Dear Ana,
This book messed with my head.
Okay, so maybe reading it in the dark at two in the morning wasn’t such a great idea.
Let me backtrack a little.
Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves is an unconventional mammoth of a novel. The further in you get, the more bizarre the formatting becomes. It has two interlocking stories, one by the late Zampano and one unfolding in the various footnotes by Johnny Truant who kind of came into? Zampano’s stuff. Zampano’s narrative is a well-written technical research paper, calling upon an impressive number of “outside” sources to present opinions, ideas etc. His story is a comprehensive analysis of a (non-existent) documentary called The Navidson Record, which further is about the Navidosn family’s experience with a house.
So to oversimplify a bit, this book is essentially about a house that’s “bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.” Cool! Like the tardis right?
No.
More like David Bowie’s Labyrinth once you take away all the fun colors/cool costumes/goblins/Sarah Williams and add a whole lot of psychological terror and then put all of it inside a seemingly nice suburban home.
Danielewski is such an adept fear-monger that I didn’t realize I was too terrified to sleep/have body parts dangling off my bed until about 1/4 way in. It was a gradual, cumulative process. There’s no overt monster, just a–and Danielewski brings this up a lot–sense of uncanny-ness. It digs deep and that fear of the dark we all have repressed somewhere? Well hello (fear of) darkness, my old friend.
And okay *takes a deep breath* Navidsons, there are random doors and hallways appearing in your house. Get the f*ck outta dodge. There are things called um, hotels. Also you have two kids who are gonna need serious therapy by the time this is over. Also freezing, pitch-black corridors that spontaneously shift and generate a growling noise are maybe not portents of happy things. Also have you even seen like one horror movie ever? Seriously.
And here’s the next important point: does this book think it’s smarter than you? Hell yeah it does.
But it’s actually okay because I also know it’s smarter than me. There are scattered symbols, a color key for specific words (house is always written in blue, and minotaur in red) deliberately missing parts, rather specific and repeated grammatical errors (I am getting an actual tic at Truant’s constant ‘should/could/would of’ where c’mon dude, it’s HAVE), a lot of references to certain words and myths (Interestingly all the references to the Minos Labyrinth myth are struck-out), slightly long-winded tangents on philosophy (ie. being/not-being and other-ness, also some Freud is thrown in for kicks), physics, and a healthy sprinkling of secret codes, etc.
Do I understand it all? Absolutely not. Do I understand it at all? This is also maybe a no. Or if it’s a yes, it’s a rather superficial one.
So if you can’t tell, I could probably write a dissertation on the interpretations of the various facets of this book, but I won’t. Here are some quotes instead.
“Prometheus, thief of light, giver of light, bound by the gods, must have been a book.”
“Look to the sky, look to yourself and remember: we are only God’s echoes and God is Narcissus.”
[After a lengthy interlude on the physics of echoes where Danielewski actually introduces all the requisite formulas:] “Myth makes Echo the subject of longing and desire. Physics makes Echo the subject of distance and design. Where emotion and reason are concerned both claims are accurate. And where there is no Echo there is no description of space or love. There is only silence.”
“I’m afraid.
It is hungry. It is immortal.
Worse it knows nothing of whim.”
“I stood there tingling all over, a dangerous clarity returning to me, ancient bloodlines colluding under what I imagine now must of [sic] been the very aegis of Mars, my fingers itching to weld into themselves, while directly beneath my sternum a hammer struck the timeless bell of war, a call to arms, though all of it still held back by what? words I guess, or rather a voice, though whose I have no clue.”
*mild spoilers*
TBH it’s kind of frustrating to read. HoL might have more layers than an infinite mathematical onion, I dunno. I mean, there are forums devoted to it. Each seemingly concrete thing could be something not so concrete at all. Is the growling an actual monster? Is it the house? Is Zampano actually Zampano? Does Johnny actually exist? Is there real meaning to the wacky layout of the text? Will I ever be able to sleep again? (maybe in a day or two) What’s this house supposed to be? Monster? Labyrinth? God? The other? The self? A nightmare? The obliteration of everything except death?
Or maybe the point is that it is ultimately unknowable.
I’m left with more questions than I had at the beginning. So is the end a little unsatisfactory? Yeah. Did I like it? Well, define like…
But yes, if you have time, please read it. It’s pretty fabulous.
Sincerely,
Crystal
Ex Libris 