'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31 (SPOILERS)

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

User avatar
laughingpinecone
Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
Location: D'ni
Contact:

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby laughingpinecone » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:04 am

Wouldn't it make the first book completely pointless? I imagine we're gonna find out what was up with that dossier, but it will be up to us to mentally correct it.

From the info we have now, ie just the title, I'm not fully committing to any hypothesis but I'm inclined to think that it could be the continuation of the Archivist's work past the "mayday" cliffhanger, either by him personally or by someone taking up his mantle.
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
Agent Earle
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby Agent Earle » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:08 am

laughingpinecone wrote:Wouldn't it make the first book completely pointless? I imagine we're gonna find out what was up with that dossier, but it will be up to us to mentally correct it.

From the info we have now, ie just the title, I'm not fully committing to any hypothesis but I'm inclined to think that it could be the continuation of the Archivist's work past the "mayday" cliffhanger, either by him personally or by someone taking up his mantle.


Well, the first book pretty much makes the original show pointless, the way it screws over the established facts... So I'm yearning for some kind of explanation; I'd hate it if it would all turn out to be a consequence of Frost's whim and sloppiness.
User avatar
Soolsma
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby Soolsma » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:32 am

I have the feeling the final dossier has been assembled by an FBI agent, one whom we might already already familiar with... Rosenfield? Stanley?

To keep things fresh and interesting, the book would benefit from shifting the POV away from Briggs. Though the persona the archivist will surely play his part again.
I believe all these phenomena that our putted-up egos and busy ant minds persist in trying to label, categorize, penetrate, and comphrehend, all spring from this same uncanny source. This is the mother of all "others".
djerdap
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:42 am

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby djerdap » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:55 am

laughingpinecone wrote:Wouldn't it make the first book completely pointless?


Not to stir the pot or anything, but in my mind - it kinda already is.
User avatar
Twin Peaks Podcast
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:43 am

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby Twin Peaks Podcast » Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:37 am

djerdap wrote:
laughingpinecone wrote:Wouldn't it make the first book completely pointless?


Not to stir the pot or anything, but in my mind - it kinda already is.


Yeah, I'm not pre-ordering this next book. I'll wait for reviews and opinions this time, like I should have for the first one.
User avatar
underthefan
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby underthefan » Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:13 am

djerdap wrote:
laughingpinecone wrote:Wouldn't it make the first book completely pointless?


Not to stir the pot or anything, but in my mind - it kinda already is.

Can't say I much disagree...
User avatar
AgentEcho
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby AgentEcho » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:43 pm

I'm not at all inclined to write off TSOTP. There's no reason to rush to judgement regarding the inconsistencies. There are too many of them and they are so obvious that they were clearly put there for a specific reason, which we aren't going to know about until we see the new series.

Again I don't think Frost himself regards these books as anything other than supplemental material to the series. These books were written after the series scripts and the scripts were likely not written knowing there would be supplemental books. I'd guess this final dossier book will just close out some of the mysteries about the first book that won't be satisfactorily addressed by what is going on in the new series. But I'm quite certain the reasons behind the big issues in the first book (i.e. the inconsistencies) will be addressed by what happens in the show.

IMO without waiting to see how the whole thing plays out (do I need to remind people we still have no idea what is going to happen in the new series?) any judgement about the "pointlessness" of the books is coming from a perspective of ignorance.
Dalai Cooper
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby Dalai Cooper » Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:41 pm

I liked the first book (with qualifications, and I'm not about to make any great claims for it) but I think people who didn't care for it are absolutely right to hold off on buying the next one as I think it'll be more of the same. Highly doubt there'll be some puzzle piece that clicks into place and the people who were cold on it will suddenly be all "hey I like this now".

I do think there will be a lot more of the town in this last dossier, though; I'll be very very surprised if this isn't essentially just the stuff from the 25-year gap.
djerdap
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:42 am

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby djerdap » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:07 pm

Dalai Cooper wrote:Highly doubt there'll be some puzzle piece that clicks into place and the people who were cold on it will suddenly be all "hey I like this now".


Yep. Somehow I highly doubt that the new series will shine more light on the adventures of Dougie Milford for instance.
User avatar
AgentEcho
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby AgentEcho » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:11 pm

Not Dougie Milford but the alternate Ed and Nadine story, non-existence of Annie? I do think the series will shed light on that. But we'll see.
User avatar
Snailhead
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:45 pm

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby Snailhead » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:19 pm

Dalai Cooper wrote:I liked the first book (with qualifications, and I'm not about to make any great claims for it) but I think people who didn't care for it are absolutely right to hold off on buying the next one as I think it'll be more of the same. Highly doubt there'll be some puzzle piece that clicks into place and the people who were cold on it will suddenly be all "hey I like this now".

I do think there will be a lot more of the town in this last dossier, though; I'll be very very surprised if this isn't essentially just the stuff from the 25-year gap.


I feel very much the same. I liked it for what it was but I would hesitate to call it essential. That being said, I'm excited to see if having read it will enrich any of the new material.
Welcome to Canada...
User avatar
Rudagger
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby Rudagger » Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:24 pm

AgentEcho wrote:I'm not at all inclined to write off TSOTP. There's no reason to rush to judgement regarding the inconsistencies. There are too many of them and they are so obvious that they were clearly put there for a specific reason, which we aren't going to know about until we see the new series.

Again I don't think Frost himself regards these books as anything other than supplemental material to the series. These books were written after the series scripts and the scripts were likely not written knowing there would be supplemental books. I'd guess this final dossier book will just close out some of the mysteries about the first book that won't be satisfactorily addressed by what is going on in the new series. But I'm quite certain the reasons behind the big issues in the first book (i.e. the inconsistencies) will be addressed by what happens in the show.

IMO without waiting to see how the whole thing plays out (do I need to remind people we still have no idea what is going to happen in the new series?) any judgement about the "pointlessness" of the books is coming from a perspective of ignorance.


I just find that cross media stuff tends to be pointless by design. You can't create something that is in anyway essential to the narrative in a form that most people won't consume.

I enjoyed Secret History (and I'm very excited to see something that might actually fill the gap), but, I picture it ending up something like those Mad Max prequel comics, which Miller himself was involved in, that from my understanding give little context to the story beyond the occasional "Oh, neat" references. I think the other issue is, as you said, it's often written outward from the main material. So, references always have a sense of feeling like retcons rather than intent (i.e., the difference between Season 3 using, say, the Owl Cave ring, and with the book retroactively saying Doug Milford's ring was the Owl Cave ring). That stuff comes down to a matter of suspending disbelief, obviously, but, the writer in me always gets a little bit driven nuts when something is written in reverse in a way that isn't at all subtle. I'm not saying it should be any other way though, because nobody wants to watch a movie or show and hear "Oh, the book answers that".
User avatar
AgentEcho
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby AgentEcho » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:31 pm

Rudagger wrote:
I just find that cross media stuff tends to be pointless by design. You can't create something that is in anyway essential to the narrative in a form that most people won't consume.

I enjoyed Secret History (and I'm very excited to see something that might actually fill the gap), but, I picture it ending up something like those Mad Max prequel comics, which Miller himself was involved in, that from my understanding give little context to the story beyond the occasional "Oh, neat" references. I think the other issue is, as you said, it's often written outward from the main material. So, references always have a sense of feeling like retcons rather than intent (i.e., the difference between Season 3 using, say, the Owl Cave ring, and with the book retroactively saying Doug Milford's ring was the Owl Cave ring). That stuff comes down to a matter of suspending disbelief, obviously, but, the writer in me always gets a little bit driven nuts when something is written in reverse in a way that isn't at all subtle. I'm not saying it should be any other way though, because nobody wants to watch a movie or show and hear "Oh, the book answers that".


I'd say there's gray areas between "pointless" and "non-essential". I'm not actually arguing that the book even lies there because I too don't know what will happen in Season 3. I'd say any "oh neat" moment that offers readers of the book a moment of recognition and context that the non readers don't wouldn't be pointless. One difference between this and the Mad Max comic is this was actually released before, and intended to be read before, the series.

The key question is will the book enhance the mystery and experience of watching the series. That remains to be seen, but if it does in any way it will have served its purpose. The last piece of the narrative we have is the 25+ year cliffhanging query "How's Annie"? The book seems to present the question "Who/what/where/when is Annie?" If that ends up being one of the mysteries of the new series, the book already got me thinking about that leading up to the series, and that too will be adequately serving its purpose.

At any rate no one should be disappointed that the book is not essential, since that is an absurd expectation to be placed on a book like this. If that's the problem people have with the book the only way those people would have had their expectation made would have been if the creators of the show made a completely obtuse creative decision with the book. The series will stand on its own because it needs to. I don't imagine anyone who is disappointed that the book is supplementary would expect anything different from the series, so why be disappointed that's the case with the book? It doesn't make much sense.
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby Gabriel » Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:36 am

I just remember MLMT introducing such memorable characters as Sheriff Cable to the world of Twin Peaks well before the movie showed up! Certainly, reading TSDoLP gave me a completely different view of the show in those early days and I understood far more aspects of season two and what BOB was compared with, say, my parents who hadn't read the book.

So I think the books have definite relevance and, in the internet age, I no longer consider just the cinematic and televisual medium in a franchise (I hate that word!) to be canonical. Look at the additional material put out for, say, the Doctor Who 50th anniversary. The Night of the Doctor was arguably not essential, but it was nice to see Paul McGann back and it filled in the missing regeneration (I'm not even that big a fan!) That material went out on the web and was included as part of the Blu-ray package. The same goes for the coda to Lost that was a Blu-ray/DVD exclusive.
User avatar
laughingpinecone
Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
Location: D'ni
Contact:

Re: 'Twin Peaks: The Final Dossier' Novel by Mark Frost 10/31

Postby laughingpinecone » Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:20 am

That's an interesting watershed, "essential". I can think of maybe five hours total that are "essential". Mill plot, not essential. One Eyed Jack, not essential. Log Lady, not essential. Donna &co's investigations at Jacoby's first and Harold's later, not essential. Bobby and Shelly, and Leo, and Hank, and Norma and Ed and Nadine, not essential.
Going further with this, we're talking about a work of fiction, of course nothing is essential.

Since October, I've had the pleasure of joining delightful discussions on:
- the ring being tied to rest knowledge and great ruin, how this goes back to Laura and Teresa, and to owls as classic symbols of knowledge
- what it means for Gordon to have been Nixon's close pal and having effectively taken over Windom's role wrt Blue Book matters.
- recursions. Opposition of "lodges" throughout human history and how it maybe possibly explains why the locals used names lifted out of an obscure European occult treatise. Spirits in the wood. Somewhere, there are giants.
- acknowledging that there is a worldwide awareness of supernatural occurrences, with both governments and private parties taking an interest in them
- scope and limits of presenting alternative versions of known events with fluctuating details and equal outcomes
- popping the biggest bottle because Audrey's irredeemable support of her father is the only one that got retconned fair and square
- Frank what the fuck
- Doug as a distant Coop parallel
- the finesse of seamlessly integrating Garland's enlightened s2 characterization with his s1 position as Bobby's dysfunctional father.
- Moonchild theories
And so much more, beside, y'know, having fun thinking about Doug and Garland's odd friendship, Sam and Margaret and their STRONG FOREARMS, Tamara and Albert and their hopeless search for a world that makes sense.
Looks enhancing enough to me, but to each their own.
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.

Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests