Twin Peaks Usenet Archive
Subject: PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT ROLLING STONE
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Fiona Oceanstar)
Date: 1991-04-12, 15:16
Before you read any further, please note: I'm proposing a project
here that will require a certain format, which is that from now on
I will only read articles with the characters "RS" at the front of
the subject heading. So if you want to talk to me for any reason--
if you want to tell me I'm full of hogwash, if you want to tell me
something about COOP, I don't care what it is--please WRITE to me
by private e-mail (email@example.com). You'll see why, after you read
The easiest way, of course, to express your total lack of interest
in my proposal, is to stop reading now, and don't ever ever put
"RS" in the subject heading of your article. That'll be fine by
me. If it doesn't work out, that's OK. It's going to be hard work
to pull this off, so I won't cry if you take me off the hook here.
Thursday night, 10 PM
All right, y'all, I just turned off the TV after watching "Twin Peaks,"
and I've got an idea. Let's do something to put alt.tv.twin-peaks on
the map. Let's dream up an all- or mostly-inconclusive theory about
what the mystery is--tying as many as possible of the pieces together--
and write it up for national publication.
This is what I propose:
--between right *now* and whenever the Canadians see the next
episode, is the time period that we have for the discussion; if anyone on
the group has secret inside knowledge of the next episode, I ask
them to please (please!) refrain from contributing to the discussion
--everyone who wants is in on the discussion--it's open to all members
of the group who have seen all the way through what I will call the
"Twin Kiss" episode--and to anyone else who doesn't mind hearing all
--we need a name for the project, so let's call it the
--why _Rolling_Stone_? because what I'm proposing is this: we will
develop this theory and I will write it up for submission to
_Rolling_Stone_ magazine. We already know they like "Twin Peaks"--
they've covered the show extensively, including a cover photo the "women
of TP" (remember all those eyebrows?), but what they haven't done is to
write something *intelligent* about the mystery.
--but we *DO* have something intelligent to say. We have lots of
good ideas about the mystery, and even if we don't actually "figure out
the answer," as it were, we're sure to come up with a nice sexy theory
with all kinds of juicy details--that it be a FUN theory, is more
important than whether it's right or not
--the article's half-written already, because I can use the
material from the article I wrote for the _Twin_Peaks_Gazette_ (I've got
the copyright, don't worry) as the introduction, and then move right
into this project of ours
--so basically, I'm volunteering to be the "scribe" for the group,
the person who writes up the "minutes" of our discussion and summarizes
them in the form of an article
Just as I did in my previous article, I would give full credit, by name,
to everyone who contributes to the discussion in a substantive way--and
you can make up your own names, your own details about your life--
whatever you want--pick some goofy name like "Fiona Oceanstar," I don't
care--it's your chance to be famous.
But don't start working on your handle and stuff until we've
developed the theory--we need people to put together a good ascii
drawing of the "map" or whatever it is, and also the lid of the inner
puzzle box (I'm being purposely vague so as not to include spoilers)--we
need people to compile all the clues so far--etc. etc.
My position will be as a spectator: I will participate minimally in the
discussion, and if I come up with anything unique, I'll just consider
that "public domain" material that doesn't have to be credited to
anyone, because it's awkward to both write the article and give credit
to myself. A couple of other people have independently arrived at the
owl-UFO connection (you know the one I mean), so I won't need to take
credit for that.
To preserve my ignorance of the remainder of this spring's series during
the writing of the article, I will begin taping the shows on next
Thursday, and not see any of the taped shows, nor read any spoilers in
this newsgroup, from that date on--until I've finished writing the article.
Then, after I've written it, I'll post it to the newsgroup for general
critique--a short period just to check it over for mistakes or errors in
giving proper credit.
If any argument arises over who should get credit for things, I'll just
name multiple people, don't worry--but let's try to be reasonable and
not have to clutter the text of the article with too many names--I
should think somewhere between 6 and 12 would be OK.
But I *will* give credit to everyone, with an acknowledgments paragraph
added after the end of the article.
Got it? Read it over again if you're not sure.
So what do you think? Do you think it will work? What can it hurt to
try, huh? If we succeed in placing it in _Rolling_Stone_, we'll all be
famous, and have something to show family and friends about what we've
been doing these past many months. And if we fail, well... I'll just
submit it to _Spy_ or _Details_ or some other magazine.
Now. Here's the scoop. If you *agree* with this plan, do NOT--repeat,
do NOT--post your agreement to the newsgroup. There's too much traffic
If you agree with the plan AND want to launch right into the discussion
(since we're going to be doing that anyway), start posting all your
articles with "RS:" at the front of the subject heading. Anyone can
join, but everyone has to label their contributions with "RS:" so I'll
know which ones to read and which ones not to read.
If you agree AND have nothing to contribute right away, you can write to
me by private e-mail and give your support for the project.
And, of course, if you think it's a terrible idea and you absolutely
categorically refuse to have anything to do with it, then write to me by
private e-mail and tell me *that*. I promise to listen to all
suggestions, and summarize *all* of the negative feedback to the group,
because there may be useful suggestions about the format of the discussion
lurking in there we'd want to take into account. If there's an
overwhelming swell of "No, Fiona! Never! I'd feel horribly betrayed if
you did such a crass and tacky and self-aggrandizing thing!" then fine,
I'll bag it. :-)
But if you don't like the project, *and* you're in a very small minority
of the letters I get, then you better keep the letters "RS" out of your
subject headings. From this point on, I'm *only* going to read stuff
that has "RS" in the heading. If you want to talk about how sweet David
Lynch's eyes are (aren't they? ), that's fine, I don't care if you
"RS" it one way or the other--I'll save everything anyway and read it
later when the article's finished. But if you want me to include you in
the credits for the mystery discussion, get that "RS" in there.
The only problem I can think of, is the situation where someone
strenuously objects and does NOT want to be included, but they're in the
minority so we go ahead with the project anyway, and then someone quotes
them in an RS-labeled article so I accidentally read their ideas.
Sheesh. I don't how we can get around that. Just cooperate with each
other, I guess. And hope that there isn't much dissension. This has
been a pretty congenial group all along, so I doubt that problem will
crop up. We'll just burn that bridge when we get to it, as they say.
And we're off.... unless of course y'all decide to tar and feather me.
I couldn't write the article then, I guess. It'd be hard to see, and
I'd get black gunk all over the keyboard.
--if you want to talk about the format --> write *me*
--if you want to talk about the mystery --> post using "RS:"
in your subject heading