DANIELEWSKI, Mark Z., House of Leaves, Pantheon Books/Random House Inc.,
New York NY, 2000.
Octavo;
paperback; 709pp., with many colour illustrations. Moderate wear; covers rubbed
and curled; hinges scraped; many dog-eared pages. Good.
Funny
story: I bought this book
because I thought that it might be something I could discuss here on my blog. I
began reading it and got so thoroughly bored and annoyed with it that I took it
to the second-hand bookshop
where I work and put it on the shelf to be sold (perk of the job). Two years
later, I’m buying books
off a young couple who’re moving house and – whaddaya know? There’s my old copy
of this book, a bit
worse for wear, but ready to go back into the system again. However, I’ve
done a bit of research and had some exposure to other opinions about it, and so
the book has come
home with me once more. I don’t know: I guess I’m a glutton for punishment.
When
the movie “Inception” came out,
someone told me that I would be seeing it twice. I was told – to my face – that
it was too deep and multi-layered a film for anyone to grasp entire all at one
screening. Well, I went and watched it anyway and was less than enthused. I’ve
been writing roleplaying scenarios for many years - for conventions; for my
home teams - I know twisty plots and plot twists backwards and forwards: I am
the Ancient of Days when it comes to multi-layered story outlines and nested
plot arcs. I ended up being annoyed and frustrated with “Inception” because it wasn’t anywhere near as difficult to comprehend
as I had been led to believe.
This
kind of “woo, buddy: you wanna think twice before you go there” attitude
surrounds and personifies Danielewski’s exercise. It’s too hard; you wanna think
twice; you’d better carb up, mentally. Frankly it’s all crap.
I
was talking to a friend (with English as an extra language of necessity) who
was complaining about the impenetrability of the works of a particular Welsh
horror author – Rhys Hughes - who practises a form of writing called ergodic
literature in order to capture a sense of the madness felt by a typical
Lovecraftian victim. He belongs to a loose writing fraternity going by the name
“OuLiPo”; they specialise in using mathematical and other logic-based transcription
formulae to alter their texts in precise ways, forcing the reader to do more than
simply go along for the ride. These techniques involve avoiding the use of
certain letters (for instance, Georges Perec’s A Void) or replacing verbs or nouns with the word appearing seven
entries below (or above) it in the dictionary. Their type of thing ranges from
Italo Calvino’s Castle of Crossed
Destinies (which is great) to Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves (which is not).
Early
forms of this type of writing last century were fairly mild: the early works of
Calvino – and later ones like If On A
Winter's Night A Traveller – all have a stated purpose and premise and all
make sense, using an internal logic established by the ‘rules’ of the work. The
results are beautiful and strange, and very satisfying. William Burroughs’ work
also makes partial use of these techniques: The
Red Night Trilogy and The Nova
Trilogy both have sections which were written, cut up into pieces and randomly
re-assembled in order to create strange revelations. This works in places, but
never completely satisfactorily and reading these books often feels disconnected and episodic.
The
point of all this tinkering is to try, on various levels, to force the reader to engage actively
with the text, rather than simply passively turning the pages and scanning the words. Ergodic writers have made the assertion that a stack of the finest novels
of human creation are of less value than a disassociated pile of damp and
mouldering newspapers, the idea being that you have to put a lot of work into trying
to get sense out of something which is basically pâpier maché.
Which
brings us to Danielewski. This is essentially a rather trite story about a
house that defies the laws of physics and tries to eat those who prowl around
inside it. That’s it. That’s all it is. This story is overlain by self-indulgent
references to a movie about the house, which doesn’t exist, and an overblown academic
analysis of that film which includes swathes of interviews and observations made
by real-world members of the intelligentsia
– from Anne Rice to Camille Paglia – none of which texts (annoyingly) are real. On
top of this is dumped a jumbled memoir of an amateur tattoo artist and drug
abuser who becomes obsessed with the academic thesis while trying to get on
with his dead-end existence.
When
I tried to read this book
the first time, it was this layer concerning the junkie inkster which annoyed
me the most. His random musings, fantasising about his customers and his morbid
self-pity were filled with a host of egregious typing errors which had been adopted
by Danielewski to make the character seem ‘real’ but which stridently worked
against this very notion. “Alot” is not one word, it’s two; and the phrase is “rather
than”, not “rather then”. These slips are distracting and wrong, given the
level of literacy that the character exhibits in all other areas of his internal monologue.
It’s a cheap non-starter in the characterisation department and it put me off right
from the word ‘go’.
The
rest of the book
follows these sorts of cheap gags: the fonts change when other characters take
over the narrative; the margins grow enormously when characters are squeezing
through enclosed spaces; single revelatory thoughts are strung out across the
page to give them greater impact (in the manner of Tristram Shandy). There are footnotes, and footnotes with
footnotes, and footnotes with footnotes with footnotes*: It’s T.S Eliot’s wet
dream come true, including quotes in Sanskrit. Essentially it’s a bunch of
typographical tomfoolery that is trying to cover up a not-very-good story.
Then
there are sections of text that have been crossed out, or which have been printed
backwards or sliding partially off the page, and various sections written in
code. The author has made every attempt to make the story as obtuse and unclear
as possible. He wants to make his readership work for his ideas – which is, actually, his main, probably sole, idea
– but these notions are of essentially dubious value. In fact if you pick up
this book, flip
through it once, then immediately think “I see – his message is ‘obfuscation’”
then you’ve done all you can hope to achieve with this ‘work’. There’s no more
to be said, and you can safely turn your mind over to other things of greater
worth.
Sadly
though, there is a breathless faction of readers out there who have taken all of this smoke-and-mirrors
to heart and who have established online communities to discuss the ‘mysteries’
of the House of Leaves, when actually
there’s nothing to talk about. If you mention to others that you want to read
this book, they will
tell you – as they told me prior to watching “Inception” – that you won’t understand it, that it will devour
your spare time and distract you for months. This is just the self-generating
haze of fandom surrounding this piece which amounts to little more than sharing
the pain.
And
it’s not new. In 1500, Johannes Trithemius wrote his infamous Steganographia (“Secret Writing”) which
was a magical text devoted to talking with angels but which had encoded within
it many blasphemous magical ideas and systems. It’s where we get the word ‘steganographic’, meaning a type of code which is recorded within the fabric of the book itself, not just the
textual component. And Trithemius had a point - he was facing the Inquisition if word about what he was up to got out. In the Nineteenth- and early Twentieth Centuries, authors
were compiling picaresque and quirky novels which posed many striking arguments
across many interwoven story arcs, a majority of which were frustratingly
unresolved. The Comte de Lautreamont’s Lay
of Maldoror is a good example, as is Beckford’s Vathek, or even Matthew Lewis’s The
Monk. You can get more out Jodorowsky’s “The
Holy Mountain” than you can get from Danielewski’s inconsequence.
Time
your waste simply will which Celeste
Marie literary a it’s. Answers no are there which to questions battling you
leave will which fiction genre of hole black a it’s. In you suck to written
been has book this, essentially.
The
final clue is in the dedication at the beginning of the book, which – again – has been stolen
from French literature of one hundred years previous – “This is not for you”.
If you’re smart, and you value your limited time spent here on Earth, you will
take the author at his word in this one instance and comply.
*****
*Fungal
and bacterial conditions – including “athlete's foot” - occur because the feet
are usually enclosed in a dark, damp, warm environment. These infections cause
redness, blisters, peeling, and itching. If not treated
promptly, an infection may become chronic and difficult to cure. To prevent
these conditions, keep the feet - especially the area between the toes -
clean and dry and expose the feet to air whenever possible. If you are prone to
fungal infections, you may want to dust your feet daily with a fungicidal
powder.**
**Henriksen
Lance en Tatum Bradford, Steenburgen Mary, Goldblum Jeff met, titelrol de in Flanery
Patrick Sean met Salva Victor door geregisseerd en geschreven, 1995 van fantasiedrama
Amerikaanse een is "Poeder". ***
***