Not a fact - just an alternative fact - aka a lie

Edward drove to LA is a fact if not why would they insert that scene. What purpose does it serve than to show that Edward is fine and healthy. Why would they make Tony's car and Edward's car exactly the same. It's not just coincidental that it's the same.
Edward has cancer is speculation and until it is proven in the movie that showed Edward died from cancer and literally showed he accidentally injected himself with Fentanyl it will continue to be speculation. And my fact have dispel that speculation and obliterated it.
How's that for a fact?

You're deluding yourself your uninformed opinions are facts. They're not - they're just
alternative facts
. Do you remember what they are?

Can't argue with facts resort to derailing my argument.

As I wrote previously, it's clear you really have no idea what you're babbling about.

You still haven't explain how he can still managed to drive all the way to LA for a trip that last 18 hours. Even if he took Fentanyl he will be hallucinating and bound to be involved in an accident or spotted by the police for driving incompetently. But he still managed to arrived to LA safe and sound, didn't he?
Let me break it down for you like an 8 year old.
If Edward has cancer + drive to LA + took Fentanyl = Accident fail to arrive to LA
Edward didn't have cancer + drive to LA + didn't take Fentanyl = safe and sound as seen in the scene after Susan entered her home. This is evident in the movie. And your version is not seen in the movie. Your theory is entirely shrouded with a cloud of doubt and not without a shadow of a doubt at alllll.
Understand?

You can keep your logic. It doesn't sound like you have any personal experience of the current opiate epidemic raging across the country - I do. People drive under the influence of these drugs whether it's legal or not.
The buyers frequently don't know what they're purchasing on the street. Fentanyl often gets mixed in with heroin because it's cheap and powerful - and this leads to accidental deaths. Fentanyl is so powerful that a tiny amount can kill by being absorbed through the skin.

I found your logic to be flawed. The OP mentioned that Edward personally delivered his manuscript as we are shown in the scene after Susan's car entered her house it was followed by a Mercedes same as described vividly in Edward's book. That means Edward actually travelled cross-country from Texas to LA for his business trip. If he is using Fentanyl it will likely to induce hallucination as the drug is highly potent than morphine. It causes extreme sleepines. It will be impossible for him to make that trip to LA under influence of Fentanyl to operate a vehicle. Also it's illegal too.
Hence if he made it to LA to personally deliver the manuscript that means he can drive in long hours without incident. That means he is not taking Fentanyl. If he didn't take Fentanyl that means he didn't have cancer. Period.

Sure - believe what you like - it's a free world.
Maybe Edward took a nap before the meal and overslept. Perhaps he got a flat in a dead spot on La Brea. Maybe he got lucky when some starlet hit him up in his hotel bar. Perhaps he smoked some weed and couldn't be bothered. Maybe he showed up after Susan left the restaurant or Tom Ford ran out of film stock.
As far as I'm concerned, he had Bobby's cancer and ODed shooting up some fentanyl. No question about it - not a shadow of doubt. It's all there in the film. Case closed. Funeral is on 02/20/2017

I agree that it makes NO sense that Edward stood Susan up because he feels indifferent towards her. If he were truly indifferent he wouldn't have wrote a whole book about her, dedicated it to her, gave it to her, and agreed to meet up in the first place, he would have just moved on.
But I disagree that he didn't meet her because he was ill, just because the cop had cancer doesn't mean Edward does, there's nothing to imply that he was sick or dead. The idea that he didn't show up for those reasons seems like a way of trying to make the ending mean something more than it actually does.
I don't think there's a truly logical reason we can find from the movie as to why Edward went through all of that trouble and didn't show up, or at least real-life logical. In movie logic you could say "Edward somehow KNEW his book would be a hit (not sure how) and he could shove it in her face!" But that is some extreme lengths to go to for someone who is trying to give the impression that he's moved on.
Personally, this felt to me like a wish-fulfillment movie where the writer wants to imagine he's the guy who wrote SUCH a great novel it made his ex fall back in love with him, only so he could be like "Screw you!" and she'd be sooo devastated. He just didn't actually think through the logic behind it, because something like that doesn't often logically happen.

Interesting - of course the quote is taken totally out of context. Where is the rest of the interview? At other times, Ford has said the opposite - that revenge has nothing to do with the no-show.
Needless to say, this idea of indifference is contradicted by Edward's actions. A writer doesn't demonstrate indifference to somebody by dedicating his first novel to that person, driving a thousand miles to hand-deliver the manuscript, dishonestly agreeing to a dinner meeting and then failing to show up. All he's demonstrating is small-minded petulance and rudeness.
If this is Ford's actual vision of his 'hero', a self-deluding milquetoast, still nursing a grudge over getting dumped 20 years previously, I'm not surprised I've always had certain reservations about the film.
PS

• I listened to the entire interview, and your out-of-context quote is somewhat deceptive. Ford posed that scenario only as a possibility - it's certainly not his definitive interpretation.

I'm very happy to dispense with the RE-VEN-GE nonsense, but the restaurant no-show is crucially important, because it informs us of Edward's fate - he is no more
Sorry, but please re-read my other post, I did an edit while you replied.

At the end of the dream they both disappear and what's left is Diane's current self.
Mullholland Drive is an excellent case in point, although I don't believe Diane truly identifies with Rita's personality. She has re-made Camilla as a powerless, malleable version of Camilla.
But back to your point - Betty and Rita disappear, and Diane reappears - but Camilla never does! Why is that? Because, like Edward, she's dead.
It's somewhat similar in 'Lost Highway'. Fred Madison transforms into Pete Dayton. When Pete melts away, Fred reappears - he may be lost in delusion in his prison cell, but unlike Edward, he's still alive!
I'm very happy to dispense with the RE-VEN-GE nonsense, but the restaurant no-show is crucially important, because it informs us of Edward's fate - he is no more.

Ford had something specific in mind - and it wasn't some kind of pitiful no-show insult by Edward towards his ex-wife. If that was supposed to signify the hero's emancipation and 'moving on' - what a dick-less loser!
Moving on as in processed his grief, pain and anger. Stop with the re-ven-ge & no-show thing for just 5 minutes please, it's not even what I'm talking about haha.
Bobby and Edward are fictional characters made up in Edwards mind based on himself and his experiences. At the end of the fictional layer the both "disappear" and what's left is Edward's current self which we of course never see. My reading then is that Edward is different from either of these two fictional characters today which is why they both die. It's behind him today.
Thematically the idea of splitting one person into several others based on different aspects of his/her personality is very old. I'm not aware of the rules you're referring to let alone why NA should comply with these rules?
In Mulholland drive Betty & Rita are fictional characters made up in Diane's mind based on herself and her experiences. At the end of the dream they both disappear and what's left is Diane's current self. As we learn, Diane is not really like either of the two fictional characters either which is why both of the fictional characters disappear - they each represent something that's no longer there . You may disagree with this interpretation but it's probably one of the most solid/recognized ones out there.
Off topic - taken from slahfilm (you may not like this)
"I think its to signify that Edward just does not give a damn about Susan anymore. We have no idea if Edward knows about Susans unhappy life situation (if he does, then his revenge is all the more punishing). But he does likely know that his book Nocturnal Animals is a hit, and that that talent and brilliance is something Susan will be attracted to. So he dangles in front of her the opportunity to meet again and possibly rekindle old flames, only to allow her to come to the slow realization that he never intended to show up. Elie Wiesel once said, The opposite of love is not hate, its indifference. Thus, the films ending is a much more hurtful form of revenge than anything Edward could actively do to hurt Susan."
In an interview on Jeff Goldsmiths Q&A podcast, writer/director Tom Ford affirms this interpretation
Come to think of it, that's actually on topic - all the old emotions are gone

If you assume that Edward has "moved on" it makes sense that both Bobby and Tony disappear.
That actually makes no sense to me. The Texas narrative closely follows the formula of a traditional myth, where a lost and impotent novice faces a dilemma, finds a mentor (tribal elder/spiritual master), is forged into a warrior, succeeds in his quest and is transformed into a person of power.
In these fables, sometimes the mentor dies, so the disciple can fully inherit his power - you'll find this idea clearly expressed even in lightweight fiction like Doctor Strange - but it's very unusual to have the disciple perish. If you can think of an example where both master and disciple die, I'd like to hear it.
People intuitively understand these storytelling rules because they're rooted in the culture. I suspect this transgression of tradition has resulted in a lot of confusion about the story's meaning - e.g. the 'revenge' theory. It also seems to have caused a lot of anger on this IMDB board - e.g. all the "what was this about?" complaints.
Ford had something specific in mind - and it wasn't some kind of pitiful no-show insult by Edward towards his ex-wife. If that was supposed to signify the hero's emancipation and 'moving on' - what a dick-less loser!

Some people interpret Tony's death as 'death of an old self'. All very well - but Bobby is also proxy for Edward and dying
If you assume that Edward has "moved on" it makes sense that both Bobby and Tony disappear. Tony was the broken down version of Edward while Bobby was the part of him that was fueled with anger and wanted to get even. They both represent feelings that Edward had towards it all but his broken heart is ok again and he no longer feels anger towards Susan, Hutton etc.

Much of your Edward analysis is just projection - like: " . . he became uncertain . . But he also understood that what is ended must stay in the past and decided not to show at all. . . he was certainly a vulnerable man with deep feelings." The film doesn't show any of this.
Bobby's cancer was very helpful: it made him fearless and stronger.
Some people interpret Tony's death as 'death of an old self'. All very well - but Bobby is also proxy for Edward and dying, and in fact his cancer wasn't helpful at all - it rendered him weak and facilitated Ray's escape.
Bobby's identity as a second alter ego for Edward has been confirmed by the film-maker himself and the otherwise unnecessary detail of the estranged daughter. If Ford had wanted to suggest the novel's author was killing off his old self through Tony's demise,
he would have left Bobby to soldier on as his new self
. Instead, he's killing him off too - leaving death triumphant on the West Texas battlefield. Ignore all those points, and you might as well ignore the idea that events in the novel symbolize real events in Edward's life.
well, symbols are not always strict. His wife was also dead in his novel and her murderers too.
Exactly - but her abduction and death transparently symbolize a crucial event in Edward's life. Edward isn't a Texas sheriff with terminal cancer, hasn't been blinded with a crowbar and shot himself accidentally in the stomach with a gun after killing a rapist/murderer - but this stuff means something. And Edward's illness explains his absence at the restaurant far better than some farcical juvenile attempt at revenge by standing up his ex-wife for dinner - the person to whom he's dedicated his novel. This would be the meaningless act of a pathetic coward.

well, symbols are not always strict. His wife was also dead in his novel and her murderers too. But in fact Susan wasn't raped or murdered - she rudely left him. In my opinion it was the death of their ralationship.
She made such a decision years ago and he must somehow live with it (seek revenge or forget, do smth), then he relieved his pain in the book and decided to end with all of this story. Smth like that
Death also means an end of anything and release.
It seems that by writing a death of the main character he wanted to say her "it was hard but now i am free" but when she started correspondence he became uncertain. He wanted to see her. But he also understood that what is ended must stay in the past and decided not to show at all. It's hard to deal with emotions sometimes and he was certainly a vulnerable man with deep feelings.
Bobby's cancer was very helpful: it made him fearless and stronger. Edward's pain also has impact on his way: it made him to write a powerful novel.

I think he didn't show up because she was right and he was weak.
Before you dismiss Edward as weak, perhaps you should consider the symbolic meaning of Bobby's terminal cancer, and Tony's death in the novel. It's extremely doubtful Edward included those details for no good reason.

I think he didn't show up because she was right and he was weak.
The hero of his book couldn't deal with his revenge alone. Yes, he saw himself as a strong and stubborn man who is ready for struggle, but we can see that He actually needed a help from someone stronger (ill Bobby, i don't think that Bobby was "another Edward" because when they met Bobby suspected Edward at first. We usually know if we did smth or not, so if Bobby would be Edward's alter ego he would choose Edward's side from the start), Edward needed someone supporting (his wife never supported him during their short marriage). First of his enemies was already dead when the main character knew who he was. The second was killed by Bobby. The last was shot, but how? It was an accident because the hero didn't know how to use his weapon and he also got injured: first of all he is blind. Then he is dead. This blindness gives us a clue about Edward's state: he made his way till the final but he doesn't know what to do with it. And he can't see what's next. But his "weapon" - a book, made it's way to his ex-wifes heart, that's why she came there. He is dead in the same way as Susan "died" in his novel: he just went away leaving it all. He doesn't exist for her anymore.
i also liked 4, 5 and 8 theories)
as a revenge it would be very childish, i suppose. And i think that he already relieved his pain by writing this book and needs smth new in his life and writing. And if he was dying from cancer he could simply say it in a letter. I thought about suicide note but if it really was so he wouldn't wait untill she'll (if she will) decide to meet with him.

Hutton comments that it pisses him off that they need to sell the paintings, Susan replies:
"Don't worry, I can fill the walls with some new LA Artists and people will think we're ahead of the curve instead of going broke"

You may be right - the line has a certain ambiguity.
There have been a lot of posters on this board loudly proclaiming Hutton and Susan were broke, but I didn't see anything to suggest or confirm that.
It's clear Susan was already disenchanted with both contemporary art and materialism at the beginning of the film. She assesses herself quite harshly in the conversation with her gallery assistant. Many of these noisy posters seem to think she's borderline evil for the decisions she made in her 20s, but I find her quite a sympathetic character - and it's clear Ford does so as well.
If dumping a spouse and getting an abortion qualifies as evil, the term has been devalued to meaninglessness.

I thought she said "you need this" as a brief moment where she regained her former self about not caring about money, only happiness. The reason she married Edward because he wasn't succesfull then and she claimed not to be materialistic like her parents. She wanted to go away with Hutton for the weekend just after the audience realises she is unhappy and just before she said that phrase.
Maybe it's my interpretation but I thought materialism and can't buy happiness is the theme there. It's not like they had debts or anything and after all it was an excuse for Hutton to go see his mistress.

Edward doesn't know what her life is like now, that she's broke
I'm not sure that's true. On 2nd viewing of the film I watched out for references to Susan being in financial trouble. I heard only this: As Hutton sets off for NYC to seal a business deal, he says: "We need this." Susan relies: "
You
need this."
I doubt she's broke. Any self-respecting wealthy Republican family puts some of a daughter's assets in trusts, in order to protect them from fortune-hunting husbands.