Chaos Reading discussion
This topic is about
House of Leaves
Chaos Reading Bookclub
>
DISCUSSION OPEN! Random Read: HOUSE OF LEAVES * with SPOILERS*
date
newest »
newest »
It's been a few years since I've read it, but I'd be open to a discussion.
Mod
Mod
*Discussion Starts Saturday 13th October, 2012*
Squee.
I'm in. I just finished it as well and would love to discuss it.
Iv started but really struggling to get into it!
Trying to get hold of a copy, paper or virtual, as we speak! Hopefully I'll be ready in time to at least enrich my reading experience with your discussion, you fine intellectual minds! ;)
Got the ebook and I've read 30 pages or so. Hell, this is no ordinary book (by any measure), is it?
Am I missing out on the experience of putting this story together if I read it on kindle ? Should I get the paper original?
Mod
Agree, you definitely need to get a hardcopy. There are footnotes with footnotes, endnotes, different fonts and layouts etc... I speak as a fan of e-books when I say this one can't be properly experienced as an e-book.
Yeah, I'm really curious how this would work as an ebook. There are just so many formatting elements -- footnotes, sideways/backwards/upside down text -- that I don't think would translate well electronically. Although I love ebooks, I would urge paper for this one too.
It's aq great book but I wouldn't worry too much about the footnotes, I skimread and skipped most of them and doubt that it detracted from the book at all
Already ordered, but its gonna get here very close to the discussion start date. :/ The ebook I got is a direct scan of the pages, in color and all, so I think there is no harm if I keep on reading bits until the real deal arrives.
I have really struggled trying to get into this book. Any suggestions?
I am in. I have not been able to do any group reads here since Slaughterhouse five and I was reading HoL but put it down. This is the perfect excuse to get it out again! Yay!
Mark wrote: "Mark wrote: "Mark wrote: "It's aq great book but I wouldn't worry too much about the footnotes, I skimread and skipped most of them and doubt that it detracted from the book at all"For me the footnotes and en..."
Feels like I'm talking to myself. But that may be appropriate for this book."
Ha! Took me a while to realize you weren't, too xD
Mod
For me the footnotes and endnotes were an integral part of the book. Distracting and even frustrating at times but necessary...."
I'm going to have to agree with Mark on this, Mark is just wrong.
Whitney wrote: "I'm going to have to agree with Mark on this, Mark is just wrong."Heh.
I did read the footnotes for about the first half and some were valid but as the book went on they became a bit supurfluous. The side notes / upside down / backwords parts are integral to the book and are largely why it makes for such interesting reading
Annieb having the same issue :/
Mod
Mod
Discussion Open!
Mod
The fact that a footnote references Kevin Carter and his picture as the real-life Delial, means that the person writing the footnotes (Zampano from memory) knows that the story of the Navidsons and their house isn't true. Which adds an extra little layer of metafiction madness to the mix (as if any were needed!)
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Johnny's mother mentions this in one of the Whaletoe letters as well, the same one that has a cryptic reference to Zampano (April 5, 1986 with 'my dear Zampano who did you lose?' spelled out by the first letters of a sentence). The other crossover I'm aware of in the check mark that she asks Johnny to put in the corner of his letter, which shows up at the bottom of chapter VIII. Yet one more suggestion that there is a single author of everything, including the Whalestoe Letters.
Mod
I did notice the check mark, but I didn't remember the Whalestoe message to Zampano. Fantastic! So what's your theory as to the origin of the story? And does this mean there is no film?
OK, I have read the letters (Perafina you are lovely and flawed) and seen the check mark. I'm now on page 126(does the page n° matter?) Maybe I should say, I'm going up the down staircase. I feel like I'm in Art School, circa 1978. Is that possible? Has this book actually transported me to another place and time?
All I can say is I really struggled with this book :/ it really hooked me in at the start, but jumping from story to story really threw me off. I didnt get to finish it yet but im interested in what other readers thought of the footnotes? I tended to ignore them if they had little to do with the main story and treat them as a symbol of the deteriorating mind of the writer (if that makes sense?)
Mod
To me, the footnotes, appendices, shifting type face etc. are all part of the labyrinth that is the text which reflects the labyrinth that is the house. I think what makes this book so incredible are the many, many layers, not the 'action' as such (although that is definitely one of the layers).
When you say 'the main story', what are you referring to, the Navidsons? Or, if Zampano made up the Navidson footage as is implied, then is Zampano's the main story? And if Johnny made up Zampano, then is his the main story?
I read the ebook version, which was much easier to do! the footnotes interjected the main text [in brackets like this] and it didn't feel so jumpy-aroundy [which I know was the intended effect, but got to enjoy the story more :D]
Mod
Also, if you're not reading the footnotes, you're missing a lot of the clues and repeated themes. The theme of "Echo" springs to mind. The story of Echo told through mythology was so haunting, I really did notice it being repeated throughout the book, in all of its streams of footnotes.
I agree with Andrea too - Perafina is amazing, as flawed as she is.
Ok, I just finished this book and I'm freaking out here.As my mind tries to make sense of it all in one unique and simple layer (impossible task in this book-experience) what I'm tempted to say is that Johnny _______ made it all up, suffering from some kind of mental illness like his mother (schizophrenia maybe?) and transported alot of significant aspects of his life onto diferent characters:
- The similarities between himself and Chad (the fistfighting/running away kid)
- Perafina and Karen (the smile practiced on the mirror, the mental distress, the pink ribbon)
- Maybe himself and Zampanò, both lonely and homebound?
We also discover that most of his hallucinations come from misty memories of his past, and not from delusion provoked by the contact with the Navidson Report as we are first lead to believe - the accident where his father died, for example.
What are your thoughts on this?
As for the experience, it was a very emotional ride for me. I'm thinking this guy made every effort to have something for everyone to relate deeply, but it really hit me hard - I'm an agoraphobic and all the panic attacks and retreating into smaller and smaller spaces that Johnny suffers, the moments when he has to will himself into leaving the house even, man, I was there feeling the despair with him.
Perafina is indeed an incredible lady. I really liked reading her letters, the way she molded her words, theres some real beauty in there.
Mod
As my mind tries to make sense of it all in one unique and simple layer (impossible task in this book-experience) what I'm tempted to say i..."
I do think this is the key point. As discussed by you and in posts above, there are hints throughout that everything is fabricated by Johnny, and there are a few references to Danielewski himself, reminding us that ultimately the whole thing is actually made up by him. As Ruby touched on, I think the point is to look at the interconnections, not necessarily to catalog the evidence for who wrote what.
Footnotes 49 and 50 in HoL reference the Borges Story "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote", in which a 20th century writer reproduces 'Don Quixote' line for line. The narrator of the story discusses how the Menard version is far superior to the Cervantes version, even though it's identical. This raises questions of how authorship affects the text. Is the Navidson's story different if it's being told by Zampano, or Johnny, or Danielewski? Does it make a difference? Or, as Johnny puts it, 'How the fuck do you write about "exquisite variation” when both passages are exactly the same?'
P.S. I also loved Parafina, but her cryptic reference to Zampano (see message 33, above) in letters written several years before Johnny supposedly found the manuscript imply he made her up as well :-)
Ah, I finally finished it! Been lugging (it weighs a ton!)it around my old house with me for the last few days- upstairs (bright reading light), downstairs (dim light) out on the terrace(natural light)- and noticed st that I think Danielewski would have a laugh at. Damned if i didn't read much more attentively (and dutifully)when reading in bright or natural light! And damned if I didn't cheat and skim when the textual demands became too overbearing due to dim or fading light! I know, I know, jes jokin', but all the playful wordplay, references, cross-references, layout, graphics, etc. of this hefty metafiction kept reminding me that I was .....reading! Which is not a bad thing, and since I'm game for anything in that department, the experience was a welcome one. So many people seem to have strong reactions to HOL, but honestly, the only thing that really creeped me out in this novel was the chick Johnnie throwing the Peke pup out of the car window (very nasty). And of course I squirmed a little for poor Johnny Truant and his downward slide (I admit my soft spot for losers)At any rate, who wrote what, who is the author of what and whose voice echoes where... So relentlessly and systematically does Danielewski bring us back to the text, and what he's doing with it, that the artifice of Zampano (sorry, but after all those footnotes...) didn't seem matter at all to me. Frozenwaffle said:s for the experience, it was a very emotional ride for me. I'm thinking this guy made every effort to have something for everyone to relate deeply, but it really hit me hard - I'm an agoraphobic and all the panic attacks and retreating into smaller and smaller spaces ... I feel more touched by your reaction to this book than I did to the book itself! Which helps to convince me that Danielewski has more to offer than form.
Oh, and I LOVE the 1st plate on p. 658 in Appendix III! More art than lit, so be it.
This is for mostly selfish reasons:
- I haven't been able to read any of the group read books for a while
- I just finished HoL, and am DYING to discuss it
- It's a book that can seriously sustain infinite discussion
- Lots of group members have either read it, or are about to read it
- We haven't yet chosen a theme for the next read, and it'll take a while for us to get all the voting and stuff finished, so I thought this would give us something to do in the meanwhilst.
Would people be happy to participate in this? If so, I'll get the details out shortly..