...Don't the mentions of Tremond / Chalfont hint that Chet Desmond is out there on "Richard" and "Carrie's" side?
Just a stray thought... The lynching was so intense tonight that I feel like I'm hanging from 10 different trees.
Nice one. Now, don't you go interpreting what you saw here. It's just a big incoherent mess. Perhaps Lynch is saving the Chet Desmond story line for the feature film, fingers crossed. How is Chris Isaak doing these days, anyway?
shareI'm not sure it's incoherent, it seems like we just don't have the key to it yet. They went full speed ahead with themes of doubling, rewriting, stand-ins and false representations that go back to the original series.
I'm not sure what it means on a story level. It's all fuzzy. I know Frost has been interested in quantum theory which some have speculated could explain the time anomalies in this season, but that's out of my depth.
On a pure production level, it gives a way to bring back anyone from the cast, whether as old characters or new, or new stand-ins for the old. We've seen some impressive digital de-aging tonight, too. It's hard to pass a story device this convenient when you're selling a returning series to a network, so this whole thing seems more likely than not to me.
That's about it. It's an incomplete story. When they made this they were either angling for a new season after all (making some of their initial comments disingenuous) or trying to boost sales of the "Final Dossier".
shareI think most of the plot events in Twin Peaks this season was just setting up the chess pieces. They are definitely gunning for a renewal.
We'll never get the answers to most of this stuff, though.
Off topic, but I always thought it was "One CHANCE out between two worlds."
Well, not always. At some point some years back I "learned" it was "CHANTS."
But I still wonder how people first figured that out. Is it obvious from hearing? Or did people read it somewhere? "Chants out" does sound poetic, and I like it better. It means that someone is chanting the phrase, "FWWM." Yet "one chance out" seems more obvious—There's one chance to escape the limbo of being stuck between two worlds.
K.
Perhaps it means both - maybe you only have one chance to find the cross between both worlds but once you do that correctly, you chant to get between them?
shareIt's "chants". I never understood it as "chance". Even the subtitles in the series dvds has it as "chants":
But is it "Fire, walk with me" [walk with me, Fire] or "Fire-Walk with me" [walk on fire, with me]?
"Even the subtitles in the series dvds..."
What do you mean by "even"? Of course the subtitles have that, if people are saying it is what it is.
(Remember: I didn't say "chants" was incorrect.) I asked how people figured out "chants", if NOT through exposure to the written word. Of course in your Danish castle you had the DVD with close-captions and read "chants" (along with the DVD added features that told you everything TP was about the first time you watched it). But if you watched it normally, on the TV broadcast, on VHS, or with no subtitles... how do you get "chants out"? It's such an odd turn of phrase that only Wally Brando would use. The vast majority of people will never encounter the phrase "chants out" in their lives.
I'm not Danish. Neither do I have a castle.
When Twink Peaks was aired I saw it with portuguese subtitles. But even back then I didn't pay much attention to subtitles, as I don't now.
And no, I didn't see it firstly in DVD, I saw it on tv back in the early 90's.
If you don't understand your own language, that's a particular problem that you have. The language is pretty clear.
"The language is pretty clear."
The language is not clear, at all. That's not opinion, that's objective fact. It's arguably (opinion) ambiguous, and maybe even intentionally so.
"Twink Peaks"
I didn't know it was the gay version you had watched. Maybe that explains the difference?
There's a huge difference between only hearing something spoken and being influenced by other sources of information, especially writing, but even including translations. "Chants out" is a construction that English-speakers will never encounter in their lives if they don't watch TP.
lol. I do all sort of writing mistakes. I write too fast and the pc can't accompany, creating all sorts of broken and misspelled words.
I can't agree on the language not being objectively clear. If I can understand it, not even being a native English speaking person, you - I'll assume that you are, for the moment - have the upper hand and all the reasons in the world to understand it fully, given that you live surrounded by it.
You, being an English speaking person, are way more connected and in contact with the fine nuances of the spoken language. I see no real reason for you not to understand what is said without visual aid, unless if you have a hearing problem.
Sorry if it sounds I'm attacking you, but I am not.
This logic is backwards. If, being charitable, I have superior knowledge (including great intuition) of English, then shouldn't you be trusting what I say?
There is no difference in sound between "chance out" "chants out." While one can do an analysis of the poem and arrive that the conclusion that "chants" makes the MOST sense in the whole scheme of things, at the immediate level -- within the line, and when the phrase has just been heard (without the opportunity for long reflection) -- "chance" sounds like the more likely word since "chance out" is a real utterance and "chants out" is not.
In any case, if you do some (Internet) research, you'll find that many people have debated this over years. This proves my point that it is ambiguous and unclear.
"This logic is backwards. If, being charitable, I have superior knowledge (including great intuition) of English, then shouldn't you be trusting what I say? "
No, not really because I have my own experience with the language to form my own opinion on it. As an example, I'm speaking to you in your language. Everything you write I understand. If you were speaking to me directly, I would understand you [unless you were to have some sort of speech impediment].
"chance" has the SSSSS sound right after the AN. "chants" has a pronouced TTT and SSSS in the end. Easy to recognize.
And it's a poem. Flourishing words. The dude could as easily say "yells" or "sings". But didn't.
Maybe the people who think it ambiguous and unclear also have problems with their own language. Ever thought about that?
I'm not sure why you're being an insecure douchebag with respect to this topic. Telling me how words are pronounced? How obnoxious. Do you think you're the only person around who knows more than one language? I have studied many, and used languages other than my native English professionally, including while working for the U.S. Department of Defense. Give me a break.
I've already said everything that needs to be said in this thread for readers to know exactly what I am and what I am not claiming. One thing, however, bears repeating: "Chants" and "chance" sound the same when pronounced by a native speaker of American English. The fact that you don't know that (or pretend not to know) is a forgivable. But for you to go on asserting not only that they are clearly different pronunciations ("See look! One has the letter T!"), but also that people like myself "have problems with their own language," is first-class douchebaggery.
On a related note:
http://www.lynchnet.com/tp/tp02.html
1 - "I'm not sure why you're being an insecure douchebag with respect to this topic. " if there is someone being a "insecure douchebag" here is you. I'm quite secure with myself thank you very much.
2 - "Telling me how words are pronounced? How obnoxious." I'm not telling you how words are pronounced, I'm telling you how they sound to emphasize that "chance" and "chants" sound different. If you think they sound the same, you have an hearing problem.
3 - "Do you think you're the only person around who knows more than one language?" Did I ever say I was? You are the one making such an assessment, which makes of you an idiot.
4 - "I have studied many, and used languages other than my native English professionally, including while working for the U.S. Department of Defense. Give me a break." I don't give two shits about what you studied or not, neither do I care where you worked. Is that supposed to make me feel in awe? Fuck you very much.
5 - "I've already said everything that needs to be said in this thread for readers to know exactly what I am and what I am not claiming." You sure do like to make claims huh?
6 - ""Chants" and "chance" sound the same when pronounced by a native speaker of American English." I disagree and I speak daily with many Americans and have American relatives.
7 - "The fact that you don't know that (or pretend not to know) is a forgivable" Again, making assumptions because... reasons.
8 - "But for you to go on asserting not only that they are clearly different pronunciations ("See look! One has the letter T!")" Which is a fact.
9 - "but also that people like myself "have problems with their own language," is first-class douchebaggery." You do show to have problems with your own language. Pointing a fact is not douchebaggery. It just makes you triggered because... truth hurts?
10 - "On a related note:
http://www.lynchnet.com/tp/tp02.html"; - Couldn't care less after your mental breakdown, sorry.
This sort of exchange was already played out in a recent conversation you had with Kazak. Stop the petty retorts. They are distractions that you try to create — with rhetoric such as "triggered" and "mental breakdown" and "I know you are... but what am *I*?" —and irrelevant to the basic facts.
So it's interesting that you would say now that you "couldn't care less" after... what? After realizing you're wrong? Stop trying to mischaracterize the other person's argument to create distraction. For example, I didn't say that "Pointing a fact is ... douchebaggery." I said that you saying native speakers who hear "chance" have problems with their own language makes you sound like an ass. Or an arse, if you prefer. Now, let's stay on point:
My claim has been that the FWWM poem is ambiguous, in large part due to the "chants" and "chance" sounding identical (at least, in the American English of Twin Peaks).
Two types of evidence support this.
1) The evidence of the sounds one can hear! If you need to get technical, look up "intrusive stop" or "plosive epenthesis" for explanations of why this phenomenon — the phenomenon of pronouncing an unwritten "t" — occurs. In a less technical way, look up sources that call "chance" and "chants" homophones.
2) The evidence of people's reported perceptions. Many many people have reported interpreting the word to be "chance." It occurs in the titles of essays, it appears in books of academic (!) discussion of Twin Peaks, in blogs, and in many many on-line discussions.
Other sorts of evidence also demonstrate the ambiguity of the word choice, though these do less to support what I am talking about (listeners'/viewers' perceptions/interpretations) and what I'm not talking about (the intended meaning of the creators). The most intriguing piece of this evidence of this type is the original script for the episode where the One Armed Man speaks the lines, which I linked to, above. The line appears as "chance" in that script.
"This sort of exchange was already played out in a recent conversation you had with Kazak. "
Incorrect. Kazak did the same mistake you did by insulting someone out of the blue. Just like you did now with me. Tough titties for you cause I couldn't give 2 shits for you self-righteous feelings.
"Stop the petty retorts." Yeah... that would be you as well.
"They are distractions that you try to create — with rhetoric such as "triggered" and "mental breakdown" and "I know you are... but what am *I*?" —and irrelevant to the basic facts." -
-Again, that would be you. I'm not the one trying to impress anyone with a very doubtful job on line to a stranger. So yeah fuck off.
"So it's interesting that you would say now that you "couldn't care less" after... what? After realizing you're wrong?"
- No. After realizing you don't have the equivalent of a brain and the simple decency not to be an asshole.
I don't care for whatever else you wrote.
Goodbye.
Very convenient, again, that you suddenly don't care about the actual thing being discussed, and that you can claim that I am the reason you don't care. There is absolutely no substance to your posts on this topic, just insults, abuse, and cliché phrases ("truth hurts," "I don't give 2 shits" etc.).
The sum total of your argument has been, "One can clearly tell the word is 'chants' by hearing it. This is true because it is the way *I* perceive it and because I have American friends." And, as an added bonus, "You have a problem understanding your native language [American English] because you don't hear / pronounce it the way that I, a non-native, do."
It makes no sense why, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that countless English speakers heard the line as "chance," the technical linguistic evidence of how American English speakers articulate [ns] as [nts], the appearance of "chance" in Lynch's original script, and the veritable tradition of discussants of Twin Peaks favoring both "chance" and "chants" in good numbers, that you would stick to your position.
Moreover, you seem incapable, in this moment, of stepping back to see the root of this disagreeable exchange is your refusal to accept the facts, and that all the disagreeable remarks from my side are only in response to that. Claiming that I am just being an asshole (out of the blue) and making replies on that theme (rather than the actual topic) is pure distraction (redirection). Everyone can see that you are a fraud. Parabéns!
I stopped caring as soon as you revealed yourself as an idiot. I don't like wasting time with idiots.
I will not address you any longer. You may whine all you want on your little kid's corner; I couldn't care less.
Fuck off and have a very nice life.
And... still no substance. You can call me an idiot, but you still have not provided any material to address the point, only cliché remarks and abuse. Not even, for that matter, any substance to support calling me an idiot!
shareNote also the fact that the OP wrote, "One chants between...", omitting the word "out"—perhaps due to the difficulty of remembering such an unusually construction. Contemporary English has "call out" and it was once more common to say "sing out." "Chants out" seems built on a similar logic, however 1) it's very unfamiliar; 2) it contains a contradiction, in that "out" has the connotation of being loud and communicating to someone else over a distance, whereas one quietly chanting alone is not like that.
shareI don't get the difficulty, given that what Mike recites is a Poem. By nature, a poem has a more flourished use of words and sentences are - in general - constructed to sound a particular way. Saying "one chants between" and "one chants out between" is also different and has different meanings
one chants between two worlds "fire walk with me"- the act of chanting alone between two worlds a sentence with no particular purpose
one chants out between two worlds "fire walk with me" - the act of chanting aloud between two worlds in order to call to something or someone [and I'm incline towards the last one, given that the sentence that follows is "Fire walk with me", so the Magician is calling Fire to walk with him between the two worlds where the Magician is].