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

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

User avatar
Troubbble
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:55 am

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

Postby Troubbble » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:19 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote: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.


Mark said somewhere that he expected the audience to have identified Sarah as the Girl on their own, by the end. Not sure how he felt that was driven home in the series, since it was something obvious to speculate after episode 8, but didn't seem clearly confirmed afterward... But whatever. Since that was his expectation, I'm sure it was also David's--and that David wouldn't mind it being confirmed in the book.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1559
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 9:40 am

Troubbble wrote:Mark said somewhere that he expected the audience to have identified Sarah as the Girl on their own, by the end. Not sure how he felt that was driven home in the series, since it was something obvious to speculate after episode 8, but didn't seem clearly confirmed afterward... But whatever. Since that was his expectation, I'm sure it was also David's--and that David wouldn't mind it being confirmed in the book.


I don’t think we can assume that L/F have the exact same interpreration of the material or expectation of audience reaction. Here’s a quote from DKL, reacting to his Lost Highway cowriter Barry Gifford spelling out the film’s “meaning” in the press:

“Barry may have his idea of what the film means and I may have my own idea, and they may be two different things. And yet, we worked together on the same film. The beauty of a film that is more abstract is everybody has a different take. Nobody agrees on anything in the world today. When you are spoon-fed a film, more people instantly know what it is. I love things that leave room to dream and are open to various interpretations. It's a beautiful thing. It doesn't do any good for Barry to say 'This is what it means.' Film is what it means. If Barry or anyone else could capture what the film is in words, then that's poetry.”

I think if DKL had wanted to explicitly spell out “Sarah=1956 girl,” he would have done so in the series.
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 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:49 am

Xavi wrote:
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.)


Not sure what you mean. Mr. C knew because Richard said that his mother was Audrey Horne.

Richard himself may not have ever figured out that Mr. C was his father - it depends on what he deduced from Audrey's photograph of Cooper that she kept around.
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 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:34 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
Troubbble wrote:Mark said somewhere that he expected the audience to have identified Sarah as the Girl on their own, by the end. Not sure how he felt that was driven home in the series, since it was something obvious to speculate after episode 8, but didn't seem clearly confirmed afterward... But whatever. Since that was his expectation, I'm sure it was also David's--and that David wouldn't mind it being confirmed in the book.


I don’t think we can assume that L/F have the exact same interpreration of the material or expectation of audience reaction. [...] I think if DKL had wanted to explicitly spell out “Sarah=1956 girl,” he would have done so in the series.


I don't. YMMV.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Manwith
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:04 pm

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

Postby Manwith » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:04 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:I think if DKL had wanted to explicitly spell out “Sarah=1956 girl,” he would have done so in the series.


Lynch didn't write the series, he co-wrote it. So this sentence falsely attributing the series to him isn't very persuasive.

To put it another way, it's not possible for us to know what the thinking was in the "writers room" but whatever the thinking was, it wasn't Lynch doing the thinking, it was the writers.
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 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:43 am

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 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:21 pm



Does this all but confirm Laura was still murdered then? That wasn't retroactively wiped out, even with Tammy remembering the "alternate timeline" version of events with Laura disappearing?
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1559
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 12:57 pm

Manwith wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:I think if DKL had wanted to explicitly spell out “Sarah=1956 girl,” he would have done so in the series.


Lynch didn't write the series, he co-wrote it. So this sentence falsely attributing the series to him isn't very persuasive.

To put it another way, it's not possible for us to know what the thinking was in the "writers room" but whatever the thinking was, it wasn't Lynch doing the thinking, it was the writers.


I didn’t mean to imply otherwise — although DKL did direct and edit the show, which gives him more control beyond the scripting stage in terms of how ideas are presented. Anyway, I was responding to a comment stating that if Frost feels one way about an aspect of the series, DKL must feel the same. We know that Frost wanted to spell the reveal out, since he did so — in a book that DKL had nothing to do with. However, in terms of DKL’s intentions, we can only look at the show, since he likely doesn’t even know what is in the book.

So my point (perhaps poorly expressed) was not that the show is attributable only to DKL...it was that, in terms of speculating about DKL’s feelings/intent, all we have to go off of is the show, which left things intentionally vague. Does that make sense?
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 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:05 pm

vicksvapor77 wrote:


Does this all but confirm Laura was still murdered then? That wasn't retroactively wiped out, even with Tammy remembering the "alternate timeline" version of events with Laura disappearing?


I thought maybe he meant that we aren't seeing any effects of the altering of history until after Cooper travels back in time in Episode 17. In other words, episodes 1-16 and most of 17 (and perhaps also the material in TSHOTP?) follow on the continuity of the original series and FWWM, not the altered timeline.
User avatar
laughingpinecone
Posts: 681
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 1:56 pm

FlyingSquirrel wrote:
Xavi wrote:
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?


Not sure what you mean. Mr. C knew because Richard said that his mother was Audrey Horne.

Richard himself may not have ever figured out that Mr. C was his father - it depends on what he deduced from Audrey's photograph of Cooper that she kept around.


Richard didn't know (as FlyingSquirrel points out, he may or may not have an informed opinion. Or rather, of course he does have an informed opinion, but we don't know exactly informed HOW, so it's hard to guess the specifics).
The doppelganger observes that a woman he knows he raped 25 years prior has a 25ish years old son and does the math.
I would point out that it's still very much a possibility that Richard is JJW's son, a variable the doppelganger doesn't know about. What that line of his confirms 100% is that HE knows that it's within the realm of possibility that he could be the father of Audrey's 25ish years old son.
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
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 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:54 pm

laughingpinecone wrote: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...


I think the whole crux to all of this is JJW and whether or not he was retconned. The Ben now owning Ghostwood switch-up makes me wonder if JJW even came to town since I thought the whole impetus for his arrival was Ben being forced to give Ghostwood over to Catherine and being on the verge of financial ruin. To me, if Audrey assumed it was his child, I'm not sure why she wouldn't have reached out to him since they were clearly smitten with each other at the end of Season 2 - unless, as someone else had hypothesized, he was killed by his business partner or wanted nothing to do with the child. I think the whole Ghostwood retcon makes it more likely that they never met, though. If Audrey never met JJW and found out she was pregnant though she hadn't had sex with anyone, it's possible she assumed (or hoped - not saying it's right) that something had happened between her and Coop prior to the bank blast that she couldn't remember as a result of her injuries, opposed to the darker possibility of being assaulted by an orderly in the hospital while in a coma. This might be why she never had the paternity test - because she was too scared to know the truth.

I think Tammy just means and is assuming that Audrey never had the paternity test because she thinks Audrey knew who the father was. Tammy doesn't know that Mr. C is Richard's father. She takes the framed picture of Cooper as a hint as to who Richard's father could be, but she doesn't have the info we have from TR where Mr. C confirms it's his son. To me, if Audrey remembered the assault, she wouldn't have kept a framed picture of Cooper as this would have been the ultimate betrayal by the one person she trusted the most. I think this points more to her not remembering it or this Audrey possibly being a tulpa.
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Posts: 1838
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

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

Postby Audrey Horne » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:16 pm

But you know to quote Frost this is what happens in real life. I have no idea why they bothered to retcon Wheeler, have Audrey now attached to fake Cooper (to recall the original pairing from the glory days of the series), break free of the Horne empire and money, have a devil child... and then do nothing with it?

I mean to each their own, but twenty seven years to get such dour endings for all these characters for me is such a waste. If it were The a Wire or The Sopranos, I’d get it, but the style of this world doesn’t really gel for me in stretching to make it realistic.

And why did the Haywards split... because of the Ben affair thing? Wasn’t it basically a thing both Will and Eileen knew about and were keeping from Donna? Seemed like they worked that out years ago, and with two other kids would have worked even harder to keep the family together.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
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 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:41 pm

User avatar
SpookyDollhouse
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:22 pm
Contact:

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

Postby SpookyDollhouse » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:48 pm

Audrey Horne wrote:But you know to quote Frost this is what happens in real life. I have no idea why they bothered to retcon Wheeler, have Audrey now attached to fake Cooper (to recall the original pairing from the glory days of the series), break free of the Horne empire and money, have a devil child... and then do nothing with it?

I mean to each their own, but twenty seven years to get such dour endings for all these characters for me is such a waste. If it were The a Wire or The Sopranos, I’d get it, but the style of this world doesn’t really gel for me in stretching to make it realistic.

And why did the Haywards split... because of the Ben affair thing? Wasn’t it basically a thing both Will and Eileen knew about and were keeping from Donna? Seemed like they worked that out years ago, and with two other kids would have worked even harder to keep the family together.


This is precisely why Lynch probably hasn't read Frost's books, and why I don't take them as gospel. Some of it totally fits, some of it comes off as Frost's own personal version. While that's not a bad thing it inevitably doesn't always gel.
Agent Earle
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:38 am

Well now, in this latest interview Jerry just posted a link to, Frost puts paid to all the rumors about Lynch not being present during the filming of S 2 'cause he was "off filming Wild at Heart" so that's why the show went to shit. Frost actually says Lynch was off during much of S 1 filming, so there ya have it. I wonder if now we'll finally see this information reflect in the writings/speakings about the show which have been misleading people all these years, even though it wasn't that hard to do the (chronological) math and see it was just bullshit (Lynch couldn't very well be off filming Wild at Heart during S 2, since that movie debuted a few months before S 2 even started to run) - I'm guessing the urban legends will continue, since, ya know, it's just something that "the other guy" says...

Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests