Literally Meta

Spoiler Warning: If you cared at all about Twin Peaks ... yadda-yadda ... spoilers.

When it originally aired, I was uninterested. I was watching Alien Nation and Night Court re-runs instead. At the time, I was more interested in understanding CB radios and how to properly microwave an entire 99¢ pizza.

Eventually, I gave Twin Peaks a chance, a couple years ago. I think I watched the pilot and then skipped right to the explanations and theories. I'm one of those people who doesn't mind spoilers. I actually think spoilers are overstated. And it turns out, most spoilers on Twin Peaks are probably a waste of time. Actually, knowing what I know now, spoilers on Twin Peaks can be entertainment unto themselves for how laughably wrong they were. Except for this video by Twin Perfect. I think they might have nailed it.

Below, I have a link to a four hour video explaining Twin Peaks. I doubt most people would spend the time watching it, so here it is in a nutshell:

Twin Peaks is a foil to the formulaic television of the 90s. That's all. Did you like to watch Columbo or Murder She Wrote? I did. I still do. Twin Peaks is a mirror to those kinds of shows. What if the murder investigation didn't have Columbo or Fletcher to solve the mystery in an hour? What if the investigation was perennial instead? What if the investigation itself was a way to understand why Columbo is ridiculous?

Is Columbo ridiculous? Actually, yes. But all of television is ridiculous. I enjoy Columbo very much, but the very idea is ridiculous. Some bumbling police investigator can just ask "one more question" and solves the case. Ridiculous. It makes for great TV. But ridiculous none-the-less.

For that matter, all of television is ridiculous. If a murder mystery, the most important mystery you can think of, is depicted as ridiculous, what else is ridiculous? Twin Peaks' answer: everything.

But that's just me. When I watched Twin Peaks, I saw a Star Trek away mission. I like Star Trek. I like away missions. Twin Peaks was just reflecting that idea (subtly). In the case of Columbo Twin Peaks is more directly reflected that too (a little less subtly).

So what's ridiculous about a Star Trek away mission? Well, the logistics for one. They beam down; talk to the locals; fix the [tech]; try to beam up; can't; fix more stuff [tech or locals]; beam up. This is a ridiculous story. It's unbalanced, or something.

By the way, I'm not convinced that darkness and light need balance, as Twin Perfect suggests. To be clear, Twin Perfect isn't really making the suggestion. Apparently David Lynch himself makes the suggestion. At any rate, on the one hand, one does seem to need balance in order to see the contrast. But I'm not convinced we need the contrast.

I think the Twin Perfect video below goes as deep as they need to in order to interpret David Lynch. No more, no less. Expertly. And I think the need to interpret David Lynch's ideas is silly. All Lynch is exploring is the same old thing everyone else is exploring, albeit in different forms. The same cycle. Only, Lynch doesn't come to the correct conclusion, in my opinion: The need for a savior.

Lynch has identified, perhaps in the most profoundly sincere and depressing way possible, that humans will always do violence against one another, even if they have a complete grasp of reality (i.e.: Unified Field Theorem). There is no exit from the violence, except by The Savior, which Lynch and Twin Perfect is oblivious to. It's not a new idea, except that the rest of Western cultures haven't quite nailed it like Lynch has.

If you have the time, see the full emptiness for yourself: