I started to write stuff about Leland to the "I still don't get what THAT means" thread but felt that these things should be discussed in it's own thread. So, here it goes.....

One thing that's causing some weakness in the last half of the second season is that Leland is forgotten so soon. They basically try to say that a man raped and killed his own daughter but it wasn't really him but a "demon" of some sort. Now, that demon thing is ok. It isn't the thing that worries me the most as I do like the idea that while the core of all the evil things and thoughts men do is in all these demons and stuff like that, but that the "possessed" one is and should still be kept responsible of the things he does.

It's like everyone in Twin Peaks just accepted what Leland had done. No one does any kind of arguments against it. There is this one beautiful scene after Leland died where Cooper talks to Sarah and briefly mentions the horrible truth by saying that Leland even went so far to drug his own wife to hide the things he did. To me, that's a great glimpse at the mind of a troubled human being such as Leland was. But that's it. That's all there is said about the interesting and horrible case of Leland Palmer.

To me, assuming that Leland didn't know what he (or Bob) was doing is watering down the whole subject of incest which to me is perhaps the most important thing Twin Peaks is trying to deal with. For the longest time I didn't even understand what Bob was saying in the train car. It was like: "I always thought you knew it was me! ---- I ..... knew.... knew... me..... I want you!" It was a huge thing to me when I understood Bob's words for the first time. It instantly gave lots of new meanings to things in Twin Peaks.

 Also, when Leland said that "when he was inside me, I didn't know" thing, I thought it basically meant that whenever Bob was doing things, Leland just "wasn't there" and didn't even remember the things Bob had done while being in his body. But as I think of it more and connect it to the train car scene, I think Leland meant that he didn't understand and didn't know that there was this Bob-thing inside of him. Leland did what he did but didn't have a clue about Bob. He couldn't remember things Bob was telling him to do. He probably was in contact with the Lodge spirits but all those "supernatural meetings" went away from his mind while still leaving "the orders" to his subconscious.

Leland's conscious was gone. He didn't understand what was right and what was wrong anymore. He did bad things. Things that made himself feel good but at the same time caused trouble to others. He got "orders" to find people Bob and company could use the way they used Leland. That basically saying that the will to get pleasure while doing bad things will cause more and more people to act the same way, thus giving the rush of pain, suffering and pleasure to the Lodge spirits. Corrupt one man and he'll corrupt two men, and so forth. Something bad happened to Leland in Pearl Lakes and that caused him slowly to lose his conscience and to do bad things. He did bad things to Laura and that way caused Laura to bad things. Leland isn't the only one affecting to Laura that way though but he might have started the whole circle of gaining pleasure and hurting others and herself.

"I never knew you knew it was me." That's what Bob said. Leland didn't know about Bob. Bob knew Leland didn't know about him. Bob also thought Laura didn't know about him. But, as it is said, there are few people that can see the "supernatural" and Laura was one of them.

Although the Lodge spirits might be the source of the evil things people do, the people are still the ones who do it and spread the bad "vibes" to others who continue doing the same thing spreading even more the bad "vibes" and so on. Maybe the Lodge spirits create the will and urge to do such things but in the end it's the people who act on those urges.

But even though there are people who do these bad things, they are not bad to the core. Most of the time Leland was a nice guy. He loved Laura and Laura loved her. But even nice people can be absolutely horrible in certain situations. The beginning of the episode 17 is beautiful because Sarah is reminded that she can still have the beautiful thoughts about Leland and Laura in her heart even though they are both dead and their fate and history were horrible. But still... I would've liked to see the writers dig deeper with this subject and not tame it down so much by concentrating on the goodness of Leland (and the evil of the spirits)

Damn it's hard to write my thoughts.... I have it all in my head but I can't put them out the proper way.. Well, anyways, I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say. And if there are holes in this thinking, please contribute to this topic with your own ideas and theories and say where I might be right and where I might be wrong.

I would assume that when Bob takes control it's a bit like being drunk off your ass.
A person (Leland in this case) loses their inhibitions and does things that they wouldn't normally do even though they might want to. And when they wake up later there is a big black hole where their memory should be.

Bob wants Laura and the loss of inhibitions allows him to use Leland's body to do something Leland himself probably wouldn't do.

I'm not a big believer in the Bob is the evil that men do thing. It's pretty boring.

I would assume that when Bob takes control it's a bit like being drunk off your ass.
A person (Leland in this case) loses their inhibitions and does things that they wouldn't normally do even though they might want to. And when they wake up later there is a big black hole where their memory should be.

Bob wants Laura and the loss of inhibitions allows him to use Leland's body to do something Leland himself probably wouldn't do.

I'm not a big believer in the Bob is the evil that men do thing. It's pretty boring.

 Well yeah... something like being drunk off your ass... But maybe more like being controlled by uncontrollable lust. People in general do things they don't really want to do. Some people use prostitutes and after doing it some of them have a moral hangover. Some people betray their wives and husbands by having sex with other people. I believe that especially when doing something like that for the first time one does feel bad after it and might even promise him or herself that it won't happen again. But needless to say, it will most certainly happen as the rush is just too high and in that condition it's extremely hard to think rationally. In Leland's case the moral hangover really don't exist anymore. It might've existed in the past but it has gone away slowly but surely as he has continued using prostitutes and abusing Laura.

I believe that many things in Twin Peaks suggest that Bob is both the evil that men do and really a "demon" of some sort who inhabits people. Those aren't mutually exclusive things.

I like the way they dealt with Leland and I can see it from a spiritual standpoint.  Leland died so I don't see why they would want to show anything about him being responsible for what he did.  I think in a way it shows how we are all slaves to things within us.  Like good and evil are either one of those things really right?  I think society makes laws to try to control people with those kinds of desires.  But does the law really prevent someone from doing those things?  It may some, but there always seems to be someone like Jeffery Dahmer who does those kinds of things and does not really seem to know why.  So people try to understand and try to find a cause or a reason.  Maybe it was the music he listened to or maybe it was his upbringing or maybe it was a demon, maybe he needed medication. 

I think it is just human nature.  Both good and evil come from human nature and that is something people don't want to look at.  Do I think someone who does something like Leland Palmer need to go to jail.  Sure, I think in order to protect others he does.  Do I think he should be responsible?  I would like to see him be, but is he able?  Is any of us able?  I think we all as humans do things that are stupid, but we continue to do them.  We can't help ourselves.  But even though we do those things, I think we should still enjoy being human.  

Now, I am someone who happens to believe in spirits and in God.  And I think the only way to truly overcome the human experience is in God, but that is just me.  I know that many would disagree with me about that.  :) 

I like the way they dealt with Leland and I can see it from a spiritual standpoint.  Leland died so I don't see why they would want to show anything about him being responsible for what he did.  I think in a way it shows how we are all slaves to things within us.  Like good and evil are either one of those things really right?  I think society makes laws to try to control people with those kinds of desires.  But does the law really prevent someone from doing those things?  It may some, but there always seems to be someone like Jeffery Dahmer who does those kinds of things and does not really seem to know why.  So people try to understand and try to find a cause or a reason.  Maybe it was the music he listened to or maybe it was his upbringing or maybe it was a demon, maybe he needed medication. 

I think it is just human nature.  Both good and evil come from human nature and that is something people don't want to look at.  Do I think someone who does something like Leland Palmer need to go to jail.  Sure, I think in order to protect others he does.  Do I think he should be responsible?  I would like to see him be, but is he able?  Is any of us able?  I think we all as humans do things that are stupid, but we continue to do them.  We can't help ourselves.  But even though we do those things, I think we should still enjoy being human.  

Now, I am someone who happens to believe in spirits and in God.  And I think the only way to truly overcome the human experience is in God, but that is just me.  I know that many would disagree with me about that.  :) 

 Yeah, there might not be any point to judge people after they've died but as people just as after Laura's death they just started to find out things about her, they could've done the same thing with Leland. Instead of making James to leave the town and meeting Evelyn Marsh, they could've.. no, they should've show us give us more Leland :D I mean that I would've liked to see the townspeople's reaction to what had happened. Surely there are some people in Twin Peaks who would have hated Leland for what he had done and surely there would have been people who would defend Leland's good side. The way it happened, it just all happened too fast. Leland died which was a beautiful scene. Then there was that very short scene with Sarah and Cooper andI just loved that scene. It was very important that Cooper said both that Leland went so far that he even drugged his wife and that the one who did that wasn't the good Leland she knew. It's important to show that even the people who do awful things have even a little bit of goodness in their heart and that the love Leland has given to Sarah and Laura has been maybe even most of the time very real. I'm a bit on the believer side myself too so I think that's one of the reasons I like to think this way.

 Oh well, I'm happy there was Fire Walk with Me. To me, that movie wasn't just about Teresa Banks and Laura Palmer as it was also very much about Leland Palmer. It showed very well his tendency to act on his urges and being a horrible person but it also showed very well his ability to love and even repent. The scene where he broke up crying was very powerful. I can just try to imagine what went on his mind at that moment. It must've been a storm of emotions running inside of him.

By the way, what you said about human nature and being human, I think that's one of the things Twin Peaks tried to say to us and I think it was quite well brought up showing both sides of it. And Bob is one of the most clever things that have happened ever. And as it happened as an accident, I gat help but think that there might've been a reason, even a bit divine perhaps, to it. It had to happen so that this thing about human nature could be told effectively. Maybe Lynch himself is a medium of some sort :D

After I read Matt Ruffs Set This House In Order I became interested in Dissociative identity disorder (DID), aka  multiple identity disorder, and it struck me how well this fits the story of Leland.

From my extremely limited reading on the subject I gather DID is almost exclusively the result of extreme child abuse the takes place at a very early age and results in the fragmenting of the psyche of the victim into two or more distinct personalities.  The transition from one personality to another can take place without the knowledge of the 'main' personality but can be percieved as 'lost time' by that personality.

I am not putting this out as an alternative to the traditional view of BOB as a possessing spirit, I just find it intereseting how well it seems to fit with some of the aspects of the story.  It could serve as the corner stone if one was trying to form a purely materialist interpretation of TP.

Thinking along these lines has also raised this thought in my head; Why is it that such an obviously evil entity like BOB wait until Laura was 12, as I recall, to start abusing her?  I understand that dealing with the issue of incest and rape at all was pretty groundbreaking for the time (not like it is common now) but from the perspective of the story it seems like BOB would not have waited until Laura was on the verge of sexual maturity.

Having recently started re-watching the series I have also had a little trouble with how fast the town seems to get over the murder of Laura and the death of Leland.  It seems that they have done the healing of months in a matter of days.  I personally have never gone through anything even remotely like what happens in the story so I can't claim first hand knowledge but it still seems to go a little quick.

Anyway, out of time, sorry for errors.

That is what is cool about Lynch films and especially Twin Peaks.  It seems like Twin Peaks hits so many different levels at one time that different people can take different things from it.  I guess any movie or show can be like that.  But with most things there is a general storyline that everyone knows that this is what the story is about.  It isn't that way with Twin Peaks.  I think that is why people can watch it over and over, because they can come up with new stories and see things they didn't see before. 

I don't find the moral hangover, multiple identity (etc) explanations for Leland Palmer's behaviour particularly satisfying. They reduce Bob to an aspect of Leland's psyche. I don't think the series ever presents Bob as an aspect of Leland's psyche. Bob is presented as an objective, albeit barely tangible, reality. After he disposes of Leland, he takes charge of Cooper - and Leland and Cooper are hardly reflections of one-another. Bob preys on Josie too - what did Josie and Leland have to do with each of other? Not much. No, as far as Twin Peaks is concerned Bob is literally out there. Furthermore, they had him contained in the cell before he flew the coop (excuse the pun, I can't believe I just wrote that). I think you have to settle for the fact that as far as Twin Peaks is concerned, Bob is literally out there. But is he really out there, I mean, in our world? Twin Peaks is a fiction. A work of imagination, not a record of actual events.

I don't find the moral hangover, multiple identity (etc) explanations for Leland Palmer's behaviour particularly satisfying. They reduce Bob to an aspect of Leland's psyche. I don't think the series ever presents Bob as an aspect of Leland's psyche. Bob is presented as an objective, albeit barely tangible, reality. After he disposes of Leland, he takes charge of Cooper - and Leland and Cooper are hardly reflections of one-another. Bob preys on Josie too - what did Josie and Leland have to do with each of other? Not much. No, as far as Twin Peaks is concerned Bob is literally out there. Furthermore, they had him contained in the cell before he flew the coop (excuse the pun, I can't believe I just wrote that). I think you have to settle for the fact that as far as Twin Peaks is concerned, Bob is literally out there. But is he really out there, I mean, in our world? Twin Peaks is a fiction. A work of imagination, not a record of actual events.

 Yes, Bob is right there in Twin Peaks, of course. But it's not like it's just one or the other. To me, Bob isn't just a spirit and he isn't just an aspect of Leland's psyche. He is both. I can't see this thought reducing Bob at all.

After all, David Lynch has said that Bob is an abstraction in a form of a human (It's on Chris Rodley's book Lynch on Lynch). In other words, to show something that isn't possible to really show, a physical form must be created to bring it to an understandable level. It's quite like when people used to think that the devil and the demons are the core reason for us to do evil things. And who knows, maybe that is the truth. In quite the same way there is Bob in Twin Peaks. But as Twin Peaks is fiction we must understand the creative process and the underlying messages the creators want to tell.

Even back when people thought it was the devil that made them do bad things, people still were the ones being responsible of the things they had done. People themselves "obeyed" the "orders" they got from the demons. If we're to say that Bob is only about this spirit who gets inside of people and absolutely controls it's host I think some of the things said in both the series and in the movie loses whatever meaning they got. I mean that Bob himself said that Leland's conscience was pretty much gone. And Leland said to Laura that he always thought Laura knew it was him. To me, those are both very big things to give Leland's character more depth. It says something about his conscience which might tell a lot about what he is capable of doing.

Maybe it's so that Twin Peaks is one of the rare places where people themselves can be in some contact to these spirits. And this situation where Leland and Cooper got together there was this very rare occurance where they could actually witness this root of evil speaking.

All in all, things shown in Twin Peaks are in Twin Peaks, of course. If there is mystical portal to a different dimension, then it is there and it is real. It's not something we could say that it's not there and that it's only a reference to something else. However, as any work of fiction, there are layers of different things waiting for to be discovered. Things that exist, also have many meanings to them. Fiction isn't always just about some story that just says things which are or aren't. Fiction, particularry good fiction, has things the experiencer of that fiction can relate into by reflecting it to his own world.

Anyways, if you have opposing thoughts to what I've written, I'd be glad to read them and even more glad if you'de explain where you get that idea from. A reference to the series or to the movie perhaps. I'd like to have a good discussion on this subject.

 Fiction isn't always just about some story that just says things which are or aren't. Fiction, particularry good fiction, has things the experiencer of that fiction can relate into by reflecting it to his own world.

I appreciate your perspective Rami and your knowledge of the show - you reminded me of a number of occurrences and showed me something Lynch said. Your comments about the function of fiction were very interesting. Re-reading my post, i regret sounding a lil'preachy at the end there.

There's a lot I'd be interested to discuss with you, just not all at once now. I want to start with Lynch's remark you quoted, which is at the forefront of my mind. I don't think it's the major issue dividing what you think from what i think but i want to address it in this post. I think the major point of interpretative difference centres somewhere around the quote i took from your post above. I'll give that some more thought and get back to you on another occassion.

I don't know the context Lynch made his comment but I don't think I'd take it the way you have. To me it's a very mundane thing to say. Kind of like 'Well i had this thought or may be a feeling and I decided to express it, more or less, artistically and I came up with this character, Bob for a story I was constructing'. Lynch seems to be commenting on his own creative process whereby he came up with Bob's persona not explaining what Bob actually is. Consider, 'Bob is an abstraction in the form of a human'. He might just as well have said that about Laura or Cooper or Leland or The Giant or any other character in Twin Peaks.

Of course, he didn't, he said it about Bob. What's the significance of that then? Well Bob stands on the threshold of what is familiar in Twin Peaks and what is tantilising and inexplicable. It's hard just to sit there and accept Bob and the other world he inhabits without wanting to demystify it, explain it away. Having heard Lynch discourse on various other subjects before, I've noticed he has a very gentlemanly way of expressing himself. i imagine he was responding to some theological-like analysis of Twin Peaks with this mundane comment by way of saying, 'I don't think you should ATTEMPT to read too much into this'. So, you, Rami, define the task of the audience to strive uncover the 'underlying message the creators want to tell'. I understand this very masculine impulse, I'm sure Lynch does too (we're both blokes). But i think Lynch deeply mistrusts that exercise. For my own reasons, I also doubt we should try so hard too.

i'll take this post further another time.

 Fiction isn't always just about some story that just says things which are or aren't. Fiction, particularry good fiction, has things the experiencer of that fiction can relate into by reflecting it to his own world.

I appreciate your perspective Rami and your knowledge of the show - you reminded me of a number of occurrences and showed me something Lynch said. Your comments about the function of fiction were very interesting. Re-reading my post, i regret sounding a lil'preachy at the end there.

There's a lot I'd be interested to discuss with you, just not all at once now. I want to start with Lynch's remark you quoted, which is at the forefront of my mind. I don't think it's the major issue dividing what you think from what i think but i want to address it in this post. I think the major point of interpretative difference centres somewhere around the quote i took from your post above. I'll give that some more thought and get back to you on another occassion.

I don't know the context Lynch made his comment but I don't think I'd take it the way you have. To me it's a very mundane thing to say. Kind of like 'Well i had this thought or may be a feeling and I decided to express it, more or less, artistically and I came up with this character, Bob for a story I was constructing'. Lynch seems to be commenting on his own creative process whereby he came up with Bob's persona not explaining what Bob actually is. Consider, 'Bob is an abstraction in the form of a human'. He might just as well have said that about Laura or Cooper or Leland or The Giant or any other character in Twin Peaks.

Of course, he didn't, he said it about Bob. What's the significance of that then? Well Bob stands on the threshold of what is familiar in Twin Peaks and what is tantilising and inexplicable. It's hard just to sit there and accept Bob and the other world he inhabits without wanting to demystify it, explain it away. Having heard Lynch discourse on various other subjects before, I've noticed he has a very gentlemanly way of expressing himself. i imagine he was responding to some theological-like analysis of Twin Peaks with this mundane comment by way of saying, 'I don't think you should ATTEMPT to read too much into this'. So, you, Rami, define the task of the audience to strive uncover the 'underlying message the creators want to tell'. I understand this very masculine impulse, I'm sure Lynch does too (we're both blokes). But i think Lynch deeply mistrusts that exercise. For my own reasons, I also doubt we try so hard too.

i take this post further another time.

 Thanks for replying!

I checked the quote from the book. I'll write here the things that lead to that answer. (I have a Finnish translation of the book so there might of course be some translation errors in the book itself and I might not be able to translate it back to English without some errors)

Chris Rodley: "The series tested the boundaries of what was generally accepted as proper tv-expression very roughly (my note: I had much trouble to translate this sentence so this might be somewhat wrong but I hope the thought is understandable). You directed a very violent episode where Leland Plamer murders Maddie."

David Lynch: "Every country has it's own censorship standards. Here 90 % of the violence is accepted uncut, but they always want to remove sexuality, even if there's only a small amount of it.  Twin Peaks had weird and violent sides that weren't interfered with. Terrible, horrible solutions get through easier if they differ from the norm. I mean unknown things that censors can't even name. It's hard to forbid something that the rulebook doesn't even mention."

Chris Rodley: "Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks are both placed in a timber industry city, where the weirdest things happen behind closed doors. The new element is that in Twin Peaks, the evil is not from this world. It literally comes from beyond."

David Lynch: "Or it's an abstraction in a form of a human - not a new invention, but Bob was like that."

I'm sorry if some the words and sentences feel weird. I'm not really good in translating English text and sometimes I find it very hard to write text of my own in English. So writing about things like Twin Peaks is quite a challenge sometimes as it's quite hard to explain the thoughts about Twin Peaks even in my own native language :D

Anyways, I believe that David is not against it if someone wants to think his stuff through. It's more about his own explanations of things he doesn't want to exrpess too much. He doesn't want to give the answers in a plate. He wants to let the mystery to speak for itself. There, however, are answers to things he creates. Of course not to all of them as he himself doesn't know the meaning to all of the things he does. But I believe Bob is one of those things he has a very good grasp of.

We know that Bob wasn't written to the series and he "happened" accidentally. Also, both Mark and David have said that they always knew Leland was the killer. So basically before they even had an idea of Bob, they already knew it was Leland who had killed Laura. I find it quite logical to think that when the "accident" happened and when he finally understood the connection of Bob and Leland, he had a very clear thought about what Leland's character was all about. I mean, he was the killer and the father who had sexually abused his daughter before Bob was even an idea. After the "Bob accident" had happened and David had finally made the connection with the accident and Leland's character, I just can't think that he left the idea of a normal well-known and much liked man doing these horrible things in secret and just replaced it with the idea that there is a demon of some sort who just inhabits and controls some people.

Also, I can't imagine that the "clearest" and the most obvious explanation shown in the series would be the truth. I mean that then it basically would be so that David would've already told an explanation straight in the series. This approach to having a mystery would be really unlike anything Lynch seems to stand for. And especially when there are, in my opinion, clear clues to something much more than just a demon explanation, I just can't think that Leland's and Bob's story would be that simple.

What comes to over-thinking Twin Peaks, I think it's sometimes good to remember not to think too much especially when trying to find a reason to the most trivial things such as "why's that painting colored the same as the clothes of one of the extras on the diner" (just doing a hypothetical question :D ) But I think that Leland's case is not one of those trivial things as he is a major and very important character and he says things that are supposed to have a meaning. Especially what is said in scenes such as Leland's death and him killing his daughter just can't be trivial and without any real purpose. That would be too weird even from Lynch :D

But as Kevin6002 wrote, "it seems like Twin Peaks hits so many different levels at one time that different people can take different things from it." If you get the most of enjoyment from Twin Peaks by having another theory than what I have, then let it be so. But one of the greatest thing about Twin Peaks is that it still evokes discussion and, at least for me, differing opinions and discussions about those opinions are fun. Thanks to David Lynch, Mark Frost, Robert Engels and Harley Peyton for that! (I think those four as the core of everything about Twin Peaks. Mark and David are the center of the core and Robert and Harley are closest to them from all of the other writers). 

I tend to think that everything in this world and everywhere is possible. But for me to take a side in a subject I need to see some evidence and something that backs up those opinions. I'm open for ideas and theories but without giving enough material for me to chew on, I'm going to stay with my opinion (That doesn't, of course, still mean that I'd be right on it though :D ).

I'm very interested to hear your take on the subject so I gladly await for your reply :)

WARNING SPOILERS 

Rami. I'm just concerned I'm not finding time to get back to you. So here are some brief thoughts.

The subject of the thread is of course 'Analysing Leland Palmer'. I think you introduced the right angle to discuss it by asking, more or less, questions about Leland's criminal/moral responsibility for a series of violent criminal acts committed by him. In this regard, I reckon it can be useful to refer to the distinction the English Common Law makes determining criminal liability for acts committed. Not because I think it will help us attribute or not responsibility to Leland for acts he committed but because I think it highlights what is difficult to understand about Leland and what makes him peculiarly resistant to the best attempts at a common sense analysis of him.

You may or may not have heard of the Latin terms actus reus and mens rea. They simply refer to elements which comprise the criminal act. Actus reus, being the physical element. Mens rea, being the mental element. In the case of a violent criminal act, like the murder of Laura Palmer, for the accused person, in this case Leland, to be found guilty of the act both the physical and mental elements of the act must be proven (albeit questions of mitigation often complicate the issue) beyond reasonable doubt. Stated in another way, in the eyes of the English Common Law at least, Leland's criminal responsibility for the murder of Laura depends not only on whether he can actually be proven to have physically caused the death of Laura but also whether he intended to kill her. So, hypothetically speaking, if Leland meant to kill Laura but actually didn't, he cannot be responsible for her death. If Leland did cause Laura's death but didn't intend to do so, then he did not murder her. That is, murder is the wrong definition of the act.

Now, I don't intend to go into any more of a legal analysis of the legal issues surrounding the criminal acts imputed to Leland. i threw the towel in on my Law degree after 3 years studying and I am quite happy to remain unattached. I'm only interested in the distinction between physically doing and mentally meaning to do and how that affects our judgements about personal responsibility/criminal responsibility. I think it is very interesting to analyse Leland knowing that he did certain things but really in doubt about whether he intended to do the things he did or was even aware of what he was doing.

In relation to the murder of Laura, we know Leland can be attributed with the actus reus of Laura's death. Laura was killed by his hands. But did he intend to do so?

Now, I've run out of time at this point, but let me ask, before getting back to you again what evidence can you point to that shows Leland meant to kill Laura? At this point in the analysis of Leland, we don't even need to raise the problem of Bob yet.

WARNING SPOILERS 

Rami. I'm just concerned I'm not finding time to get back to you. So here are some brief thoughts.

The subject of the thread is of course 'Analysing Leland Palmer'. I think you introduced the right angle to discuss it by asking, more or less, questions about Leland's criminal/moral responsibility for a series of violent criminal acts committed by him. In this regard, I reckon it can be useful to refer to the distinction the English Common Law makes determining criminal liability for acts committed. Not because I think it will help us attribute or not responsibility to Leland for acts he committed but because I think it highlights what is difficult to understand about Leland and what makes him peculiarly resistant to the best attempts at a common sense analysis of him.

You may or may not have heard of the Latin terms actus reus and mens rea. They simply refer to elements which comprise the criminal act. Actus reus, being the physical element. Mens rea, being the mental element. In the case of a violent criminal act, like the murder of Laura Palmer, for the accused person, in this case Leland, to be found guilty of the act both the physical and mental elements of the act must be proven (albeit questions of mitigation often complicate the issue) beyond reasonable doubt. Stated in another way, in the eyes of the English Common Law at least, Leland's criminal responsibility for the murder of Laura depends not only on whether he can actually be proven to have physically caused the death of Laura but also whether he intended to kill her. So, hypothetically speaking, if Leland meant to kill Laura but actually didn't, he cannot be responsible for her death. If Leland did cause Laura's death but didn't intend to do so, then he did not murder her. That is, murder is the wrong definition of the act.

Now, I don't intend to go into any more of a legal analysis of the legal issues surrounding the criminal acts imputed to Leland. i threw the towel in on my Law degree after 3 years studying and I am quite happy to remain unattached. I'm only interested in the distinction between physically doing and mentally meaning to do and how that affects our judgements about personal responsibility/criminal responsibility. I think it is very interesting to analyse Leland knowing that he did certain things but really in doubt about whether he intended to do the things he did or was even aware of what he was doing.

In relation to the murder of Laura, we know Leland can be attributed with the actus reus of Laura's death. Laura was killed by his hands. But did he intend to do so?

Now, I've run out of time at this point, but let me ask, before getting back to you again what evidence can you point to that shows Leland meant to kill Laura? At this point in the analysis of Leland, we don't even need to raise the problem of Bob yet.

 Yeah, I've got some problems with having enough time to write here too. Especially what comes to these longer and a bit more complicated posts. Anyways...

Legally speaking, the word murder might be wrong. There were a lot of things to suggest that it was indeed someone doing a murder but of course the criminal's mental health has to be checked and it might lead to the conclusion that the killer didn't understand what he was doing. And that might reduce the crime from murder to killing and also have an effect to the sentence. Or at least somewhat like that it goes here in Finland (although my knowledge of these things are very minimal).

The police spoke of the deaths of Teresa and Laura as murders. Leland said "I killed my daughter" and "they had me kill that girl Teresa." Although Leland is talking about "them" who had him kill people, he still makes it clear that it indeed was him who killed them. Maybe he was forced to do so but to me it seems that Leland himself understood that there wasn't anyone really physically or mentally forcing him to do things but that he was more like pressured to do those things. "I killed" and "they had me kill" implies that Leland has a very personal view on those killings. And the jury would definitely think he was at least responsible of the killings.

He might've been pressured to do the things he did but did he know about that "supernatural pressure" during his life? I think that whole "remembering" thing in the episode where Leland died didn't mean he suddenly remembered what had happened but it is more about having him to have his conscience back for a while, to understand what he had done. And to remember the supernatural side of things. To remember what really caused the pressure. And to mirror this to our real world we could say that it's something like if we would say that the demons are giving us the small nudges towards doing bad things. That there is this "supernatural" world that is the core and reason for our bad behaviour and we occasionally follow them without actually understanding, knowing and seeing what's the thing that is directing us that way.

 What comes to what was Leland's intentions, I think that especially FWWM let's us suggest that Leland did at least sexually abused her daughter. The killing might not have been intended to happen but I think Leland knew that it was a possibility. He wouldn't have carried Laura and Ronnette to the train car and have a knife with him (although I think the killing weapon in the series was a hammer as there is a shot of a bloody hammer in the train car in the pilot). Also, I think he didn't visit Teresa without the thought of a possibility to kill her.

I don't know how well this answered to your question but there it goes anyway..

An aspect for me is this...

In situations of child abuse there are known issues regarding 'DID' ( mentioned elsewhere) particularly in respect of the abuse victim...In respect of Laura, are we to give weight to the idea that there was an aspect of 'DID' in her own personality, as a result of this systematic abuse...from her father? (Leland was also abused as a young child and hence this applies to him also...abuse begats abuse.)

Its important in regard to Leland's statement to Laura 'I always thought you knew it was me' in the final scenes of FWWM.  What I'm getting at is....because parental abuse of your own child is the ultimate betrayal (to the victim), the victims coping mechanism can lead to them mentally blocking out the reality of their abuse and their abuser...IOW's the way to deal with it ...is to not deal with it, pretend that its not happening and that it is not your guardian or parent that is doing this...otherwise its total breakdown. 

We see this breakdown of Laura later in the movie right after she discovers that in her now 'conscious mind' her Father is her abuser...remember when she first sees Bob looking for the diary (after the Chalfonts tip her off)...and then Leland comes out of the house.*  At this point Laura's mind is fighting with itself over the issue of denial, that it is really her Father that is her abuser. (Admittedly Bob is an aspect of Leland, but I'm not trying to make that point here).  Here Laura is in total shock at this idea that her Father could be this 'BOB' who she thinks is raping her...in fact at this point she is not even convinced, but very scared and concerned by her own thoughts etc.  (she even ask the angel...is it true?) When we see Leland/Bob carry out his last attack on Laura, it is at this point that the full horror of her suspicions are confirmed...she sees Leland and not Bob.

* there seems to be a small problem here...when Laura returns with the Chalfont 'picture' to the Palmer house (remember the boy calls him 'the man behind the mask, not Bob or Dad/Leland or whatever) to see what is going down...why does she fail to notice that Leland's blue convertible car is parked right out front of the house? (Lynch doesn't show you the street outside when Laura enters, just the doorway I think) But rest assured, when she runs out of the house to hide in a bush...she sees Leland come out and jump into this 'blue convertible'. (there were only 2 cars parked out front of the house!)  A small thing, but still...I think it was missed for whatever reason, unless of course this also factors in as a further part of Laura's process of denial.

Next morning...Leland still seems to expect life to go on as usual, but Laura's behaviour marks a turning point between the abused and the abuser.  Laura's realisation of the horrible truth has 'sunk in' and she now cannot even stand to be in the presence of her own Father...and she makes no secret of this fact and we see Leland understand or realise that.  Laura is finally totally broken as we see her go to school for the last time and she is lost. (as frightening as Bob was to Laura as her abuser, she could at least still function...and it does seem that finding out its Dad, did finally push her over the edge and it destroyed her mind.) Its at this point that Laura is now a 'dead person walking' and in certain situations of child abuse, when the abuser finds themselves in this position (being discovered)... it would not be uncommon for them to dispose of their victim, in some way...they are now a total liability to the abuser and therefore the discovery of this pattern of abuse is highly likley. In this case, Laura is killed the very next evening...literally no time span exist between conscious discovery and then her death and I'm sure Lynch was making a point, in this regard.

Please understand that I've tried to remove the idea of Bob totally possessing Leland and in him becoming him physically during Laura's abuse ...as it is necessary to make this point about the behaviour of abuse victims and the mechanisms that they use to cope with their predicament. Bob has to sit on the sidelines for this to make any sense in terms of real parental abuse.

Perhaps physically its always been Leland who raped his own daughter but she was only willing to see the BOB aspect of it, as that was the easier option...if you can call it that.  Consciously for Laura it was Bob, subconsciously, maybe Leland.  In relation to her realisation of her abuse...Laura's hand does seem forced by the revelations of the 'Chalfont's & 'the one armed man' but this revelation, ultimately leads her to her own death and as we see later, they get their 'garmonbozia' from the death of Laura.  Its seems that Laura's discovery that her Father is the abuser, actually acts as the catalyst for her own death...at his hands.

Anyway...just wanted to put that aspect out there.

Obviously...we must accept that BOB is possessing Leland (to some large degree) and I fully appreciate that too...I had to remove him somewhat, otherwise we are just gonna be left with...the reason she sees Bob is because he possesses Leland during the phase of abuse...and thats it (although we do know that Bob's ultimate goal is really to possess Laura, not kill her...so that may factor in and its the convenience store mob who seem to want her dead). However, this would fail to address the issue of certain abuse victims creating denial (amnesia walls etc) in order to deal with the stresses of their abuse...and this could be as much a part of the story as Bob's presence is.

Interesting post, Bluefrank. I´m re-reading Lauras Secret Diary and it´s kind of hard to disagree with what you´re saying here.

I agree completely.  Leland is one of the great characters of all time, when he and Laura disappeared from Twin Peaks the show lost it's dark heart and became a mess.  Leland Palmer is essentially the soil of Twin Peaks, Bob a bad, bad seed.  All of the events of the show lead back to Leland, he started it all, (if we're talking chronologically, taking a step back the actual show itself all stemmed from Laura, the face of Twin Peaks).  I just couldn't believe people had forgotten about the events with Laura and Leland so suddenly.  Of course it's all the writers fault, they started creating dogs of plotlines and awful characters portrayed by guest stars.  Twin Peaks was saved only by Cooper's tragic backstory, Windom Earle, and the Black Lodge, in the brilliant final episode, which manages to bring back Laura Palmer and Leland and Maddy in a mystical, moving narrative bend.