SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

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

User avatar
NewShoes
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:28 pm
Location: Ghostwood Development Project

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

Postby NewShoes » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:45 am

Image
User avatar
AgentCoop
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:26 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

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

Postby AgentCoop » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:18 pm

On page 233, TP's note (#6) appears to cut off mid-sentence, though her initials are still there. I suspect this is a mere printing error and not significant, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
I'm an admin for The Genius Of David Lynch, Facebook's best DL group. Hit us up to join: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1374245592894483/
User avatar
StrangerDanger
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

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

Postby StrangerDanger » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:59 pm

JumpingMan wrote:Two twin peaks, two worlds, two lodges. Could the waiting room be the pathway between both? Perhaps the black lodge and the white lodge are not rooms but two different versions of the world, seperated by a catastrophic event. Burroughs always believed that the atom bomb eviscerated people's souls, and he invented the lodges (and he was due to play Dwayne milford).
I wouldn't be surprised if this dossier is garland Briggs attempt to work out where the two worlds split, using contradicting documents either found or collected from the black and white lodges, and attempting to find chronology.
It might be that we see some crossing over beteeen the two worlds in series 2...


Brilliant theory. Evil finally completely defeats Good. All symmetries finally broken, the current universe implodes and from the resultant singularity emerge a positively existing universe and an antimatter universe.

One is an abstraction of the other, just like how in the Black Lodge, we see The Man turning his back on Cooper, and faking tears, and then he turns around and tells Cooper that gum he likes is coming back in style. All abstractions for events soon to be in Cooper's real life e.g. Leland Palmer's fake crying at the Great Northern Hotel, when he senses Cooper creeping up on him, and the penultimate Leland scene where they all meet up at the Roadhouse (?) and the old man tells Leland that gum he likes has come back in style.

And so ... the cycle begins again. Eternal chess? Or wait, did the Black Lodge finally win it all game, set and match?

Whoever wins it all can control time. But then again, if it's just that the both Lodges begin again, and the Black Lodge gets a new antimatter universe full of abstractions of the White Lodge's universe, then, from the perspective of the White Lodge, the Black Lodge is time jumping (manipulating time), BUT: perhaps one lodge is linear, the other is an abstraction (including what appears to be "time jumping" relative to the other lodge's "linear" universe), and we don't know which is which. Or maybe both are linear, in their own right, and neither is really an abstraction of the other. Both control their own time.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Yasdnil
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 12:45 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB
Contact:

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

Postby Yasdnil » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:03 pm

JumpingMan wrote:Two twin peaks, two worlds, two lodges. Could the waiting room be the pathway between both? Perhaps the black lodge and the white lodge are not rooms but two different versions of the world, seperated by a catastrophic event. Burroughs always believed that the atom bomb eviscerated people's souls, and he invented the lodges (and he was due to play Dwayne milford).
I wouldn't be surprised if this dossier is garland Briggs attempt to work out where the two worlds split, using contradicting documents either found or collected from the black and white lodges, and attempting to find chronology.
It might be that we see some crossing over beteeen the two worlds in series 2...


This is the theory I like best. It's what I've been thinking since I first finished the book and began obsessing over the inconsistencies. Seems way more logical than the theory that someone has forged the dossier; combine that with Mark Frost's continued insistence that Lana, not Annie, won the 1989 Miss Twin Peaks contest, and I think we're on to something...
“I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.”
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:51 pm

On page 3, TP claims that the lockbox measures 17"x11"x3" and was designed to "snugly" fit the dimensions of the dossier. But the photo of the lockbox on the very same page clearly isn't even remotely close to these measurements.
User avatar
frompureair
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 9:07 am

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

Postby frompureair » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:11 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:On page 3, TP claims that the lockbox measures 17"x11"x3" and was designed to "snugly" fit the dimensions of the dossier. But the photo of the lockbox on the very same page clearly isn't even remotely close to these measurements.


3-11-17 trailer?
11-3-17 season 3?
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:10 pm

frompureair wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:On page 3, TP claims that the lockbox measures 17"x11"x3" and was designed to "snugly" fit the dimensions of the dossier. But the photo of the lockbox on the very same page clearly isn't even remotely close to these measurements.


3-11-17 trailer?
11-3-17 season 3?


I doubt that there's any hidden meaning. 11" x 17" is the standard size of ledger paper in the US. I think Mark just wanted to show that the Archivist created all his own materials (including a custom-made lockbox created solely for the purpose of storing the book). And I assume the production crew was unable (or couldn't be bothered) to find a photo of a lockbox even remotely resembling what Mark described.
User avatar
Henrys Hair
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:28 am
Contact:

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

Postby Henrys Hair » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:18 am

Spotted a few internal inconsistencies with dates of Nadine losing her eye.

From Hawk's report:

P198 - Ed runs into Nadine 'in late 1984'

P200 - Ed & Nadine 'got hitched three weeks later'

P202 - Ed & Truman go hunting 'that fall' (1985) and Ed shoots Nadine's eye out

And then in Jacoby's report:

P211 - 'Husband shot out her left eye a couple of weeks ago' - ie a few weeks before 29 Nov 1987, the date of the report.
User avatar
Agent Sam Stanley
Posts: 999
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:04 pm

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

Postby Agent Sam Stanley » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:26 am

Apparently the book decided to go with FWWM's shooting script and the MP placing Phillip Jeffries' appearance at the Bureau in 1989.
In the film Jeffries' appearance is clearly in 1988, one year before Laura's murder.

Also, if the Fat Trout Trailer Park is located in Deer Meadow, how come Carl Rodd ended up in Twin Peaks during his walk in the woods and spotted the LPA construction? I never imagined both towns would be that close to each other.
Last edited by Agent Sam Stanley on Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanedits: Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me: Extended Blue Rose Cut / Blair Witch 2: Recut / Sinister: Recut

Please sign my petition for the release of the Director's Cut of Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2
User avatar
beano
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:23 am

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

Postby beano » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:09 am

..i keep getting this feeling that there are a lot of clues in jacoby's writings. in his notes on benjamin horne, he talks about how ben is trying to "rewrite" history by leading the south to victory. but then jacoby tries to lead him to the "truth" of the war's actual conclusion where the south surrenders. in the series we know jacoby did the opposite and led him to victory instead, which catalyzed a total personality transformation in ben. audreys letter later in the book seems to imply that, after surrendering at appomattox, ben goes on to be the same corrupt guy he was in the beginning of the series. there indeed seems to be some sort of "rewriting" of history going on. im also starting to lean away from the idea that the dossier is a giant forgery. TP sites subsequent patient files from jacoby that are not in the dossier that also say jacoby led ben to surrender. if someone forged the dossier, they would have also had to acquire and alter separate confidential patient files. from some things we've heard about the production of the show ive suspected, even before this book was released, that there might be some sort of shift in reality that happened at a particular point in the original series that would call in to question the "reality" of some of the things that happened in the second season. the mysterious three days between lelands death and his wake? or maybe when cooper was shot? i dont know.. but i think we're in for a wild and confusing ride!
User avatar
Jerry Horne
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Private Portland Airport
Contact:

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

Postby Jerry Horne » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:18 am

A reminder -

Please use the boards photo attachment feature or your pic may be removed.
Dalai Cooper
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

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

Postby Dalai Cooper » Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:45 pm

that there might be some sort of shift in reality that happened at a particular point in the original series that would call in to question the "reality" of some of the things that happened in the second season. the mysterious three days between lelands death and his wake? or maybe when cooper was shot? i dont know.. but i think we're in for a wild and confusing ride!


I'm not a dates guy and never will be so when even I'm noticing things not matching up there must be something to it, right? One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is the archivist asserting that audrey had been reading up on civil disobedience "in the weeks leading up to the accident" which suggests a more "realistic" timeframe as opposed to the compressed timeframe we get on the show with everything taking place over a month (and isn't there something around this section that explicitly refers to the show's timeline as taking place over several months?)

I've always just accepted that time works differently in twin peaks - because of the soaplike compression mentioned above/it not being a realistic series, but also because of lynch's temporal games (starting with the tossed-off un chien andalou nod in the euro pilot and continuing in the finale, fwwm and almost all his subsequent films) and the more conventional sci-fi stuff brought in by the other writers, like briggs's absence seeming shorter to him than it actually was. Looks like this is an angle they're going to hit pretty hard in the revival.

I'm interested in this idea of a break with reality being associated with "a particular point in the original series" - it's notable that the "version" of tp the book presents is largely that of the brief moment in s2 when UFOs were still in play but the black/white lodge hadn't been introduced yet (in the show, briggs's disappearance appears to be brought on by his trying to tell cooper about the lodges). There's some half-baked idea about the competing mythologies of twin peaks forming in the back of my mind that's probably not worth developing...

Anyway, not sure if anyone's done this yet, but here's a list of key twin peaks mythological elements that don't get a single mention in the book (feel free to correct me here):

- black/white lodge
- and the attendant mythology eg dweller on the threshold/shadow self
- doppelgängers
- dugpas
- garmonbozia
- judy
User avatar
dud
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:09 pm
Location: North Jersey

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

Postby dud » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:01 pm

The Jumping Man wrote:I was at Frost's panel at the Texas Book Festival today. Not much new, but:

The postmark on the moon landing stamp on Norma's postcard is a mistake by the book's graphics team. No one caught it. So factor that into your theories about every mistake in the book having some hidden meaning.
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 Nov 08, 2016 1:47 pm

New here, longtime TP fan who thought I'd jump back into online fandom with Frost's book out and the upcoming new series.

Anyhow, I had no idea how many inconsistencies there were until I started reading this thread, and now I'm a little befuddled and concerned. (Partly, I suppose, because I'm also an X-Files fan and the limited run of XF earlier this year seemed to be implying some big retcons of series history without really justifying them, though we have yet to see how that's all going to turn out if and when there are further XF episodes.) I can't imagine what they'd have to gain from doing this on purpose, but there seems to be too much of it for it to be an accident. I also have trouble imagining that Frost, Lynch, or anyone else would have the first new "official" Twin Peaks material in over 20 years be something that turns out to be a hoax or a forgery, but in a way that only the most devoted fans are likely to notice.

A few things that seemed amiss to me that I haven't seen mentioned here, though some of these may be more differences of interpretation than factual errors:

  • Windom Earle's murder of Caroline is placed "shortly after" Philip Jeffries' disappearance - my recollection, from the way it was talked about on the show and from "My Life, My Tapes," is that this happened a little earlier than that, but maybe my memory's off or I'm misreading the passage.
  • Garland Briggs seems to describe his experience after his disappearance/abduction in the woods as something disorienting and frightening, and as an encounter with something that seems vaguely evil or at least amoral, whereas in the show he seems to think he was in the White Lodge while he was gone.
  • Garland also seems to omit any mention of being captured by Windom Earle. Maybe he doesn't remember much of what happened, but he must have known that *something* happened, since his mental functioning appears back to normal by the time he receives his "message" at the Double R in the last episode (which he also doesn't mention).
  • Maybe more of a character interpretation than a fact, but Hawk's passage makes him sound like a bit more of a "dude-bro" than I remember him being in the series.
  • Regarding the whole Norma/Annie business - I had assumed that Norma's maiden name was in fact Blackburne, not Lindstrom. Was this ever addressed in the show?

Thoughts?
User avatar
Ross
Posts: 2204
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Ross » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:15 pm

FlyingSquirrel wrote:New here, longtime TP fan who thought I'd jump back into online fandom with Frost's book out and the upcoming new series.

Anyhow, I had no idea how many inconsistencies there were until I started reading this thread, and now I'm a little befuddled and concerned. (Partly, I suppose, because I'm also an X-Files fan and the limited run of XF earlier this year seemed to be implying some big retcons of series history without really justifying them, though we have yet to see how that's all going to turn out if and when there are further XF episodes.) I can't imagine what they'd have to gain from doing this on purpose, but there seems to be too much of it for it to be an accident. I also have trouble imagining that Frost, Lynch, or anyone else would have the first new "official" Twin Peaks material in over 20 years be something that turns out to be a hoax or a forgery, but in a way that only the most devoted fans are likely to notice.

A few things that seemed amiss to me that I haven't seen mentioned here, though some of these may be more differences of interpretation than factual errors:

  • Windom Earle's murder of Caroline is placed "shortly after" Philip Jeffries' disappearance - my recollection, from the way it was talked about on the show and from "My Life, My Tapes," is that this happened a little earlier than that, but maybe my memory's off or I'm misreading the passage.
  • Garland Briggs seems to describe his experience after his disappearance/abduction in the woods as something disorienting and frightening, and as an encounter with something that seems vaguely evil or at least amoral, whereas in the show he seems to think he was in the White Lodge while he was gone.
  • Garland also seems to omit any mention of being captured by Windom Earle. Maybe he doesn't remember much of what happened, but he must have known that *something* happened, since his mental functioning appears back to normal by the time he receives his "message" at the Double R in the last episode (which he also doesn't mention).
  • Maybe more of a character interpretation than a fact, but Hawk's passage makes him sound like a bit more of a "dude-bro" than I remember him being in the series.
  • Regarding the whole Norma/Annie business - I had assumed that Norma's maiden name was in fact Blackburne, not Lindstrom. Was this ever addressed in the show?

Thoughts?

All of these points have been brought up actually. And I agree on the hoax angle- it just seems a little off since, like I've said before, the differences are mostly in the details and not the broad strokes. So in the end, what becomes the point? Especially when those less familiar with the original will never notice them? And if the "key" or answer lies in S3 itself, or even in a Vol 2, it makes the book more frustrating that the key doesn't lie within.
"I can see half my life's history in your face... And I'm not sure that I want to."
http://twinpeakssoundtrackdesign.blogspot.com/

Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thpthpthpthpthp and 3 guests