Leaves no owl unturned
If you've been wondering what serious academic scholars think about Twin Peaks,
this is the book for you.

On the other hand, if you want fun reading about a fun show, Agent Cooper's
Autobiography or Welcome to Twin Peaks: Access Guide would be a better bet. ;-)

A dozen in-depth analyses of the unique TV series, written by a raft of PhD's,
including professors from leading universities. No matter how many times you've
watched the programs, I guarantee that this book will tell you things you've
never noticed . . . or even imagined. There's a complete listing of characters,
a calendar/timeline, and 50 pages of scene-by-scene descriptions of all the
episodes, plus the movie.

The last chapter is a sort of free-for-all panel discussion (or, as the eight
co-authors describe it, "a writing strategy that privileges the dialogic
interchange rather than the monologic pronouncement"). Here are the concluding
remarks:

REEVES: Maybe David Lynch is possessed by BOB so he is not responsible
for his actions.
ALL: Hmmmm . . .

In my opinion, this book's sometimes pompous, sometimes far-fetched, sometimes
incomprehensible attempts to dissect the products of David Lynch's wild creativity
are--if one takes a step back--wryly appropriate to Twin Peaks' own blending of
the mundane and the weird.

The above sentence comes from arguably the best of the twelve essays contained within this book, Christy Desmet's "The Canonization of Laura Palmer." She makes some extremely insightful points, but to reach them, you have to wade through pretentious written-with-thesaurus-in-hand idiocy like the preceding paragraph.

In general, those expecting to find opinions on what the Red Room really is, or whether coffee and cherry pie are a metaphor for something deeper, will have to parse through endless masturbatory babble, and for the most part will be ultimately disappointed by the lack of any revelations about the show itself (one notable exception is Angela Hague's interesting "Derationalization of Detection," which delves briefly into what actually happened to Cooper in the Black Lodge).

Some essays, such as Jonathan Rosenbaum's "Bad Ideas..." might simply be re-titled "Why I liked Twin Peaks," as it comes off more like high-brow film criticism than anything else, revealing nothing about the show other than why the writer thought it was good. Ditto Marc Dolan's essay "The Peaks and Valleys...", which contains only speculation as to why the show might have lost its audience. Henry Jenkins' is awful, doing nothing more than chronicling ultimately irrelevant discussions on alt.tv.twinpeaks while the show was airing.

A few of the feminist writers are equally terrible for different reasons. Martha Nochimson's "Desire Under the Douglas Firs..." had potential to be very interesting, but went on a "phallocentric" tangent, and from her we read insights like "The phallic nature of the thumbs up sign, and the phallic incapacity of the Old Bellhop, who cannot stand up straight, are complemented by the visionary presence of The Giant, a phallic presence, as emphasized by the visual foregrounding of The Giant's crotch. (153).

In addition, I fear, some of these writers seem to be a little out of their depth, and readers who are specialists in any of the fields contained within might be able to find numerous mistakes. For instance, in the essay about music (my own area of specialty) Kathryn Kalinak misidentifies leitmotifs, writes musical examples in the wrong key AND mode, and generally reveals herself to be musically illiterate. She also assigns import and symbolism to things that deserve none. She notes that in one scene, "a country and western selection on the jukebox mysteriously disappears for Shelley and Norma's entrance only to reappear a few moments later," citing this as proof that Lynch is trying to make us aware of the line "between illusion and artifice." Nonsense. It was an editing mistake. I could wax philosophical that the chess game between Cooper and Earle (which contained impossible positions/illegal moves) was Lynch trying to symbolically demonstrate any number of things, but it was really just Lynch being lazy, and that's fine.

The essays alone really only merit two stars, but following them "Full of Secrets" has several excellent appendices which contain writing/directorial/acting credits, a Twin Peaks calendar of events, and a complete scene breakdown from the pilot through FWWM, all very well done and useful.

For the rest of the book, well, you've been warned.

Review this book