Around the dinner table, the conversation was lively. Thank you but for now, the forum has been archived.
I think all have discussed various dimensions etc but after the Roadhouse scene at the end of 16 I believe we are truly dealing with Realiry Vs Non Reality. That there is an overlap of events at the roadhouse of the reality vs the non reality and that moment of reality came crashing in on the non reality of Audrey's world and threw her into the tailspin we saw? does that explain Ruby screaming but no one hearing? Was she an example of the unreality combined with the reality of the roadhouse? Was James even up there singing his song or was that the Non Reality of Rene's fantasy? I think there is indeed two worlds at play here but what is realiry in what we have seen and what is Non Reality and when the two collide - as they did for Audrey - what will that mean for twin peaks and our charachters? I know that is the big question and We probably won't get all the answers but I can't wait to see what happens when those two worlds continue to "smear".
I think all have discussed various dimensions etc but after the Roadhouse scene at the end of 16 I believe we are truly dealing with Realiry Vs Non Reality. That there is an overlap of events at the roadhouse of the reality vs the non reality and that moment of reality came crashing in on the non reality of Audrey's world and threw her into the tailspin we saw? does that explain Ruby screaming but no one hearing? Was she an example of the unreality combined with the reality of the roadhouse? Was James even up there singing his song or was that the Non Reality of Rene's fantasy? I think there is indeed two worlds at play here but what is realiry in what we have seen and what is Non Reality and when the two collide - as they did for Audrey - what will that mean for twin peaks and our charachters? I know that is the big question and We probably won't get all the answers but I can't wait to see what happens when those two worlds continue to "smear".
Interesting thoughts. I like your use of the word "smear." I think that your suggestion of a blurring of "reality and non-reality" calls into question our ability to distinguish the two, and thus the possibility/meaning/importance of "reality" itself. The Return presents a mystery beyond systematic or rational explanation or comprehension, I think.
But I anticipate that systematic. unifying--and thus, IMO, far-fetched-- theories will continue to proliferate on this forum for some time. While I think this, arguably, misses "the point," I recognize that the instinct to respond to the questioning of reality with supposed evidence of its formal or structural existence in narrative is an understandably human one.
The beauty and appeal of this series is how it plays to those human instincts to analyze and question. Its challenges us and ask something of us as the audience ..... and the beauty of it - there is a freedom given to us as the audience - a gift really - to make some parts of it our own. We are given facts that continue to lead us down the road of contemplation but there is enough left unanswered to push us to think and imagine. I love every morsel of that gift and savor it!
The beauty and appeal of this series is how it plays to those human instincts to analyze and question. Its challenges us and ask something of us as the audience ..... and the beauty of it - there is a freedom given to us as the audience - a gift really - to make some parts of it our own. We are given facts that continue to lead us down the road of contemplation but there is enough left unanswered to push us to think and imagine. I love every morsel of that gift and savor it!
Well said!
People love puzzles, until they figure out they don't have all of the pieces, or enough of them to be able to see the complete picture. I feel a little like a dog chasing its tail sometimes, there is just so much packed into this season that I think we are going to spend years unpacking, analyzing, and trying to digest and figure it all out. I think that's the real gift from Lynch and Frost; they have given us a multi-dimensional puzzle worthy of the armchair speculators and analysts we have all become on the interwebs. So much better than the water cooler conversations in the 1990's!!
I agree with this idea on the use of the Road House. Never liked the idea that everything that happened there was not real. After the season is over, unless we get more detail on it, I figure I will waste at least some brain matter review all the Road House scenes to make a guess at which ones or what details are real and not.
Maybe MC is the clue? The gigs announced by him are not real? James Hurley would be included which wouldn't surprise me at all. He (MC) showed up for the first time before THE Nine inch nails and their show definetely looked otherworldly.
Good thoughts Paige and Badalamenti Fan!! I don't think we'll get an answer to "who is the dreamer," and we'll be left wondering a lot about "was she/he a tulpa too??" But! It doesn't matter. That's kinda the point. There will be many potential explanations, but the puzzle will "defy logic." In my book, that's good. It's pushing art along. We aren't watching this just to see another sci-fi crime mystery.
Much of the dreamer/tulpa stuff is meta-reference to the artists and the viewers; some of it works as plot points; but we shouldn't expect everything to fit into a single narrative. There may be blurring of reality and dreams, but whether or not we're told "why" it's happening or from whose perspective it's being seen doesn't matter so much.
Yeknow what key opened up my blue box behind a dumpster behind a Winkie's? Like, 8 years ago, I went to a Kubrick meetup.com group in NYC. We watched 2001 on a big big screen and discussed. Ever since I first saw it, I wondered if the ending was supposed to be about extraterrestrial life, or going faster than the speed of light, or entering heaven, or a dream, or this, that, or the other thing. The group leader explained, "That's what makes it so great. There isn't one explanation." That opened up my mind to a whole new world of art and cinema. I never ever would have appreciated Lynch if not for that little talk. But thanks to it, i got into Lynch movies, and Twin Peaks: The Return has been my favorite piece of art I've witnessed in years.
Good thoughts Paige and Badalamenti Fan!! I don't think we'll get an answer to "who is the dreamer," and we'll be left wondering a lot about "was she/he a tulpa too??" But! It doesn't matter. That's kinda the point. There will be many potential explanations, but the puzzle will "defy logic." In my book, that's good. It's pushing art along. We aren't watching this just to see another sci-fi crime mystery.
Much of the dreamer/tulpa stuff is meta-reference to the artists and the viewers; some of it works as plot points; but we shouldn't expect everything to fit into a single narrative. There may be blurring of reality and dreams, but whether or not we're told "why" it's happening or from whose perspective it's being seen doesn't matter so much.
Yeknow what key opened up my blue box behind a dumpster behind a Winkie's? Like, 8 years ago, I went to a Kubrick meetup.com group in NYC. We watched 2001 on a big big screen and discussed. Ever since I first saw it, I wondered if the ending was supposed to be about extraterrestrial life, or going faster than the speed of light, or entering heaven, or a dream, or this, that, or the other thing. The group leader explained, "That's what makes it so great. There isn't one explanation." That opened up my mind to a whole new world of art and cinema. I never ever would have appreciated Lynch if not for that little talk. But thanks to it, i got into Lynch movies, and Twin Peaks: The Return has been my favorite piece of art I've witnessed in years.
Great Points! I totally agree! I do see it as art in cinematic format and like all art the enjoyment comes with the appreciation and interpretation. ?
Maybe MC is the clue? The gigs announced by him are not real? James Hurley would be included which wouldn't surprise me at all. He (MC) showed up for the first time before THE Nine inch nails and their show definetely looked otherworldly.
That is actually a good observation on the MC and his announcement of the acts. I also think some of the booth encounters may smear the lines of reality vs non reality and explain why some of those discussions include unfamiliar names that maybe linked to the unreality side
I think all have discussed various dimensions etc but after the Roadhouse scene at the end of 16 I believe we are truly dealing with Realiry Vs Non Reality. That there is an overlap of events at the roadhouse of the reality vs the non reality and that moment of reality came crashing in on the non reality of Audrey's world and threw her into the tailspin we saw? does that explain Ruby screaming but no one hearing? Was she an example of the unreality combined with the reality of the roadhouse? Was James even up there singing his song or was that the Non Reality of Rene's fantasy? I think there is indeed two worlds at play here but what is realiry in what we have seen and what is Non Reality and when the two collide - as they did for Audrey - what will that mean for twin peaks and our charachters? I know that is the big question and We probably won't get all the answers but I can't wait to see what happens when those two worlds continue to "smear".
Interesting thoughts. I like your use of the word "smear." I think that your suggestion of a blurring of "reality and non-reality" calls into question our ability to distinguish the two, and thus the possibility/meaning/importance of "reality" itself. The Return presents a mystery beyond systematic or rational explanation or comprehension, I think.
But I anticipate that systematic. unifying--and thus, IMO, far-fetched-- theories will continue to proliferate on this forum for some time. While I think this, arguably, misses "the point," I recognize that the instinct to respond to the questioning of reality with supposed evidence of its formal or structural existence in narrative is an understandably human one.
I had intended to post something like, "let's hold on a second and agree on the definition of some terms here before we get into this: What is reality and what is non-reality?" Haha. Many of us tend to abuse these terms colloquially, IMO. Sometimes conversations are more entertaining when terms aren't defined though. So, I'll follow your lead.
I think one of the reasons that there is more diversity in Twin Peaks fandom than there is in David Lynch fandom, generally speaking, is due to the contributions of Mark Frost (I think we've both touched on this before). Frost tries to rationalize the un-rational (as opposed to "ir"). He also attempts linearity and coherence coupled with mystery (e.g., TSHoTP) but then understands that Lynch is going to deconstruct that linearity and coherence while filtering its reconstruction through intermittent bouts of surrealism (which includes the unconscious, uncanny, un-rational, random, etc., of course). This, I think, allows the viewer to hold onto themes and plot points - even if confused - more so than they can in something like Inland Empire. In a sense, many viewers work the Mark Frost angle in reverse.
Re: reality vs unreality (my attempt to Frost)
I tend to think of the TPTR as a commingling of several realities (smear works, too). There isn't so much a dichotomy between reality vs non (as that implies a correct and singular one and it's opposite), so much as there is an accepted temporal reality that is in a state of flux with alternates. This ties-in to the rhetorical, IMO, question, ". . .but who is the dreamer?" But, it still begs an answer even if the answer isn't literal. Is someone or something jostling these alternate realities and influencing which is temporarily accepted (and by whom)? The roadhouse, to use Paige's example, appears to reflect this, in a sense, on a microcosmic scale (and possibly even subjectively as opposed to objectively - which leads to the dreamer who lives inside the dream).
The above is what happens after my "blank canvas" viewing: I try to maintain an immediate and present awareness of what I'm feeling; what thoughts and images are passing through my mind; and how my body is physically reacting. Upon reflection, I come to understand what images, sounds or portions of dialogue moved me the most. However, there is a story being told. In a nontraditional way, yes, but it is a story nonetheless. So, there are pieces to try and fit together. A natural progression of the viewing experience is to try and predict where it is headed. Progressing beyond the prediction of events is when theories arise. We aren't given many answers so viewers dream up their own.
TPTR isn't trying or even pretending to be, using an oft cited example, "un chien andalou." It's the avant-garde flirting with pop culture in much the same way that much of Bjork's music is (or even John Zorn's). That isn't to detract from its artistic merit or ambition. Just using relatable examples (the low/high brow concept is unnecessary, IMO).
All that is to say: I don't think the rationalizing and theorizing are missing an over-arching "point" to it all as much as they filling in the blanks thus completing the art work by engaging the viewer and causing an interaction between the art work and the audience. Subjevtive reflections, experiences and interpretations of the objective "thing" we call TPTR completes the circle. In other words, might it not be that leaving the story open to interpretation - mysterious - allowing for such personalized theorizing is one of the points? Life is a mystery. Mentally, emotionally and physically engaging with the material is more important than "getting it" (if there is an "it") in many cases, IMO. Surrealism is a subjective art form after all.
And, sure, some of us might question the art of story telling itself after viewing the show or investigate allegory, metaphor or even the influences of Lynch and Frost as those things are a little more objective, yet equally valid. If not for altogether different reasons.
Perhaps, it's like engaging "x" rather than necessarily critically analyzing "x" (not that they're mutually exclusive).
The beauty and appeal of this series is how it plays to those human instincts to analyze and question. Its challenges us and ask something of us as the audience ..... and the beauty of it - there is a freedom given to us as the audience - a gift really - to make some parts of it our own. We are given facts that continue to lead us down the road of contemplation but there is enough left unanswered to push us to think and imagine. I love every morsel of that gift and savor it!
Nicely put and so much more succinct than my ramblings.
Fire walk with 
