SPOILERS: Inconsistencies in the Secret History of Twin Peaks

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

guildnavigator
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:50 am

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

Postby guildnavigator » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:23 am

Dalai Cooper wrote:
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


I believe that the black and white lodge are mentioned briefly during the Crowley/Parsons sections. So are the dugpas, but not by name, only referred to as magicians


Edit: the little loose reference is on Page 261
User avatar
secretlettermkr
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:14 am

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

Postby secretlettermkr » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:43 pm

Here's some very interesting answers Mark Frost gave at the AMA
https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comm ... win_peaks/

-The book is called the SECRET history of twin peaks not the MYSTERIOUS history of twin peaks. Is this a clue? Possibly indicating that the book/dossier itself is meant to cover something up or mislead someone?

[ MarkFrostTwinPeaks] It is a clue. You have to decide what it means.


-Hello Mark, I am a huge fan. I like the idea of doing the book as a dossier. Would it make sense to see "Fire Walk with Me" and "The Secret History of Twin Peaks" as new layers to the mystery, rather
than new pieces of the puzzle? In any case, your book certainly is puzzling, and I cannot help but feel that somebody has tampered with the dossier...


[ MarkFrostTwinPeaks] It takes many coats, or layers, of paint to finish a portrait. After this last week I'm shocked, shocked I say, at your suggestion that someone in the FBI might have tampered with a dossier... ;-)


-Can you say anything to reassure Old fans about the inconsistencies in the book compared to the Old show?

[ MarkFrostTwinPeaks] The dossier is comprised of documents. Are all the documents you've ever seen completely reliable? And remember what Emerson, the great American transcendentalist, said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"."
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:37 am

To me, the majority of Mark's responses don't hint at any broader secret plan of his, but rather seem to indicate that he's happy letting fans interpret the work once it's out of his hands. In particular, the Emerson quote seems to echo some of what he said to Brad Dukes the day the book came out about intentionally not fact-checking certain things because he wanted the book to reflect imperfect memory. I think he's delighted that fans' imaginations can go wild and conjure up theories due to these inconsistencies, and I'm hoping that some of that will become a give-and-take that will fuel what Mark writes in the next book. So, while I don't believe Mark had any grand plan behind most of these errors, let's all keep throwing our theories at him and maybe some will end up in part 2! :)

(Also, I think the "FBI tampering" response was more an excuse for Mark to get political -- which he loves doing -- and paraphrase one of his favorite Casablanca lines, than a hint at anything.)
User avatar
gavriloP
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:24 pm

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

Postby gavriloP » Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:51 pm

On the series there is this vague idea of souls trapped in the trees. We see it literally with Josie and perhaps with Margaret Lanterman's Log. Also Major Briggs talks about this in sheriff's office after his "abduction". In book it is shortly mentioned by Jack Parsons when he talks about how these wooden walls seem to hold spirits. Strangely Major Briggs / The Archivist doesn't talk about this at all in the book even though it is clear that in the show he's very troubled with this thought. Also the WWII pilot costume he wears when he comes back home doesn't get any mention.

Another strange inconsistency is the SETI message for Cooper, he omits the important part "the owls are not what they seem" from it.

EDIT: I just noticed that the tattoo/scar that Major Briggs describes to have is strange. The fact that it is wrong compared to series (as many have mentioned before) is one thing but the other is that it doesn't fit to that triangle grid that seems to be the root base for all other logdefolk symbols.
User avatar
Diane
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:09 pm

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

Postby Diane » Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:09 pm

This may have already been mentioned, but the TV show says Nadine lost her eye on her honeymoon. The book contradicts this, saying that she was secretly following Big Ed and Sheriff Truman on a hunting trip due to her suspicions of Ed and Norma.

This and all the other discrepancies can mean one of two things---they were done intentionally, or Frost was extremely careless.

I have read that the Annie character is not returning. It seems disturbing that they would just write her out of the history because they didn't want to bring her back in season 3.

But perhaps some of you are correct, and there are other strange mysteries at play here that will become clear next year.

I wonder what the crime scene is where the dossier was recovered? Could it be that Doppleganger Dale killed Major Briggs?
User avatar
UnsolvedMrE
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:56 pm

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

Postby UnsolvedMrE » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:16 am

I'm new to this forum, so please forgive any formatting errors. I just wanted to share something I discovered while re-reading the Secret History of Twin Peaks. The photo of the petroglyph at Owl Cave on page 147 is a reverse (or mirror) image of that in the series or earlier in the book on page 62. Additionally, the cosmic signs have been smudged or removed from the cave entirely. I'm not sure if this is an error or perhaps a clue. However, it does add credence to the multiple reality or parallel universe theories I've come across regarding the story.

Here's a link to the photo from the book and images of the petroglyph: https://m.imgur.com/a/NIJlX

Thoughts?
User avatar
sylvia_north
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:41 pm

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

Postby sylvia_north » Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:30 am

I'm here because of LonelySoul's timeline!

I was especially interested in the 'backfire effect' created in the inconsistencies between the books and series, types of explanations that were included from the contributing theorists; we are so certain of the facts from the series we take as self-evident from repeated viewings, a lot of the inconsistencies are relatively easy to excuse away as not that inconsistent, or falsified.

It's really amazing that I was able to read through the book several times and could hold the contradictions in my head at the same time as true.
The obvious ones barely made me take pause and this is the genius of the book.

On my initial listening, I was in a suggestible state of mine. I was so excited to be peeking into Twin Peaks again, I easily submitted to epistemic authority.

Upon subsequent listenings, the illusory truth effect kicked in. Again, my listening pleasure made me uncritical.

Like a magician, Mark Frost constantly misdirected me with volume of novel data so seamlessly integrated these hidden in plain sight sleights went over my head unchallenged.

I've seen the show easily upwards of 30 times. The world is there in my memory banks, but it takes tapping, kind of like my personal history-- reality is subjective, and subject to influence-- in a very Fred Madisonesque way!! I defer to the left-brained fans to gather and analyze the data and provide the harness and drop rope, because I have feelings we are about to plunge deep #wonderfulandstrange #unifiedfield

UnsolvedMrE wrote:I'm new to this forum, so please forgive any formatting errors. I just wanted to share something I discovered while re-reading the Secret History of Twin Peaks. The photo of the petroglyph at Owl Cave on page 147 is a reverse (or mirror) image of that in the series or earlier in the book on page 62. Additionally, the cosmic signs have been smudged or removed from the cave entirely. I'm not sure if this is an error or perhaps a clue. However, it does add credence to the multiple reality or parallel universe theories I've come across regarding the story.

Here's a link to the photo from the book and images of the petroglyph: https://m.imgur.com/a/NIJlX

Thoughts?


Hey there! Twin Peaks Wikia's Secret History entry talks about clues revealed when images from the book are held up to a mirror or viewed with 3D glasses! I haven't played with them myself- have you tried on that particular one?
i .. am .. not ... your... foot
User avatar
zeronumber
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:42 pm

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

Postby zeronumber » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:16 am

I concur on the idea that Frost's Secret History is not the answer to the "Mystery ". The holes and obfuscation is so intense as to lead us to believe that it is only a version of the truth. My conjecture is the dossier was altered. He who writes History, controls it. Can Gordon and his cadre Blue Rose set it straight? Or are we doomed to a "Lost-ian" Sideways~ ???

......M A Y D A Y......

Sent from my NEC-NE-201A1A using Tapatalk
dialecticspeaks
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 8:15 am

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

Postby dialecticspeaks » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:34 pm

We read in Secret History about Banks murder (we see her body in Fire Walk With Me):
"They also found that, postmortem, a small printed letter “T” had been inserted under the ring finger[nail] of her right hand"
Saying that the letter was under the right ring fingernail is a big 'mistake'. We know that letters were only found under girls' left ring finger nails in FWWM and original series.
Is it a typo (an error by Frost) or another deliberate inconsistency?
Could this 'mistake' be anything to do with the fact that everyone who wore the Green Ring in Secret History (Jack Parsons, Nixon, and possibly Robert Jacoby) put it on their right ring finger? Perhaps Frost's editor tried to make everything consistent and introduced an error?
In original series Douglas Milford (retconned as original archivist) died wearing a similar or the same ring on his right little finger.
Teresa, Laura, Annie and nurse in In FWWM and Dougie Jones in The Return wore it on the left ring finger with T,L and DJ having numb left arms.
Yet Phillip Gerrard(Mike), having only one arm, wore it on his right little finger like DM. The MFAP (the left Arm of Mike) used the ring to 'wed' women to him - wedding rings in west normally go on left ring finger. Does wearing the ring on the left or the right hand make any difference concerning what happens to the wearer?
Either Frost or the two Archivists (who had indirect familiarity with 'Bob murders') made an error after 25 years or someone (backwards Bad Cooper?) may have tampered with the dossier and switched left and right as in a mirror. There is also a mirrored owl cave map image (p. 147) and the 'beware the double' book mirror puzzle (p. 168) so the book does have mirrored elements.
In 2017 series there is something odd about Bad Cooper's left ring finger: "In [the Return] Part 7, Cole refers to the left ring finger as the "spiritual mound" and the "spiritual finger". He also noted that Cooper's doppelganger stumbles on the corresponding word when saying "It's yrev very good to see you again old friend" although Cole said instead "I'm yrev very happy to see you again old friend".
"Cooper's doppelganger's left ring finger has a mirrored fingerprint from the real Dale although the other fingerprints stayed the same as the original."
What do you think this all means?
GarmonboziaFan
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:15 pm

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

Postby GarmonboziaFan » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:23 pm

I truly believe these inconsistencies are a very important part of The Return.

And I believe that Audrey's current "situation", or whatever is going on with her right now, is a key to the inconsistencies.

Audrey is hung up on "Billy". At the end of episode 7, we see a shot of the Double R. There is some kind of time jump, or something (in a split second, there are a mostly different set of people in the Double R), and someone comes in and says "Has anyone seen Billy?" First shot is "normal" world. Second shot, when there are different people in the Double R and someone's looking for Billy, is "Audrey world."

Audrey mentions "Ghostwood," something that hasn't been an issue in Twin Peaks for 25 years.

Charlie tells Audrey words to the effect of "Do I have to stop your story?" I think Audrey's "story" plays heavily into whatever is going on here.

Sorry for being vague, I know this is half-baked!
claaa7
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:47 am

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

Postby claaa7 » Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:03 pm

one of the strangest things about the new series is that we haven't really learned what any of the characters have done in the 25 years that passed..we saw what they were currently doing in 1989 and now in the Return we saw what everybody is currently doing again. everything we know that happened in between are basically assumptions based on what the characters are doing right now. it's an interesting albeit very suprising stylistic writing choice for the Return.

i'm really hyped up for the new book that's coming this fall.
User avatar
sylvia_north
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:41 pm

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

Postby sylvia_north » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:38 am

claaa7 wrote:one of the strangest things about the new series is that we haven't really learned what any of the characters have done in the 25 years that passed..we saw what they were currently doing in 1989 and now in the Return we saw what everybody is currently doing again. everything we know that happened in between are basically assumptions based on what the characters are doing right now. it's an interesting albeit very suprising stylistic writing choice for the Return.

i'm really hyped up for the new book that's coming this fall.


We did learn Hank died in prison, and Catherine went into seclusion. Garland is the only one from the book whose actions in the book are taken up in the show that I can recall.
i .. am .. not ... your... foot
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:59 am

GarmonboziaFan wrote:Audrey mentions "Ghostwood," something that hasn't been an issue in Twin Peaks for 25 years.


How do you know that?
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 Aug 22, 2017 4:26 pm

Something I just noticed - this part is presumably written by Garland Briggs himself, correct? It's in the "Archivist's Note" of the section titled "4: Colonel Douglas Milford."

But let's give the widow Milford the benefit of some doubt: she stayed in town the better part of six months after Doug's death, until probate closed, and apparently provided, ahem, great comfort and emotional support during that time to our grieving mayor. Once the check cleared, of course, she was gone like the Hindenburg.


But if Briggs disappeared and/or was killed right after DoppelCooper emerged from the Black Lodge, how can he have been writing from the perspective of six months later about how long Lana remained in town? This almost seems like an inconsistency not only with TP:TR but with itself, given that the dossier otherwise stops at his encounter with DoppelCooper. Even if he didn't actually die and was time-hopping or something, it's hard to imagine that updating the dossier about Lana's whereabouts would have been a top priority.
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 23, 2017 10:04 am

FlyingSquirrel wrote:Something I just noticed - this part is presumably written by Garland Briggs himself, correct? It's in the "Archivist's Note" of the section titled "4: Colonel Douglas Milford."

But let's give the widow Milford the benefit of some doubt: she stayed in town the better part of six months after Doug's death, until probate closed, and apparently provided, ahem, great comfort and emotional support during that time to our grieving mayor. Once the check cleared, of course, she was gone like the Hindenburg.


But if Briggs disappeared and/or was killed right after DoppelCooper emerged from the Black Lodge, how can he have been writing from the perspective of six months later about how long Lana remained in town? This almost seems like an inconsistency not only with TP:TR but with itself, given that the dossier otherwise stops at his encounter with DoppelCooper. Even if he didn't actually die and was time-hopping or something, it's hard to imagine that updating the dossier about Lana's whereabouts would have been a top priority.


The next book is called "The Final Dossier" so there's probably a second archivist.

I think The Log Lady would be a good candadate for a second archivist, or maybe a new character.

Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests