Your is actually one of the better ones I read, but it still doesn't actually explain anything, it relies too much on the film itself
This is where you almost lost me.
I'm very interested in "the film itself." Maybe that's naive.
I'm also interested in cultural/historical/literary context, and I'm sure it's obviously part of the story. And that's probably where I would have gone next had this been a bigger project. I am admittedly less interested in it (explained below), because I do believe the film needs to stand on its own for the most part, which it does.
It does seem more likely that those things provided structure and background for Lynch, perhaps meaningful structure and background, but that he (of course) turned things in a Lynch direction, and that the film's meaning is more Lynch-centric than European folklore centric.
I definitely don't want to prejudge your ebook/essay, though. Can you expand on that? Does the folklore illuminate the spiritual mechanics (which after all is the core of the film)? Because I would love to read that.
I'm worried that, as with so much literary analysis, we reach to make as many connections as possible with whatever cultural sources are available, and countless coincidences get caught in the net. It's easy to stray with that approach, is what I'm saying.
It still looks like people should buy your book (buy his book, everyone!)... I'm just expressing some healthy skepticism.
For example, according to one review, you talk about the significance of hares in Gypsy folklore, and I assume you use that to explain the rabbits. But Lynch's series "Rabbits" (which I love) was made four years before Inland Empire. Was Lynch reading Gypsy folklore even then? (I don't know, maybe that's his thing.)
Hmm and this part of this review
Lidstone's argument grows tenuous in the final section, "INLAND EMPIRE Revealed." He continues to raise interesting questions, but none of the supplied evidence necessarily leads to the conclusion that "INLAND EMPIRE is a prophetic warning against a descent into fascim, the rise and fall of a future America 4th Reich, nuclear war and even the Biblical 'day of the lord.'"
This sounds like violent overreaching. Any rebuttal? Or is it simply best explained in the book?