So, I signed up for this edition of Black Lodge/White Lodge over at 25YL, and found that it pushed me in the direction of interpreting the entire series. I haven't read all of the other perspectives in here yet, but plan to do so presently. Thanks to Tom and Murphy from Chopping Wood Inside for agreeing to contribute. This is a doozy of an article we've put together.
Hell of a read. Only read the first part so far. Very thorough and we'll thought out. But honestly it lost me at "and has the FBI badge to prove it. Was that meant to be a literal statement or more if a sarcastic quip?
Hell of a read. Only read the first part so far. Very thorough and we'll thought out. But honestly it lost me at "and has the FBI badge to prove it. Was that meant to be a literal statement or more if a sarcastic quip?
Thanks. I am a little confused as to how much you've read. The first bit is me, but the line you mention is from Tom and Murphy's section. I can't speak to the intent, other than to note that he does indeed have an FBI badge.
Or, if you missed the switch of authors, I could definitely see how that would be confusing.
Thanks for reading!
I must have missed the switch of authors. I'll go back and clarify. I was reading on my phone which is definitely not the best medium for me. ?
I read this yesterday, thought it was very engaging read. Great work guys!
I'd like to thank all the contributors in the debate and also further say, well done. Nice summations of the most considered interpretations of part 18.
CÆmeron won! 😉
I'm a bit biased though as your thoughts are most closely aligned with my own. As can be read here:
Of course, your argument is much more thought out and there are some minor differences in the details, but pretty close.
Perhaps, however, it's also important to consider the end of Simon Baré's argument:
" He is asking us to be aware of the realities we consume, and how they are shaped by the world of dreams, within our interior and exterior worlds and how we are conscious of those worlds. We may demand answers of him but just like death we know that David Lynch will not answer. It is for this reason that I say that it doesn’t matter whether you think one moment is a dream, while another is an alternate timeline. What is important is the asking, attempting to make sense of these events, and carrying on despite a lack of clarity."
It's important to ask what it all means even if it leads to an existential meltdown, like it did for many in this forum. Even if it is made worse realizing that one might have to be agnostic about the answer reached (as this debate clearly illustrates).
Thanks. Discussing things with you all here has definitely shaped my thinking, so it's possible you had some influence on where I ended up. So, thanks in general for engaging in the forum, too.
I found it interesting that as I sat down to write something to be published I had to make certain interpretive decisions in order to be coherent. But this doesn't mean this is my definitive position that will never change. The point you (and Simon) make stands. I enjoyed reading the other entries, and how they offered different ways of thinking. I think Lindsay is right, for example, to notice the indications that this is our reality, and how to incorporate that into my interpretation is something I have been thinking about for awhile.
Tom and Murphy's interpretation is one that I find to be very interesting, even though I don't tend to agree with it. (A longer version of it was published the other day, btw: https://25yearslatersite.com/2018/04/27/the-unified-dream-theory-of-chopping-wood-inside-podcasts-murphy-hooker-tom-wubker/ )
I am doing another one of these BLWL debates on whether Cooper should have gone back in time, which I think should be out on Friday, and which hangs together with this one. Then I am to do another a bit further down the line where I am no longer sure I agree with the position my past self agreed to take on the issue, which is to your point! But, should be fun anyway. Thanks for reading.
I don't think we saw Richard.
Coop seemed to have no clue about the note from Linda.
He left that motel and went straight to Judy's cafe and then straight to Carries' house.
He's clearly Coop when he talks to Carrie.
I think he was just a bit dazed and confused (great song, btw!) that Dianne was gone and the motel and town was different in the morning.
I don't think we saw Richard.
Coop seemed to have no clue about the note from Linda.
He left that motel and went straight to Judy's cafe and then straight to Carries' house.
He's clearly Coop when he talks to Carrie.
I think he was just a bit dazed and confused (great song, btw!) that Dianne was gone and the motel and town was different in the morning.
I agree and disagree. He was "coop" by he was definitely different and more than just in a dazed and confused way.
I don't think we saw Richard.
Coop seemed to have no clue about the note from Linda.
He left that motel and went straight to Judy's cafe and then straight to Carries' house.
He's clearly Coop when he talks to Carrie.
I think he was just a bit dazed and confused (great song, btw!) that Dianne was gone and the motel and town was different in the morning.
I agree and disagree. He was "coop" by he was definitely different and more than just in a dazed and confused way.
Yeah, as I recall I was pretty brief when I hit on this in the piece, but my read is that we are seeing the full Cooper for the first time; that is, after his doppelganger burned in the Lodge, that half of Cooper was reincorporated. This is why he seems a bit like Mr. C in the Judy's diner scene (and also, to honest, didn't he seem just a bit *too* chipper in Parts 16 and 17?)
I think his reaction to the note is worth thinking about, and ambiguous - does he remember Richard and Linda, as the Fireman told him to? My best guess is that they took the places of these people named Richard and Linda in this alternate reality, and that Cooper actually does remember the Fireman's guidance; at least to the extent that he is able to hold on to his identity as Cooper, whereas Diane is not. But other readings are of course possible, I guess.
This also reminds me of how Cooper's line "It is" in that scene with the Fireman has always bothered me, because it is inflected in a way that makes it ambiguous as to whether it is a question, or a statement. Don't know if the issues are related beyond that, though.
I don't think we saw Richard.
Coop seemed to have no clue about the note from Linda.
He left that motel and went straight to Judy's cafe and then straight to Carries' house.
He's clearly Coop when he talks to Carrie.
I think he was just a bit dazed and confused (great song, btw!) that Dianne was gone and the motel and town was different in the morning.
I agree and disagree. He was "coop" by he was definitely different and more than just in a dazed and confused way.
Yeah, as I recall I was pretty brief when I hit on this in the piece, but my read is that we are seeing the full Cooper for the first time; that is, after his doppelganger burned in the Lodge, that half of Cooper was reincorporated. This is why he seems a bit like Mr. C in the Judy's diner scene (and also, to honest, didn't he seem just a bit *too* chipper in Parts 16 and 17?)
I think his reaction to the note is worth thinking about, and ambiguous - does he remember Richard and Linda, as the Fireman told him to? My best guess is that they took the places of these people named Richard and Linda in this alternate reality, and that Cooper actually does remember the Fireman's guidance; at least to the extent that he is able to hold on to his identity as Cooper, whereas Diane is not. But other readings are of course possible, I guess.
This also reminds me of how Cooper's line "It is" in that scene with the Fireman has always bothered me, because it is inflected in a way that makes it ambiguous as to whether it is a question, or a statement. Don't know if the issues are related beyond that, though.
I read somewhere that the original script for the fireman was "Do you remember ....." no idea if that is true, and that the first scene with fireman and Coop actually happens at the end of the series.... hmmmmm
Yeah, as I recall I was pretty brief when I hit on this in the piece, but my read is that we are seeing the full Cooper for the first time; that is, after his doppelganger burned in the Lodge, that half of Cooper was reincorporated. This is why he seems a bit like Mr. C in the Judy's diner scene (and also, to honest, didn't he seem just a bit *too* chipper in Parts 16 and 17?)
He was rather chipper. However, back in the original seasons, he was pretty chipper at some odd and even inappropriate times. Odessa Cooper was much "realistic" as was mostly everything going on there.
However, it was still something else that makes his seem "off" or "odd" or whatever. I just wish I could put my finger on it or express it. ...... something more than the dichotomy unified.
However, it was still something else that makes his seem "off" or "odd" or whatever. I just wish I could put my finger on it or express it. ...... something more than the dichotomy unified.
Was it that he seemed a little...frustrated? Not mean, but maybe overwhelmed, or maybe just a little uncomfortable, insecure. Even when he got 'mad' in any other scene it was done with full control, he never seemed unsure of the outcome. In the diner he was almost cagey, but still effective and decisive. He almost seemed worn down, which we've never seen before. He felt like a man that had been through a lot and maybe isn't 100% sure he's made all the right choices. He lost his disarming mastery of all situations, he was just trying to keep moving forward.
I still think he was dazed. I mean, maaaan he just went through a weird night!
Thanks. Discussing things with you all here has definitely shaped my thinking, so it's possible you had some influence on where I ended up. So, thanks in general for engaging in the forum, too.
I found it interesting that as I sat down to write something to be published I had to make certain interpretive decisions in order to be coherent. But this doesn't mean this is my definitive position that will never change. The point you (and Simon) make stands. I enjoyed reading the other entries, and how they offered different ways of thinking. I think Lindsay is right, for example, to notice the indications that this is our reality, and how to incorporate that into my interpretation is something I have been thinking about for awhile.
Tom and Murphy's interpretation is one that I find to be very interesting, even though I don't tend to agree with it. (A longer version of it was published the other day, btw: https://25yearslatersite.com/2018/04/27/the-unified-dream-theory-of-chopping-wood-inside-podcasts-murphy-hooker-tom-wubker/ )
I am doing another one of these BLWL debates on whether Cooper should have gone back in time, which I think should be out on Friday, and which hangs together with this one. Then I am to do another a bit further down the line where I am no longer sure I agree with the position my past self agreed to take on the issue, which is to your point! But, should be fun anyway. Thanks for reading.
I understand the challenge of writing down an interpretation of Richard/Linda. It is such a puzzling ending to the season. Kudos to all five of you.
I like Tom and Murphy's interpretation as well (I'll have to read the longer version on another day. Thanks for the link!) Several portions of it I find compelling. I just find Frost's influence on my own thoughts via TSHoTP, TFD, and presumably the papers found on the Search for the Zone site hard to reconcile, in full, with the dream interpretation. Twenty years ago my interpretation might've been more closely aligned with theirs. Perhaps there is an element of subjectivity vs objectivity here. Or, at the very least, a competition between them or with the illusion of the latter.
I've stated in other threads that it appears, to me, that some viewers are answering the questions that the end of TPTR raises in much the same way that they've answered more personal metaphysical/ontological questions (why are humans here? Does god exist? Who am I?). At the very least, I think it provides some insight into how those questions have been approached. In the end it may color, to varying degrees, how one interprets who Richard and Linda are and indeed where they are (or at least who each of us thinks they are and where they are).
As for the "our world" or meta interpretation. I do think there is some truth in it. Fourth-wall-breaking was peppered throughout season 3 after all. Lindsay was precise in her exploration. For instance, she was correct in spending time exploring the importance and meaning behind Vaquero vs Big Ed's Gas Farm and what it might represent. The Vaquero station was a neon sign foreshadowing that Richard and Linda were not going back to the Twin Peaks depicted up until that time. It was eerily out of place upon my initial viewing and hasn't changed much with subsequent viewings.
Y'alls and Tom and Murphy's podcasts have definitely influenced my viewing as have all the contributors in this forum. Thanks and look forward to reading the next debate.
Fire walk with