Thread: House of Leaves

I agree with what you're saying about Pynchon, and I know you weren't slamming Danielewski with the pop referrence. They are two different beasts playing two different games. But it is possible that some of the "encoding" you spoke of is at play in HOL. There has been ample time for academic perspective with respect to Pynchon's work. HOL is relatively new, and it's pop appeal will cause most academics to write it off before looking further. The fact that it is sold in the "Horror" section of most book stores and not the "literature" section doesn't help.

I'm not saying what Danielewski is doing is on the level of Pynchon, but it seems to me that the similarities are there. It's harder to see in Danielewski because there is a very tangible story at play to distract the reader from what is encoded underneath, whereas some of Pynchon's work is too abstract for a proper story to be apparent. It's emotional manipulation vs. intellectual manipulation.

We are basically in agreement, though.

Originally Posted by BlackHoleEnvy

I agree with what you're saying about Pynchon, and I know you weren't slamming Danielewski with the pop referrence. They are two different beasts playing two different games. But it is possible that some of the "encoding" you spoke of is at play in HOL. There has been ample time for academic perspective with respect to Pynchon's work. HOL is relatively new, and it's pop appeal will cause most academics to write it off before looking further. The fact that it is sold in the "Horror" section of most book stores and not the "literature" section doesn't help.

I'm not saying what Danielewski is doing is on the level of Pynchon, but it seems to me that the similarities are there. It's harder to see in Danielewski because there is a very tangible story at play to distract the reader from what is encoded underneath, whereas some of Pynchon's work is too abstract for a proper story to be apparent. It's emotional manipulation vs. intellectual manipulation.

We are basically in agreement, though.

I'll buy that. I'll just say that not a lot of my lit-sensors went off reading HOL. But that hardly means there aren't subtexts there. More likely just that I missed them. And I did really like the book. Guy's a helluva writer no matter how you slice it.

Anyway, I agree that we agree. I posted all that crap not so much to argue, as in acknowledgement of and appreciation for what Pynchon does. He's a writer I've held in awe for years, and figured somebody should stick up for him.

Enjoy Borges. Elsewhere in this site, I listed that anthology as one of the ten books I'd save from the apocalypse. (Or something like that.)

Yeah. It's hard to have discussions in a forum without it looking like an argument. In any case, a large degree of subtext depends as much on perception and personal experience as it does on academic knowledge.

I'll start digging into the Borges stuff as soon as I finish some other things. Hopefully he will blow my mind for years to come.

There is certainly a lot of Borges in Danielewski's House of Leaves as evidenced by blind Zampano, the literary criticism, the labyrinth, etc. and the book does well in this respect. Borges is an influence for many; he appears, also, in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose as Jorges of Burgos - a man with a Spanish tongue, blind, and a guardian of the labyrinth and mirror.

I found House of Leaves to be a an excellent exercise in style. The horror within it was perfectly executed, using Classical themes, and the four layers (Navidson, Zampano, Truant, Truant's editor) combining as different aspects are questioned. The voyeurism of watching Navidson without knowing how he thinks was great.

The only thing I didn't like about House of Leaves was Johnny Truant; a real dull character.

Originally Posted by Ham

Are any or all of you Borges fans? If you like HoL, and haven't read JLB's short fiction, you're missing out on quite a lot. Danielewski mines Borges quite liberally for ideas. But more than that, stylistically and thematically, the entire thing can be considered an homage to JLB.

The character Zampano goes beyond being Borgesian, and may actually be Borges himself.

Forgive me, those of you to whom this is common knowledge. But for those to whom it isn't, and who really like HoL, you owe it to yourselves to check it out further.

When I saw this post, I immediately thought of how this book was very much like Borges and was going to comment on it until I saw this post. Yes, it is very very obvious that this book was heavily influenced by Borges (and in some ways Cervantes with it's 'story within a story') But then again, Cervantes was a big influence on Borges so I guess that makes sense.

I highly recommend Borges to anyone who writes. It will definitely open you up to new ideas and new approaches.