The Secret History of Twin Peaks

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

dkenny78
RR Diner Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:36 am

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by dkenny78 »

Really hoping for an in-universe explanation but I won't be heartbroken if it comes down to just a gaffe. Still, Frost has always struck me as so meticulous and detail-oriented that this latest mistake seems out of character. I mean, Norma's mother appeared in three episodes including one that he wrote himself (and another that his brother wrote).

This all reminds me of a situation that happened with the show 'Frasier.' One of the central characters was Frasier's father Martin, a retired police officer. This contradicted a line of dialogue from the earlier show 'Cheers' where Frasier mentioned that his father was 1) a research scientist and 2) deceased. Rather than ignore the retcon, 'Frasier' turned it into a joke, explaining that Frasier had gotten into a fight with his father and that's why he lied about his status ("you were dead! What did it matter what job you had?").
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Gabriel »

dkenny78 wrote:Really hoping for an in-universe explanation but I won't be heartbroken if it comes down to just a gaffe. Still, Frost has always struck me as so meticulous and detail-oriented that this latest mistake seems out of character. I mean, Norma's mother appeared in three episodes including one that he wrote himself (and another that his brother wrote).

This all reminds me of a situation that happened with the show 'Frasier.' One of the central characters was Frasier's father Martin, a retired police officer. This contradicted a line of dialogue from the earlier show 'Cheers' where Frasier mentioned that his father was 1) a research scientist and 2) deceased. Rather than ignore the retcon, 'Frasier' turned it into a joke, explaining that Frasier had gotten into a fight with his father and that's why he lied about his status ("you were dead! What did it matter what job you had?").
Not to mention Frasier's 'saintly' deceased mother turned up in Cheers with a very different demeanour. She told Diane never to see her son again, that she had a gun and knew how to use it!

I think, as a rule, fans can retcon most inconsistencies themselves. I never needed to know why Klingons looked different in the original Star Trek from the later versions, for example. Knowing it's fiction, I was aware that it was just a budgetary thing and didn't need to know any more. DS9 made a good joke out of it, giving a non-answer in Trials and Tribbleations, which was far more amusing than Enterprise's subsequent prosaic explanations. If everything was consistent, where would the fun be? Speculation and discussion make it all far more enjoyable!

On the other hand, maybe Lynch and Frost are 'decanonising' a bunch of storylines from the original run! ;)
Qubism
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:35 pm
Location: Another Place - Where we're from, the birds sing a pretty song and there's always music in the air.

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Qubism »

In my final wait for the book (was hoping amazon uk would maybe send it out early, but not for me! - sad face) I thought I should finally track down the Access guide and now its just arrived.

I just wondered if any experts among you found any inconsistencies between:
the Access guide and the TV series and FWWM
or the Access guide and what some of us know of Secret History so far?

I've been busy at work and all I notice is the very early pages of Access cover........History of Twin Peaks (Non secret presumably....)

I guess with all the different authors that wrote Lauras Diary, Coops Tapes, Access guide and now the Secret History, it would be a miracle if they all matched and meshed perfectly with each other AND the TV show and the film........

I still love them all and each takes us a little further into that world and it's characters :-)
User avatar
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Peru

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Soolsma »

Maybe BOBCOOP went back in time and had to mess with Norma's mother so that Annie would never be born, also while back there, he accidentally somehow managed to change Nadine's father's name and thereby her fate in a butterfly-effect-esque way.

Nah... I'm not buying any alternate timeline stuff... ... yet

Funny how one day I can be aggravated by seemingly inconsistencies canon in a Lynchian universe, while the other day the other day I'm watching Lost Highway and halfway through the movie the protagonist turns into a completely different person and I'm like: 'yeah sure, why not?'.

It would be weird though, re-watching some old episodes and having to think a whole bunch of stuff apparently didn't happen.

Really hoping there won't be any messing with Annie, especially for your sake Ross, you seem annoyed enough :P
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
speedbeatz
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:20 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by speedbeatz »

I've finished reading the book; out of respect for the author I'm going to refrain from discussing main plot points in public until it's been officially released.
However, I will tell you three things:
  • There are three main direct inconsistencies with the show, which have all been brought up here: Margaret's tattoo, the Nadine/Ed backstory, and Norma's parents. None of these inconsistencies are explained one way or the other in the book, nor is any idea of a "parallel" Twin Peaks hinted at in any form.
  • Though it's not explicitly presented as a "Volume 1", the book ends on what I would call a cliffhanger, and (as already mentioned) sets up a possible follow-up, which seems more likely to take the form of a second book than to be addressed in the show. Only a select few post-Season 2 events are touched upon (mainly the fates of a few characters - Annie is not one of them, and is not mentioned in any capacity), most of which were revealed in the recent Google Books leak.
  • The identity of the archivist has been correctly guessed on this forum.
Smiling Bag
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:19 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Smiling Bag »

So I can't help myself and love "ratings", based on your expecations (which granted are highly variant amongst fans), where would you rate it 1-10? Let say 1 is a total dis-service to canon as we know it, 5 is a solid companion to the mythology, and 10 is that it absolutely enhances much of what we know and builds a broader love for the mythology of the show?


I know these are somewhat vague terms, but you get the idea. I'd love to see 1-10 rating from folks who get a sneak peek.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by mtwentz »

speedbeatz wrote:I've finished reading the book; out of respect for the author I'm going to refrain from discussing main plot points in public until it's been officially released.
However, I will tell you three things:
  • There are three main direct inconsistencies with the show, which have all been brought up here: Margaret's tattoo, the Nadine/Ed backstory, and Norma's parents. None of these inconsistencies are explained one way or the other in the book, nor is any idea of a "parallel" Twin Peaks hinted at in any form.
  • Though it's not explicitly presented as a "Volume 1", the book ends on what I would call a cliffhanger, and (as already mentioned) sets up a possible follow-up, which seems more likely to take the form of a second book than to be addressed in the show. Only a select few post-Season 2 events are touched upon (mainly the fates of a few characters - Annie is not one of them, and is not mentioned in any capacity), most of which were revealed in the recent Google Books leak.
  • The identity of the archivist has been correctly guessed on this forum.
So is it correct to say the main plotlin of this book you do not expect to see in the TV show at all?
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
Ross
Global Moderator
Posts: 2199
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Ross »

speedbeatz wrote:I've finished reading the book; out of respect for the author I'm going to refrain from discussing main plot points in public until it's been officially released.
However, I will tell you three things:
  • There are three main direct inconsistencies with the show, which have all been brought up here: Margaret's tattoo, the Nadine/Ed backstory, and Norma's parents. None of these inconsistencies are explained one way or the other in the book, nor is any idea of a "parallel" Twin Peaks hinted at in any form.
  • Though it's not explicitly presented as a "Volume 1", the book ends on what I would call a cliffhanger, and (as already mentioned) sets up a possible follow-up, which seems more likely to take the form of a second book than to be addressed in the show. Only a select few post-Season 2 events are touched upon (mainly the fates of a few characters - Annie is not one of them, and is not mentioned in any capacity), most of which were revealed in the recent Google Books leak.
  • The identity of the archivist has been correctly guessed on this forum.
I wonder if Annie has just been retconned out entirely? No mention in the book and no Heather in S3.
"I can see half my life's history in your face... And I'm not sure that I want to."
http://twinpeakssoundtrackdesign.blogspot.com/
speedbeatz
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:20 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by speedbeatz »

Smiling Bag wrote:So I can't help myself and love "ratings", based on your expecations (which granted are highly variant amongst fans), where would you rate it 1-10? Let say 1 is a total dis-service to canon as we know it, 5 is a solid companion to the mythology, and 10 is that it absolutely enhances much of what we know and builds a broader love for the mythology of the show?


I know these are somewhat vague terms, but you get the idea. I'd love to see 1-10 rating from folks who get a sneak peek.
As you said, I feel like reactions to the book will vary greatly depending on what you're hoping to get out of it. I think the early marketing of it as the "Secret Lives" may have done it a disservice and created some presumptions about the content that have ended up not being applicable to the finished work.
All that being said, and without whatever context the new season or a potential second volume may provide, I would give the book a solid 7 - very interesting and well-written, and it serves a definite purpose in expanding the canon of "Twin Peaks", but not necessarily vital to understand or enjoy the overarching story.

Ross wrote:I wonder if Annie has just been retconned out entirely? No mention in the book and no Heather in S3.
I may be misremembering, but didn't someone (my mind is telling me either Frost or Kyle) say on Twitter that we would absolutely find out the answer to the question of "How's Annie?"
Plans may have changed, but if someone can dig up what I'm thinking of, that would be great.
Edit: it was indeed Kyle, but almost two years ago - just after the S3 announcement and almost a year before filming.
https://twitter.com/Kyle_MacLachlan/sta ... 5202400257
User avatar
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Peru

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Soolsma »

speedbeatz wrote:I've finished reading the book; out of respect for the author I'm going to refrain from discussing main plot points in public until it's been officially released.
However, I will tell you three things:
  • There are three main direct inconsistencies with the show, which have all been brought up here: Margaret's tattoo, the Nadine/Ed backstory, and Norma's parents. None of these inconsistencies are explained one way or the other in the book, nor is any idea of a "parallel" Twin Peaks hinted at in any form.
  • Though it's not explicitly presented as a "Volume 1", the book ends on what I would call a cliffhanger, and (as already mentioned) sets up a possible follow-up, which seems more likely to take the form of a second book than to be addressed in the show. Only a select few post-Season 2 events are touched upon (mainly the fates of a few characters - Annie is not one of them, and is not mentioned in any capacity), most of which were revealed in the recent Google Books leak.
  • The identity of the archivist has been correctly guessed on this forum.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Attachments
drool.gif
drool.gif (497.97 KiB) Viewed 8504 times
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
User avatar
Ross
Global Moderator
Posts: 2199
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Ross »

speedbeatz wrote:
Ross wrote:I wonder if Annie has just been retconned out entirely? No mention in the book and no Heather in S3.
I may be misremembering, but didn't someone (my mind is telling me either Frost or Kyle) say on Twitter that we would absolutely find out the answer to the question of "How's Annie?"
Plans may have changed, but if someone can dig up what I'm thinking of, that would be great.
Edit: it was indeed Kyle, but almost two years ago - just after the S3 announcement and almost a year before filming.
https://twitter.com/Kyle_MacLachlan/sta ... 5202400257
Kyle may have been assuming, as he (much) later said he hadn't read any scripts.
"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
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Peru

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Soolsma »

Ross wrote: I wonder if Annie has just been retconned out entirely? No mention in the book and no Heather in S3.
They'd be crazy to let that plot device slip entirely. Annie isn't like Nadine's last name or Norma's mother, Annie and Coop's story is really TP defining.

What the cliffhanger at the ends towards the end of the book point at is that there's a whole lot of data the FBI is still keeping from TP, so probably even more levels above top secret. I'd guess that most of the stuff involving Coop (and mentions of Annie) would wind up there.
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
User avatar
dugpa
Site Admin
Posts: 1254
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:45 am
Contact:

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by dugpa »

I wonder if the altering of Norma's mom's backstory could be connected to a re-edit of Season 2 where they remove the less interesting elements (i.e. Norma's mom, Nadine and Mike, James and Evelyn, Little Nicky...)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3680
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

Soolsma wrote:
Ross wrote: I wonder if Annie has just been retconned out entirely? No mention in the book and no Heather in S3.
They'd be crazy to let that plot device slip entirely. Annie isn't like Nadine's last name or Norma's mother, Annie and Coop's story is really TP defining.

What the cliffhanger at the ends towards the end of the book point at is that there's a whole lot of data the FBI is still keeping from TP, so probably even more levels above top secret. I'd guess that most of the stuff involving Coop (and mentions of Annie) would wind up there.
That's a really interesting thought. Remember, this report is filtered through Dale Cooper. It's possible that Coop (or Bad Coop) intentionally fudged information about Norma's background to keep Annie out of the records (either to protect her from BOB or to make her a more available target to him - depending which Coop was in control at the time).

I sure hope this is the explanation.
User avatar
Ross
Global Moderator
Posts: 2199
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

Re: SPOILERS: The Secret History of Twin Peaks

Post by Ross »

"We're not going to talk about Annie. In fact we're not going to talk about Annie at all!"
"I can see half my life's history in your face... And I'm not sure that I want to."
http://twinpeakssoundtrackdesign.blogspot.com/
Post Reply