the book, what was that supposed to be? I remember Frost making cryptic "you'll see" kind of remarks about that. Of all the weird, sometimes annoying inconsistencies between the show and the book, (and I know they weren't working together as such) that one bothers me the most, along with not actually seeing the dossier recovered.

One of my biggest questions about the show was "how come Gordon knows so much about everything, but seemingly nothing as well?" He knew Phillip Jeffries "didn't exist anymore", and not in a normal way. Does that mean he went to the Convenience Store? Did steam/bell Jeffries somehow contact Gordon? That would have been a fucked up conversation; "Hi Gordon, just checkin in, btw im now inside a big, slippery bell that makes steam bubbles pretty cool huh". With The Return and The Secret History together, it's clear that Gordon knows a lot more than Tammy, and maybe a lot more than anyone, but gives the investigation to her because "she has the stuff". So why does Gordon seem perplexed by everything all the time? He's having to figure things out as he goes. He has some strange, premonition-type moments, (knowing Diane is coming down the hall, Laura's face in the doorway) but he's also totally clueless, as to Jeffries and Cooper's (Mr C's) contact, demonstrated in the 'blue conversation' with Albert. Why was Tammy wearing a wire such a problem? Did he fear it being hacked or something? If he truly trusted her, why would he not let her in? This is probably more about the show than the book, but nevertheless.

Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests