Twin Peaks, season 2, episode 9

Is Bob a metaphor?

Continued from: Is Bob Leland?

In season 2, episode 9, after it is revealed that Leland killed his daughter while possessed by Bob,¹ Garland endorses the view that Bob is a supernatural phenomenon, but Harry is skeptical; Cooper asks, “Is it easier to believe a man would rape and murder his own daughter?” But in fact Leland did rape his own daughter, whether possessed by Bob or not—and in any case, that such rapes take place is hardly in dispute. However, it is explicitly shown that Bob did materialize outside of the mind of Leland; perhaps it would therefore be more accurate to ask whether it is more plausible that Leland’s own confabulations could have spread magically to everyone else, or whether it is more likely that the same real being that appeared to Leland appeared also to others.

Albert concludes that “maybe,” Bob is merely “the evil that men do.” This view is perhaps closer to the truth, but it understates the fact that Bob clearly is a kind of supernatural entity with its own independent will. Also, Cooper is right to emphasize that understanding the nature of Bob is meaningful, because “it is our job to stop it.” One might say that “the evil that men do is Bob.” But this would also be inaccurate. More precisely, as we later learn, Bob is a particular kind of entity connected to the nuclear bomb, and he requires garmonbozia (“pain and sorrow”) for sustenance.

Abstraction and complicity

It is noteworthy that in this entire conversation, no mention is made of Laura or Maddie. The “evil” is spoken of abstractly by everyone, and the theme is apparently the relationship between these heroic law enforcement officers and the abstract concept of evil (whether as a supernatural force or otherwise). Under this regime, it is not necessary to mention the victims themselves.

I think this is one of the worst episodes of the show, because it fundamentally misunderstands what the show is about. This is obvious when it is contrasted with Fire Walk With Me. And there are not any easy fixes that could be made, because the problem is that the whole structure of the episode pushes the viewer towards believing that what is important is unimportant, and that what is unimportant is important. I don’t mean that this episode is necessarily amateurishly made,² or even that it has no redeeming qualities, or shouldn’t be considered “canon,” or whatever; but I think it’s among the “worst”—really I should say, “the most evil”—in that it subtly misleads the viewer into being an accomplice to the evil that the show otherwise attempts to unmask; that is, it subverts the core of the show that it also very effectively imitates.

If 2666 had omitted The Part About the Crimes, it would have been a book spreading ignorance (as many books do) of the depth of the horror of imperialism while pretending to reveal it. And if Twin Peaks had been written entirely in the style of this episode, it would have been a surrealist comedy spoof of a true crime documentary series. Reducing pain and suffering to entertainment undermines the dignity and humanity of victims and furthers our complicity in the sadistic regime of anti-realist abstraction. It’s unsafe to microwave garmonbozia.

1. Season 2, episode 9, 43:30 ↩
2. Well, perhaps it is a bit amateurishly made. Having just re-watched this episode for the first time, the characterization in this final conversation is particularly muddy, like the lines were written, put into a bag, and then just distributed randomly among every character who happened to be present for the scene. That said, it gets much worse later in season 2, until the finale (and especially Fire Walk With Me and The Return) successfully reframe the whole show and thereby get it back on track, even retroactively. ↩