House of Leaves Readalong discussion
Discussions
>
100 page discussion
date
newest »
newest »
I love this book so far!!! I've already started recommending it to friends and I'm only about 100 pages in, which is something that I never do. I feel like the footnotes and narration changes force you to stay really engaged the whole time... I'm also reading at a much slower pace than usual because the footnotes create these little pauses in the reading experience and I end up really thinking about what's being described and getting more and more creeped out...
The first theme I noticed is Danielewski's allusions to Jorge Luis Borges, which is linked to blindness.
1. Zampano has been blind since the mid 1950's. Borges lost his sight in 1954. (xxi)
2. On page 42, a footnote references Borges's story "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote." This is interesting for two reasons: the footnote does not indicate that "Pierre Menard" is a work of fiction; Borges was rather famous for writing literary "hoaxes," of which "Pierre Menard" is one. In other words, Borges writes the story as a piece of academic research/analysis of a work that does not exist. Think about this in relation to what Zampano is writing.
3. Pierre Menard writes an echo of Cervantes. Danielewski echoes Borges. All of the echoes lead back to a fiction.
4. Borges is also famous for writing about labyrinths, maps, and spaces that seemingly have no end point.
By including these references to Borges, Danielewski makes the reader question Zampano's reliability (also, both Truant and Navidson are questionable sources).
Now, let's talk about blindness. It's all over the first part of this book.
1. Zampano
2. Borges
3. Don Quixote (while not truly blind, his visions skew reality; he is metaphorically blind). It should also be noted that Quixote's quest is based on the romantic ideal--ie fiction.
4. William Wordworth (p. 46). Wordsworth explored the themes of blindness and vision extensively in his poetry. I am fairly certain that Wordsworth suffered from failing vision in his old age, but I'm not sure about that.
5. Milton ( I apparently didn't note the page number where Milton is referenced) went blind in his later years.
6. Virgil (p 19). Another blind poet. Of course, Virgil serves as Dante's guide in the Divine Comedy. Virgil=Zampano; Dante=Truant?
7. Gloucester (from King Lear) has his eyes gouged out (again, I didn't note the page number. Sorry!)
8. Without an artificial light source, the hallway causes blindness because it is completely dark. Also, because the space keeps changing dimension and form, it causes those who enter to grope around in metaphorical blindness. The senses--and especially vision--cannot be relied upon. The space itself is unreliable.
1. Zampano has been blind since the mid 1950's. Borges lost his sight in 1954. (xxi)
2. On page 42, a footnote references Borges's story "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote." This is interesting for two reasons: the footnote does not indicate that "Pierre Menard" is a work of fiction; Borges was rather famous for writing literary "hoaxes," of which "Pierre Menard" is one. In other words, Borges writes the story as a piece of academic research/analysis of a work that does not exist. Think about this in relation to what Zampano is writing.
3. Pierre Menard writes an echo of Cervantes. Danielewski echoes Borges. All of the echoes lead back to a fiction.
4. Borges is also famous for writing about labyrinths, maps, and spaces that seemingly have no end point.
By including these references to Borges, Danielewski makes the reader question Zampano's reliability (also, both Truant and Navidson are questionable sources).
Now, let's talk about blindness. It's all over the first part of this book.
1. Zampano
2. Borges
3. Don Quixote (while not truly blind, his visions skew reality; he is metaphorically blind). It should also be noted that Quixote's quest is based on the romantic ideal--ie fiction.
4. William Wordworth (p. 46). Wordsworth explored the themes of blindness and vision extensively in his poetry. I am fairly certain that Wordsworth suffered from failing vision in his old age, but I'm not sure about that.
5. Milton ( I apparently didn't note the page number where Milton is referenced) went blind in his later years.
6. Virgil (p 19). Another blind poet. Of course, Virgil serves as Dante's guide in the Divine Comedy. Virgil=Zampano; Dante=Truant?
7. Gloucester (from King Lear) has his eyes gouged out (again, I didn't note the page number. Sorry!)
8. Without an artificial light source, the hallway causes blindness because it is completely dark. Also, because the space keeps changing dimension and form, it causes those who enter to grope around in metaphorical blindness. The senses--and especially vision--cannot be relied upon. The space itself is unreliable.
Wow, thank you Regina for your analysis. I have just reached page 100 and you're given me a lot to mull over.Does anyone have any theories about the checkmark at the bottom of page 97? It made me think of the instructions Pelefina gave Johnny in one of her letters, but I'm not sure how that relates to the present narrative.
Thanks, Regina, for the Borges reference. It makes a ton of sense.I myself am not fussing too much with all the allusions, but I do wonder how many of the notes are real. The multiple storylines remind me of a later book, J.J. Abrams' S, but Danielewski's narratives are more engaging.
So I'm at about page 130 right now and thought I would chirp in.This time around I'm considering the implications of both the manipulations of space and of time (along with the engagement of the physical space of the book itself). At page 100 we are just beginning to engage with the oddness of the text and I'm enjoying that.
I have to say that I'm finding Johnny's storyline far less engaging that Navidson's and am questioning if the offering of unreliability is worth the pay off of the storyline that is notable less interesting (to me at least.)
The textbook style is something I adore, and I'd forgotten how clever MZD is with his essay referencing. To me, this element is what really draws me in and lets me give up that 'reader's skepticism' and help me to believe in the story itself.
Will and Karen are wonderful and I adore the depth of the Navidson dynamic.
I am also noting up my copy this time around, physically marking the text. I am LOVING doing this. It brings another narrative voice, my own, into play and again lets me play with the text. I'm hoping it adds rather than detracts from the experience the next time I read it.
I'm really enjoying reading everyone's thoughts so far and am impressed with Regina's dedication to the allusions within the text. As I've read the book before, I don't want to make comments directly that might lead people, but know that I'm reading everyone's thoughts regardless.
What do we think of the first little piece?