Twin Peaks Usenet Archive
Subject: Re: Bob and multiple hosts (and other things)
From: email@example.com (Steve Simmons)
Date: 1990-11-14, 13:29
firstname.lastname@example.org (Joe Buck) writes:
> >In article <1990Nov14.email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
> >|> Sorry, but you're wrong. In the scene with the giant after Cooper was
> >|> shot, the giant reaches down and removes Coopers ring. It is clear
> >|> from that it is possible for the possessing spirits to affect the
> >|> physical world without requiring a host. Therefore there is no
> >|> requirement that Bob possessed anyone else in order to attack Ronette.
> >While I believe that Bob exclusively possesses Leland (and that "possession"
> >may not even be the right word to describe their link) I don't think this
> >proves anything. What if giant's host is the world's most decrepit room
> >service waiter (WMDRSW)? If so, the giant has a body, the WMDRSW, and
> >can use it to remove Cooper's ring.
While I agree that the Giant uses WMDRSW as a host (whew! that's harder to
type than Senor Drool Cup), things have been pretty consistant about the
appearances of the Giant and all inhabiting spirits. As spirits, they
appear and disappear at will. But their hosts are bound by the physical
limitations. The Giant materialized directly in Coopers room and vanished
in the same way. Bob has come and gone in a similar fashion. But Leland
and WMDRSW have never been observed to materialize/dematerialize. So I still
think the Giant has the ring, not WMDRSW.
Just for the record, I think Leland killed Renault while Bob killed Laura
and Maddy (if she's dead). Leland remembered and admitted to killing
Renault, thinking he was avenging Laura's death. Clearly he does not
remember what Bob does, and so does not recall kill Laura. Shallow cuts
and exacto blades. Brrr...
-- "When your neighbour loses his job, it's a slowdown; when you lose your own job, it's a recession; when an economist loses his job it's a depression." -- "Six Ways To Define A Recession", The Economist, Nov. 3 1990.