The Secret History of Twin Peaks

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

L. Hazanko
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:28 am

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby L. Hazanko » Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:57 pm

Ross wrote:The botching of the Ed/Nadine story is really hard to understand. Especially since Frost wrote episode 8. And isn't Nadine's maiden name of Butler mentioned more than once in the series?

Even more frustrating than the tattoo switch.

I'm confident that they're not botches. There has to be some kind of in-story explanation for why these details have changed.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby N. Needleman » Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:58 pm

Honestly, the book looks pretty fantastic so I am mostly sanguine about continuity gaffes, though that's definitely a big one if it's legit. They've always been a part of the merchandising materials so it almost feels like a hello from an old friend, lol. Plus I just liked Hawk's story.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Sidgwick
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:55 am

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Sidgwick » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:39 pm

There always exists the possibility that there is an unreliable narrator(s) in play.
User avatar
Ross
Posts: 2204
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Ross » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:44 pm

N. Needleman wrote:Honestly, the book looks pretty fantastic so I am mostly sanguine about continuity gaffes, though that's definitely a big one if it's legit. They've always been a part of the merchandising materials so it almost feels like a hello from an old friend, lol. Plus I just liked Hawk's story.

The book does look amazing. I'm not trying to complain at all- especially since we haven't even read the whole book. But the continuity things just make you say "hmmm" when they pop up. It has to be hard coming up with backstory for characters 25 years after the fact. Especially since I don't think a whole lot of thought was there originally about the pasts of many of these characters. They were originally there to be suspects in a murder mystery. Like we've talked about before, I don't think from the series alone you could say exactly how Maddy was related to the Palmer's for instance. But I have no doubt the book is going to be great. There may just be a few things that frustrate. And as others have said, maybe there's a reason behind it? I have no idea. But I'm excited to find out.
"I can see half my life's history in your face... And I'm not sure that I want to."
http://twinpeakssoundtrackdesign.blogspot.com/
User avatar
GeekBoyEric74
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Long Beach, CA
Contact:

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby GeekBoyEric74 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:08 pm

L. Hazanko wrote:Hello, long-time lurker first-time poster here. I finally registered because this contradictory Ed/Nadine stuff is really interesting to me. I remember when the first teaser video for the book came out, there was a lot of discussion here about the wrong tattoo being on Margaret's medical report. It shows the markings Major Briggs received on his neck instead. Someone asked Frost about it on Twitter, and I don't recall exactly what he said, but I remember feeling like he was more or less indicating that this maybe-error was actually exactly as intended.

Since those tattoo discussions, I've been wondering if in this book and possibly season 3, we may be seeing the timeline altered somehow, perhaps caused by the Lodge. This new version of how Ed and Nadine got together (with a new maiden name for Nadine!) is fueling that train of thought for me.

It's been, what, 5 years by our understanding since Frost and Lynch started discussing seriously how to return to Twin Peaks? I find it very hard to believe Mark Frost just forgot what he'd written before about Ed's sad history, or couldn't be bothered to pull up that episode and review, or hell, Google for transcripts. I'm thinking that these inconsistencies are fully intentional, and meant to stand out as very strange to fans like us who have all these details committed to memory. I'm willing to bet that why the past has changed will be one of the central mysteries of the book/new season.

"One chants out between two worlds..."


yeah...I'm starting to think a messed with timeline is going to be a part of this show. And these are the first examples. There's just no way that Mark Frost just forgot.
dkenny78
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:36 am

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby dkenny78 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:38 pm

GeekBoyEric74 wrote:
yeah...I'm starting to think a messed with timeline is going to be a part of this show. And these are the first examples. There's just no way that Mark Frost just forgot.


I didn't see the original page before it was taken down but is it possible that it's the result of an unreliable narrator, and that the mistake is intentional? I would much prefer this to the alternate universe theory which just doesn't sit right to me. We've waited 25+ years to return to this amazing world with a large and rich cast and a fascinating mythology that was only barely explored. Do we need to go the alternate universe route already? There seems to be enough material in 'Earth One Twin Peaks' to keep us busy.

I'd actually prefer a genuine continuity gaffe over the alternate universe theory.
User avatar
Cerulean
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:11 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Cerulean » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:45 pm

Sidgwick wrote:There always exists the possibility that there is an unreliable narrator(s) in play.


Thought about this too. It's a bit of a long shot, but despite the obvious wealth of information the archivist has, it's possible he could be filling in some gaps or trying to get across a certain narrative, even a deliberately incorrect one. That said, I'm convinced Major Briggs is the archivist and can't see him doing something like that. :wink:

Realistically though, there's too many clearly obvious continuity errors here and in previous leaks/teasers, and I don't think it's a mistake on Frost's part. One or two that could have been overlooked is understandable (even expected), but it seems pretty obvious now that something bigger is going on here.

I'm not 100% sold on the alternate history/timeline theory, but didn't Frost specifically mention in an interview when season 3 was announced that time is an important factor in the plot? Curious that Lynch mentioned something identical in Lynch on Lynch about plans for a third season.
User avatar
Soolsma
Posts: 1171
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Soolsma » Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:06 pm

Cerulean wrote:That said, I'm convinced Major Briggs is the archivist and can't see him doing something like that.


My guess is Briggs too. Just a guess, nothing more.
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
Aqua
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Aqua » Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:38 pm

Re alternative timelines - it is obviously part of fun speculating on new season (and there are elements of at least potentially retroactively changing universes, such as coop advising laura on not taking thering in fwwm post his lodge abduction, if it is indeed a post- one). But there do not seem to be too many real signs of that as of now - and even if taking say lost highway where we see a changed reality due to (most viably) fugue-type case as an example, an underlying illness if any :) seems to be different in this case. One could maybe argue that you have potentially either psychosis or schizophrenia-type illness in coops case which makes him have psychoses or other sightings of things that do not exist.

I.e. his case, as the case of a presumed narrator from whose view the series is mostly experienced, would most likely seem to be some kind of crippling, but not inversing, an identity crisis-type state - and in any case, there always remained also a simple possibility of him say being mushroom poisoned by windom earle granting him a lodge 'access'. And even if taking fwwm's first part as cooper's conscience's rewrites or additions unto itself presumably after the events st the end of the series - thus btw indirectly confirming at least a POV anchoring of what is seen in the series with somebody actually present in it - do there really appear to be any other direct examples of a main reality/timeline shown being skewed to either side.

Otoh, paradoxically or not so much, seeing a town as an alive, breathing buffer of collective unconscious has always worked flawlessly in hindsight, no matter how many additions of hidden siblings/relational links or for that matter any other unknown past details ..
Last edited by Aqua on Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby N. Needleman » Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:47 pm

I still believe Laura Dern is Diane.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2491
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:57 pm

A discrepancy like the Ed/Nadine backstory is sort of a lose-lose scenario for me. I personally find "alternate universe" stories contrived and uninteresting (particularly those where some "fated" event like Ed shooting out Nadine's eye occurs years later under entirely different circumstances). This is starting to sound uncomfortably like the final season of Lost, where the writers made the moronic mistake of trying to get the audience to invest in "new" versions of the characters with totally different backstories, taking valuable screen time away from the character arcs we had actually been invested in for five years. But, on the other hand, I REALLY hate continuity errors (and love Ed's speech in Episode 8.)...so, I guess I'm now rooting for the third season to be an "alternate universe" story, in the interest of saving continuity.

While this is sort of aggravating, I'm trying to keep in mind that most of Lynch's post-TP films have been, in one form or another, "alternate universe" stories (albeit from a very subjective first-person standpoint which probably wouldn't work for an ensemble like TP). I rank MD, IE and LH among my favorite films ever. So I'll continue to have faith that the "alternate universe" device will ultimately pay off in an interesting, challenging, beautiful way, and not just be a Fringe / Terminator / "Crisis on Infinite Earths"-type traditional sci-fi thing.

Still, it's sort of weird and confusing to publish a "Secret History" of Twin Peaks which chronicles history from a different version of the world than that which we've known. Hopefully there's a complex, cool payoff to all of this coming, if not in the book then in the series.
User avatar
ToriFreak2016
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:01 am

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby ToriFreak2016 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:36 pm

So long time lurker....I have checked these boards religiously since the announcement. But I had to comment on Ed and Nadine. To me, the spoilers mentioned for Ed and Nadine make sense when you view Twin Peaks as a soap opera. Characters lie. Even those with the best of intentions in soaps. Maybe that was Eds version, doesn't mean it was the truth. I don't think we need alternate time lines to explain it.

Just my thoughts,

Zak
User avatar
ToriFreak2016
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:01 am

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby ToriFreak2016 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:09 pm

Haha ...now I want to chat. Want to experience this with everyone. Still in shock my book is preordered and here in less than 2 weeks.
User avatar
pineweasel
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:56 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby pineweasel » Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:15 pm

GeekBoyEric74 wrote:
From what I read, it says Ed met Nadine in 1984, some five years before the show took place. What seems to be their first meeting is being recounted by Hawk, who describes her as having gone to high school with them, but was "a few years behind them" in age- which explains why she was 35 in 1989, when Ed and Norma were at least 38. Ed rushes to her aid after nearly killing her by accident. Also, her name is given as Nadie Gertz, not Nadine Butler. Ed's story on the series seemed to have her hooking up with Nadine after Norma ran out on him "straight out of high school" and marrying Hank. And then Ed shooting Nadine's eye out on their Honeymoon, which was described as being about 20 years prior. Like I said, Mark Frost wrote the episode which gave Nadine's backstory, so he couldn't have just forgotten. None of this matches up.


1984, interesting. It was strange to see "Est. 1984" on the RR micro site considering Norma has been working there since around '69 (unless 1984 is the year she bought the diner). I'm open to "moving through time" though. I think I'm more bothered by how quickly Norma's hair grew between FWWM and the pilot!
User avatar
crazyscottishguy
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:17 am

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Postby crazyscottishguy » Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:43 am

Honestly, i truly hope there's no alternate timeline/ universe; it might just resemble too much to LOST.

Return to “Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests