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

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

User avatar
Jerry Horne
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Private Portland Airport
Contact:

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

Postby Jerry Horne » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:27 am

Love it.
Attachments
Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 9.25.41 AM.png
Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 9.25.41 AM.png (59.32 KiB) Viewed 517 times
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:49 am

Frost is reminding me more and more of Damon Lindelof during the height of Lost hype, when every answer was a cagey “Hmm that’s intersting...or IS it?” I was hoping he’d be a little more forthcoming with all the material (for now) out in the world, but I guess not.
User avatar
eyeboogers
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

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

Postby eyeboogers » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:43 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:Frost is reminding me more and more of Damon Lindelof during the height of Lost hype, when every answer was a cagey “Hmm that’s intersting...or IS it?” I was hoping he’d be a little more forthcoming with all the material (for now) out in the world, but I guess not.


"The Final Dossier" IS Frost being forthcoming. It's basically the teacher's guide to "The Return".
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:50 am

Xavi wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:Be that as it may, they clearly intended for it to be Sarah.


Well, that's just your and Frost's opinion, man.


It is almost certainly also Lynch's. Frost would not write that identity in without Lynch's go-ahead. And Frost has said he had a heavy hand in scripting Part 8.

You seem very invested in the idea that Frost was someone Lynch had to ankle off who was not really involved in Season 3. This is utterly untrue.

Since when are you entitled to express the intentions of David Lynch? Did he tell you personally?


I feel quite confident in saying he did not intend for the girl to be the child Diane traveling through time to before she was born.

I did not notice any violation in the Diane Dale love scene at all, nor during Tracey and Sam's love scene. There was willingness from both sides


I was talking about the violation of the girl/Sarah in 1956, not Tracey and Sam. And I would use a lot of words to describe the sex scene in Part 18, but loving and fully consensual and comfortable are not any of them.

Don't you think the kiss at the 430 mark has something to do with the suggestion of a second kiss related to the frog-moth that crept in after the girl's first kiss?


No, sorry.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
eyeboogers
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

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

Postby eyeboogers » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:12 pm

I'm with you all the way Needleman. Except that I definitely think there is a thematic link between the kiss in episode 8 and the importance placed on Diane and Cooper kissing in ep.18.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:08 pm

eyeboogers wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:Frost is reminding me more and more of Damon Lindelof during the height of Lost hype, when every answer was a cagey “Hmm that’s intersting...or IS it?” I was hoping he’d be a little more forthcoming with all the material (for now) out in the world, but I guess not.


"The Final Dossier" IS Frost being forthcoming. It's basically the teacher's guide to "The Return".


I was speaking more about transparency regarding his writing process (i.e., admitting he slipped up on continuity or explaining why he changed certain things, rather than continually teasing that every discrepancy is due to some elaborate master plan). I’m perfectly fine with no substantive answers about the show’s mysteries, I feel Mark tends to be a bit TOO forthcoming in that regard (TFD being exhibit A). But I wish he could have an honest dialogue with fans about behind-the-scenes stuff, which is much more interesting to me.
vicksvapor77
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:51 pm

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

Postby vicksvapor77 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:20 pm

I noticed Mark wrote that Ben sold his multi-acre land of Ghostwood Forest to developers. Does this align back to the series now a bit more? Does it jive better or worse with the retcon in the first book with Catherine? I can't keep it straight anymore. Does the following sound right based on the books? I can't keep the Packard Mill land/Ghostwood land apart anymore and I'm not sure Mark can either. Please correct me where I have it incorrect based on the books.

-The Packard Mill burns down and Catherine closes it permanently
-Catherine and Andrew (retcon) had possession of the Packard Mill land and properties
-Ben, who in the series was against the Ghostwood development project, seems to have secretly planned the purchase of the Packard Mill land from Catherine
-Andrew dies and the Packard Mill goes back into Catherine's sole possession
-Catherine sells the Packard Mill and its associated properties to Ben and the Ghostwood developers and becomes a recluse (despite the date on the contract being way too early)
-Per The Final Dossier, Ben subsequently sells his hundreds-acre private parcel of the Ghostwood Forest land to development project, which becomes a private prison (Not sure if this land is related or not to the Packard Mill land)
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:34 pm

vicksvapor77 wrote:I noticed Mark wrote that Ben sold his multi-acre land of Ghostwood Forest to developers. Does this align back to the series now a bit more? Does it jive better or worse with the retcon in the first book with Catherine? I can't keep it straight anymore. Does the following sound right based on the books? I can't keep the Packard Mill land/Ghostwood land apart anymore and I'm not sure Mark can either. Please correct me where I have it incorrect based on the books.

-The Packard Mill burns down and Catherine closes it permanently
-Catherine and Andrew (retcon) had possession of the Packard Mill land and properties
-Ben, who in the series was against the Ghostwood development project, seems to have secretly planned the purchase of the Packard Mill land from Catherine
-Andrew dies and the Packard Mill goes back into Catherine's sole possession
-Catherine sells the Packard Mill and its associated properties to Ben and the Ghostwood developers and becomes a recluse (despite the date on the contract being way too early)
-Per The Final Dossier, Ben subsequently sells his hundreds-acre private parcel of the Ghostwood Forest land to development project, which becomes a private prison (Not sure if this land is related or not to the Packard Mill land)


I think that’s more or less it. It still contradicts the series, where Ben signed Ghostwood over to Catherine in Episode 14, and at the end of the series she and Andrew were planning the Ghostwood Estates, which (as you note) Ben opposed.
vicksvapor77
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:51 pm

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

Postby vicksvapor77 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:01 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
vicksvapor77 wrote:I noticed Mark wrote that Ben sold his multi-acre land of Ghostwood Forest to developers. Does this align back to the series now a bit more? Does it jive better or worse with the retcon in the first book with Catherine? I can't keep it straight anymore. Does the following sound right based on the books? I can't keep the Packard Mill land/Ghostwood land apart anymore and I'm not sure Mark can either. Please correct me where I have it incorrect based on the books.

-The Packard Mill burns down and Catherine closes it permanently
-Catherine and Andrew (retcon) had possession of the Packard Mill land and properties
-Ben, who in the series was against the Ghostwood development project, seems to have secretly planned the purchase of the Packard Mill land from Catherine
-Andrew dies and the Packard Mill goes back into Catherine's sole possession
-Catherine sells the Packard Mill and its associated properties to Ben and the Ghostwood developers and becomes a recluse (despite the date on the contract being way too early)
-Per The Final Dossier, Ben subsequently sells his hundreds-acre private parcel of the Ghostwood Forest land to development project, which becomes a private prison (Not sure if this land is related or not to the Packard Mill land)


I think that’s more or less it. It still contradicts the series, where Ben signed Ghostwood over to Catherine in Episode 14, and at the end of the series she and Andrew were planning the Ghostwood Estates, which (as you note) Ben opposed.


Okay thanks. I'll have to rewatch some of the original series to catch that stuff again. We are assuming the Packard Mill and Ghostwood Development are technically separate development areas, right? So maybe the Packard Mill stuff isn't relaly a retcon at all and is more just inserted "secret history" not presented in the original series narrative?
User avatar
FlyingSquirrel
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:26 pm

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

Postby FlyingSquirrel » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:18 pm

mtwentz wrote:
trismegistus wrote:
BEARisonFord wrote:Just finished the book the other day, and although it's a little slighter than I thought it would be, I still really enjoyed it. The tragedies of Annie and Audrey were particularly poignant to me and felt tonally in line with what I expected.

I'd still love to know whatever happened to Chester Desmond someday, but at this point I am most definitely not holding my breath.


I just presume he was killed by Deputy Cliff. The only thing that really causes any doubt for that is what happened with Ray Monroe.


I too had always assumed it was Deputy Cliff, but apparently the original script had Desmond disappearing when he touched the ring. I also think The Return implies that Desmond disappeared in the same way as Philip Jeffries and Agent Cooper.


I thought he *did* disappear when he touched the ring. We didn't literally see him vanish off the screen, but it fades to black after he finds it and then the trailer (which the Chalfonts had been renting) is gone too when Cooper gets there. Seemed like a definite case of Lodge magic to me.

And while Deputy Cliff seems to have been a scumbag, murdering an FBI agent is not a very smart move for a corrupt cop looking to avoid scrutiny, and it didn't seem like Desmond was on his trail at the time.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:26 pm

vicksvapor77 wrote:Okay thanks. I'll have to rewatch some of the original series to catch that stuff again. We are assuming the Packard Mill and Ghostwood Development are technically separate development areas, right? So maybe the Packard Mill stuff isn't relaly a retcon at all and is more just inserted "secret history" not presented in the original series narrative?


The implication of the series seemed to be that the Packard land was in or adjacent to Ghostwood, since it seemed to be an important part of the bargain. But maps (such as in the Access Guide) depict the Mill land as separate from Ghostwood, so who knows. I still think the book contradicts the show either way, because in the show Ben sells the Ghostwood development to Catherine whereas in the books Ben keeps it and sells it to the shady prison people.
Hester Prynne
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:10 am

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

Postby Hester Prynne » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:32 pm

laughingpinecone wrote: a key aspect of Audrey was always her lack of strong, intimate emotional connections. The lonely girl who grew up observing people from behind holes in the walls etc. I used to think she probably woke up too late to decide whether to keep the baby and suffered her teen pregnancy, but once I heard her story, it is not unthinkable, imho, that she would cling to the chance of getting to develop one such connection by default as a mother.


This is a nice analysis on Audrey's character and I think explains her attachment to Cooper. He clearly understood this was missing in her life, and there was a need for some sort of emotional connection that was never fulfilled by her family and her lack of friends. Her brief friendship with Cooper, sadly, is probably one of the only such relationships she ever had if JJW has been retconned out of the story and her character never evolved into the Audrey we saw at the end of Season 2. To build on that, while I do think she may have decided to keep the child to have someone in her life to love and whom would love her back, if she was unaware that she was raped, it's possible she assumed she and Cooper had a romantic encounter that she couldn't remember as a result of the bank explosion/coma, and she kept Richard assuming it was Cooper's. Richard was a way of keeping a part of Cooper in her life, since she couldn't remember the one moment she had always hoped to have with him, never knowing that she was actually assaulted and raped by the person whom she trusted the most. (Yes, I know it was Mr. C, but to Audrey it would have been Cooper.)
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 (SPOILERS)

Postby laughingpinecone » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:57 am

Thank you! I was talking about it just yesterday with friends... the way we saw it, Tammy's comment that Audrey never tested for paternity, maybe because deep down she knew basically boils down to three major options...

1. straightforward way out: Tammy is left wondering why Audrey didn't test for paternity because she doesn't know about JJW, but Audrey does, and so do we (like Vivian and Annie eminently proved between TSHOTP and TFD, not mentioned does not equal retconned). As far as Audrey knew, she only had sex that one time, got pregnant, there was really no need to test for paternity. While I don't think all of Tammy's hypotheses and hearsays are to be taken as facts, or at least they give us the option of whether to believe them or not (for example, I'm not buying her final note for Audrey about the private care facility - we know there's some supernatural nonsense involved, it's gotta be more interesting than that), I'm left wondering why Frost would have Tammy insist, more than once, that "maybe deep down she knew". Headcanoning that she just defaulted to thinking Richard was JJW's mostly works for me but it would work a lot better if Tammy had just said "she never tested, bizarre, huh?" and left it at that. Mind your own business, Tammy! How the hell do you know what she's thinking anyway, go find Audrey and bring her back to ask her what she was thinking and source your papers properly, in the spirit of investigative journalism if nothing else! Chop-chop! (I also really want Tammy to meet Audrey but that's another topic for another day)

2. deep down she knew that... she'd been magically granted Cooper's baby? Or she woke up, had consensual (from her pov) sex and snugly went back to her coma for a few more weeks? Or she figures that having sex with Dale Cooper is such a supernatural experience that it triggers memory issues, like the Lodge portals, and she must've forgotten? "Sure, that totally could've happened, I'll tell myself that", especially with Cooper turning down her advances being such a key moment for them? This scenario doesn't work for me because "deep down, she knew... but actually she was catastrophically wrong" is almost weirder than the JJW option "the narrator supposes that the character had some kind of subconscious knowledge, but actually the character straight-up knew something the narrator didn't"... it doesn't paint Audrey in such a good light, either. And why not test for it, if the thing she felt deep down was a desired outcome?

3. I'm not taking credit for this, I was flopping between options 1 and 2 without finding a satisfying solution when friends came to the rescue. Let's assume that "deep down she knew" means what it says on the tin. Deep down, she knew what happened. This canon's kinda big on the subconscious being right, after all, and memory suppression and all that jazz. Do her actions fit this scenario? If she had this faintest awareness of something something Dale Cooper happening while she was in a coma, ergo rape, would she pursue it once she was awake? She could tell herself the baby was JJW's and keep that horrifying feeling at bay, but getting a paternity test done would've meant indulging the possibility that her gut feeling was right. It would've meant the possibility of destroying her memory of the one good human contact in her life. She was better off not knowing, keeping up her picture of Coop and telling lil Richard what a cool FBI agent he was.
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:29 am

I think L/F were on the same page about 1956 girl being Sarah...probably. But DKL made a very deliberate choice not to directly spell it out, and I tend to think he wouldn’t be thrilled with the book doing so. And I doubt he approved this or any aspect of the book. As of a few weeks ago, Sabrina said DKL had no clue what was in the book, and Mark has indicated that their partnership is based largely on trust. I think DKL is content remaining ignorant of what’s in the books, but would consider this particular reveal a “sadness” that takes away the audience’s room to dream.

(That said, I really doubt DKL intended us to think 1956 girl was a time-traveling Diane. To me, the reuse of the song represents a thematic link between two violations.)

I also see no reason to believe that Audrey knew or assumed that she & Dale had a sexual encounter, consensual or otherwise. Occam’s razor says she believed the kid was JJW’s and elected not to tell him, which happens all the time in reality for a host of wildly complex psychological and emotional reasons. I lean toward laughingpinecone’s option 1, although I do see the appeal of option 3.
User avatar
Xavi
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

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

Postby Xavi » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:03 am

Mr C wrote:"Good-bye, my son."


How could Mr C possibly know? Did Richard tell him? Then, how could Richard possibly know, when not even the mother had no clue?


("Two birds one stone" - My Prayer - "... and no songbirds are singing." - Dale and Diane gone and far away, lost their identities and continue without any past, without any grip on this newly created world as Linda and Richard.)

Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests