Twin Peaks Usenet Archive
Subject: Re: Geography of Twin Peaks
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Raveling)
Date: 1990-04-25, 15:32
In article <15410@bfmny0.UU.NET>, tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
[and others write similar opinions...]
> > It could be Wash/Ore or some other inland border. Remember that Ronette
> > crossed the state line by walking across a *railroad bridge*. So the
> > line could be water. I think Laura was found on a streambank, not an
> > ocean beach.
Speaking from 9 years of living on Puget Sound, I'm a bit
surprised by the river/lake speculation; finding Laura's
body was definitely filmed on Puget Sound. If you're not
familiar with northwestern Washington, the Sound might best
be described as a very large inlet of the ocean.
"Beaches" in this area tend to be rocky and look a lot like
the one that was lying beneath Laura's body. The shoreline
tends to be irregular, with lots of small inlets, bays, and
islands. It's fairly natural to look across salt water
toward another shore. Land rises fairly abruptly from the
edge of the water into hills that aren't quite big enough
to call mountains. A few miles east the hills become the
BTW, when I lived there the beaches did tend to be strewn
with kelp, driftwood, assorted shells, sand dollars, starfish,
and various other stuff. While being a bit inattentive I once
nearly stepped on a small dead shark.
As for the border in question, there would seem to be 3
1. It's purely fictional and need not correspond to
any real border.
2. It's the Canadian border. This area is north of
Puget sound, with Vancouver Island to the west, and
what I've seen of it has much the same sort of geography.
It even has a "Single Peak" -- Mount Baker -- as a
3. It's the Oregon border. If we accept that Laura was
found on an ocean beach, this seems less likely. The
Columbia River is VERY wide where it approaches the coast
and carries ship traffic between the ocean and Portland.