Hi all.
I've been away more or less since the end of The Return. I have been reading articles on this site. The quality of the writing is bloody excellent.
I particularly enjoyed
https://25yearslatersite.com/2017/09/11/coopers-time-loop-isnt-just-his-electricity-nexus-1/
https://25yearslatersite.com/2017/09/09/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/
and especially this one
There are so many theories out there. The one I hooked onto was the watching of 17 & 18 in sync, which I did. I then red the Q & A with Sabrina S Sutherland on Reddit, who assured everyone that wasn't how they were meant to be watched, but she may be toying with us swell. It was a good session, although she parried a few leading questions.
Shout out to SamXTherapy for, being SamX!
Hi all.
I've been away more or less since the end of The Return. I have been reading articles on this site. The quality of the writing is bloody excellent.
I particularly enjoyed
https://25yearslatersite.com/2017/09/11/coopers-time-loop-isnt-just-his-electricity-nexus-1/
https://25yearslatersite.com/2017/09/09/be-careful-what-you-wish-for/
and especially this one
There are so many theories out there. The one I hooked onto was the watching of 17 & 18 in sync, which I did. I then red the Q & A with Sabrina S Sutherland on Reddit, who assured everyone that wasn't how they were meant to be watched, but she may be toying with us swell. It was a good session, although she parried a few leading questions.
Shout out to SamXTherapy for, being SamX!
Thank you. I am suitably flattered. Dunno what I did to deserve it but, hey, I'll take whatever's going. 😉
and especially this one
Allow me to quote this one, because I think it directly addresses a lot of the angst seen on this Forum since the finale:
QUOTE
In a seminal 1970 work known as S/Z, French philosopher Roland Barthes argues that a reader/viewer of a text (whether a book, a film, a painting, or any other cultural product) can experience that text in a way that is either “readerly” or “writerly.” The readerly experience is passive, one in which the reader/viewer does not engage with the text in any way other than to allow it to wash over him or her at the level of pure subject matter or narrative. Nothing is wrong with this kind of textual experience; indeed, I would argue that the majority of cultural products are created for the express intent of being consumed at the readerly level. The writerly experience, on the other hand, is active. In his or her active engagement with the text, the reader/viewer becomes what Barthes refers to as a “co-producer” of meaning. In other words, when we tackle a text in a writerly way, we meet the writer/filmmaker/artist half way (or even more), thereby helping to bear the burden of meaning’s creation. Granted, such an approach guarantees a seemingly endless number of interpretations for any given ambiguous work (as many interpretations as any individual and/or number of individuals can muster), and, as a result, pinning down the writer’s/filmmaker’s/artist’s “actual” intent for his/her work (if an intent has ever even existed) becomes nigh on impossible, if not outright irrelevant. So, this writerly approach isn’t for everyone, especially those who might prefer to be the receivers of a good story rather than active ingredients used in its long journey to meaningfulness. A writerly reader/viewer quickly comes to realize that s/he is, in a way, just as important to a given work of art as the artist ever was. For some, this realization can seem overwhelming, tiring, or even tedious; for others, the experience can be exhilarating and empowering.
Neither way of reading or viewing is “correct,” of course.
END QUOTE
Couldn't have said it better.
😉
- /< /\ /> -
Postmodern hell.
Hi Colin,and especially this one
Allow me to quote this one, because I think it directly addresses a lot of the angst seen on this Forum since the finale:
QUOTE
In a seminal 1970 work known as S/Z, French philosopher Roland Barthes argues that a reader/viewer of a text (whether a book, a film, a painting, or any other cultural product) can experience that text in a way that is either “readerly” or “writerly.” The readerly experience is passive, one in which the reader/viewer does not engage with the text in any way other than to allow it to wash over him or her at the level of pure subject matter or narrative. Nothing is wrong with this kind of textual experience; indeed, I would argue that the majority of cultural products are created for the express intent of being consumed at the readerly level. The writerly experience, on the other hand, is active. In his or her active engagement with the text, the reader/viewer becomes what Barthes refers to as a “co-producer” of meaning. In other words, when we tackle a text in a writerly way, we meet the writer/filmmaker/artist half way (or even more), thereby helping to bear the burden of meaning’s creation. Granted, such an approach guarantees a seemingly endless number of interpretations for any given ambiguous work (as many interpretations as any individual and/or number of individuals can muster), and, as a result, pinning down the writer’s/filmmaker’s/artist’s “actual” intent for his/her work (if an intent has ever even existed) becomes nigh on impossible, if not outright irrelevant. So, this writerly approach isn’t for everyone, especially those who might prefer to be the receivers of a good story rather than active ingredients used in its long journey to meaningfulness. A writerly reader/viewer quickly comes to realize that s/he is, in a way, just as important to a given work of art as the artist ever was. For some, this realization can seem overwhelming, tiring, or even tedious; for others, the experience can be exhilarating and empowering.
Neither way of reading or viewing is “correct,” of course.
END QUOTE
Couldn't have said it better.
😉
- /< /\ /> -
Close to my own thoughts though I explain it in terms of "the viewer completes the art work."
Much of post-modern art work is not meant to be collected into books for viewing as photographs or simply read about, explained and deciphered, it is meant to be experienced and engaged with (e.g. installations - video or otherwise).
In TPTR the viewer is invited - indeed compelled - to search for clues, ask questions and further search for answers to mysteries through critical thinking and discussion with others. This even initiates, in some, the want to carefully and painstakingly search for details, thematic patterns and associations, etc. that can be missed in more casual viewing (or even engaged viewing on a different level - e.g., lights flashing on plane windows and same flashing pattern on the logo after part . . . Can't remember which, probably slipped passed many of the more engaged viewers). That process is part of what is so essential to the work itself (completes it). That is all parallel or perpendicular to (depending on what initially engages) investigations into or reflections on what Lynch and Frost are trying to "say" (engagement spawns examination - much like installation art).
I'm beginning to think that "leave it up to the viewer" is what Lynch was going for. I read all the theories, and see that people are so convinced and passionate about them. No one theory has grabbed me that way though. If Lynch decides to do another season or make a film, then we may be able to rule out some theories. Then again, maybe not. I think I'm becoming OK with that idea.
I especiallly liked the article "
My Biggest Fear: Is Twin Peaks going the way of the X-Files (Are Characters now less important than Plot)? – Electricity Nexus #2"
Great writing and great points
I'm beginning to think that "leave it up to the viewer" is what Lynch was going for.
It is. He doesn't have any idea of "what it all means," either. He as much said so himself:
Do you think in terms of allegory or meta?
Not really. Ideas just come, you think about them, and you figure out their meaning. Then, how they fit into the whole is another thing completely. It’s not finished until it’s finished, and you don’t really know until further down the road how one thing relates to another. It’s just like a magical thing. I also always say the whole thing exists in another room as a complete puzzle, all the parts are together, and someone from that other room is sort of a rascal and randomly flips parts over into this room. And then you to have to put the puzzle together, but one is from the end of the story, one is from the middle, and a couple from the beginning, and you won’t know until it’s more formed what it could be.
and:
“The story is the thing,” he said when asked about why he’d rather not explain or frame things for viewers. “When it’s finished, that’s it. Nothing should be added to it. All the rest is baloney.”
I just watched Studio Spotlight on the MGM channel, and this is what Lynch said about all The Wizard of OZ references in Wild at Heart:
[Lynch looking somewhat confused]
"somehow, The Wizard of OZ started walking into Wild at Heart...
[Lynch with a faraway, wistful look]
...The Wizard of OZ... Wild at Heart...
[Lynch smiles at the similarity of the sounds of the titles]
...it just came in."
Lynch doesn't have a clue. He just follows his muse.
- /< /\ /> -
I especiallly liked the article "
My Biggest Fear: Is Twin Peaks going the way of the X-Files (Are Characters now less important than Plot)? – Electricity Nexus #2"
Great writing and great points
Hi Teo,
Gotta light? I mean, gotta link? 😉
- /< /\ /> -
I just watched Studio Spotlight on the MGM channel, and this is what Lynch said about all The Wizard of OZ references in Wild at Heart:
[Lynch looking somewhat confused]
"somehow, The Wizard of OZ started walking into Wild at Heart...
[Lynch with a faraway, wistful look]
...The Wizard of OZ... Wild at Heart...
[Lynch smiles at the similarity of the sounds of the titles]
...it just came in."
Lynch doesn't have a clue. He just follows his muse.
- /< /\ /> -
this.
I especiallly liked the article "
My Biggest Fear: Is Twin Peaks going the way of the X-Files (Are Characters now less important than Plot)? – Electricity Nexus #2"
Great writing and great points
Hi Teo,
Gotta light? I mean, gotta link? 😉
- /< /\ /> -
Ric
Gotta light and a link: https://25yearslatersite.com/2017/09/18/my-biggest-fear-is-twin-peaks-going-the-way-of-the-x-files-are-characters-now-less-important-than-plot-electricity-nexus-2/
Ric
Gotta light and a link: https://25yearslatersite.com/2017/09/18/my-biggest-fear-is-twin-peaks-going-the-way-of-the-x-files-are-characters-now-less-important-than-plot-electricity-nexus-2/
Thanks. 😉
- /< /\ /> -
Fire walk with