21st Century Literature discussion

Because reading will not be in a linear fashion please indicate what page, footnote or appendix number you are referencing. If a footnote calls for you to see an exhibit that exhibit will also be included in the discussion for that chapter.

What are we to make of Truant’s claim, made early on (p.xx), that everything we are about to read is false? —the movie does not exist, the house does not exist, even many of the references sited in the footnotes do not exist. Is there anything in the book that we know is real(the editors point out that they have never met Truant in the flesh (p.4))?

My take on that is the story is supposed to feel like an urban legend or a ghost story, like the scary stories that seem universal about women in white standing in the road near a lake, asking for a ride (but we all know it's a ghost). Like the scary story many people have heard, but no one knows who started it. Truant is as good a name as any for a hypothetical source.

I am currently reading Footnote 41. Within the footnote, there is a number for footnote 42, but the next actual footnote with text is numbered 44. Should I be looking somewhere else for footnotes, or are the missing footnotes just part of the game?

Footnote 42 can be found on pp 37. Truant is also what a person who is absent without leave is called.

Thanks, Mikela. I guess I just didn't stare at the fine print hard enough.

No problem, there was more than one occasion where I found myself searching for a footnote. You'll also find some footnotes that have a footnote of their own which makes for interesting reading.

It is extremely difficult to remember where you read something due to the non-traditional manner of reading this book so I would request members preface each remark you make with the page number of the main story that you are on. That way if another member hasn't gotten that far yet they can skip your following remark. Does that make sense to everyone?

Mikela wrote: "What are we to make of Truant’s claim, made early on (p.xx), that everything we are about to read is false? —the movie does not exist, the house does not exist, even many of the references sited in the footnotes do not exist."

I guess is forearmed is forewarned! As to what to make of it? I'm intrigued... What sort of book is this going to be? To be honest I have no expectations at all.

Wow, that was alot of rambling. I hope the echo stuff (Ch V) isn't too important because I was thinking about everything except what I was reading!

Casceil wrote: "My take on that is the story is supposed to feel like an urban legend or a ghost story, like the scary stories that seem universal about women in white standing in the road near a lake, asking for ..."

I agree with this.

Yes, I like the notion of an urban legend, but it doesn't feel a like ghost story to me. More like a spoof detective story. Most of the time I'm laughing and bowled over by the sheer cleverness of this book. Many readers are very scared by it, but I can't say I am. Mind, I may have changed my mind by the end of the book...

I am not very far into the book, but I wouldn't call it scary either. There have been a couple parts that are definately creepy, but plenty of others are weird or silly.

Julie, I share the hope that the echo stuff in Chapter V isn't too important. That was the point where I set book aside for a while (like two weeks or so). I've started again, and now I've made it as far as page 63, which is still Chapter V, but it's progress, right? I'm very interested in the story of the house, and I find it annoying when I keep being dragged away to read footnotes instead, My eyesight isn't wonderful, and even with reading glasses some of this type is a challenge. I'm thinking of getting the Kindle version of the book just so I can get larger print. Is anyone else out there reading this on an e-reader, and is it working well enough?

I was going to go to bed last night right after starting the echo part but I had to hurry and read (skim) through that to get to a point where I knew I would want to pick up the book again. Otherwise I might have done the same as you Casceil.

I am a new kindle owner so I don't know how footnotes work on them. I know people who have read Infinite Jest on a kindle and said it was ok and that has huge footnotes too.

I have read other things with footnotes on Kindle, and they worked very well, but I've never tried anything where the footnotes had footnotes, and there were also endnotes, appendices, exhibits, and who knows what else. But I'm theorizing that if I have both the Kindle version and the paper copy, I'll follow it somehow.

'Infinite Jest' on a kindle is a must. It's a big, heavy book and even the hardback edition is difficult if you haven't got A1 eyesight, which I most certainly haven't.

I've not seen 'House of Leaves' on kindle. I doubt it could be done... Shame; it's another weighty tome that doesn't make for easy bedtime reading.

Another thing to take into consideration is that there is some color in House of Leaves so it wouldn't be the same (unless you have a kindle fire).

I just picked up my copy from the library tonight, and these comments make so much more sense after taking just one look at the material. Wow. Hopefully I'll get a chance to dig in by the weekend.

Sophia, Dang it, you're right. It's not available for kindle. I guess I need a better reading light, and maybe a magnifying glass. Oh, well.

Daniel, I'm glad to hear you're joining us. I'll be very interested to know what you think of this book.

I have finally finished this chunk, and I now have theories on the importance of the discussion of echoes. I'll post my ideas on the next thread (starting with Chapter VII) to avoid spoiler problems.

Uh oh! Should I go back and try to read the echos again?

No. You just need the general idea.

I was getting a bit upset at the misspellings in Truant's footnotes, until it clicked that it had to be on purpose. Footnote 36 on page 31 is a decent example of this, because in addition to using "would of" rather than "would have" in several spots, he directly quotes "the morning paper" reference above as "the mourning paper" (which could well be a double entendre by Danielewski in addition to another purposeful spelling mistake).

I'm thinking this is yet another device to set Truant apart by making his uneducated and coarse voice a total counterpoint to the intellectual Zampanò. Any other thoughts on why Truant misspells words?

I've noticed the misspellings and wondered about them, but I don't have a theory to explain them. I also wondered if the "mourning paper" was intended as a double entendre. I think it must have been intended as a commentary on the contents. It's not the sort of mistake a person of poor education would be likely to make, but I could see Johnny Truant making that kind of joke.

The "would of" words keep jumping out at me (and annoying me!). It must be to make him seem uneducated.

Footnote 70 says "see exhibit six". Anyone know where that is??

In my copy it's page 535. It's also one page before the first appendix. (Assuming, of course, that I'm referring to the right part in the first place...).

And here's my follow-up question to Julie's exhibit six (because I just got there myself): It refers to Appendix II-C for Karen's anxiety and phobia scales, but that reference seems to be two unrelated collages. Am I misreading the Appendix II-C reference?

I reached the same result. Later on, when I got to appendix II-D and -E, they were what they were supposed to be (an obituary and letters). A later footnote, however, took me to a mostly blank page with a footnote (Ed's note) that what was supposed to be there was "missing." Julie, there is a table of contents at the very beginning to help you find things like exhibits and appendices.

Oh duh...table of contents. Forgot about that! Thanks guys. I feel like Navidson, except instead of a maze of hallways I have a maze of book pages! I thought I was about done with chapter V only to discover I have to read a ton of appendix pages now.

I noticed in the collages, there is a part of something that looks like it says phobia and Sheehan on it. It also says at the beginning of the exhibits that Zampano left instructions for things he planned to do but didn't. So maybe the collage is just the odds and ends he had that Truant found? That's my only guess.

Julie, there are a lot of appendix pages that go with Chapter V, but they go quickly, with one exception. Starting on p. 620, there is a letter you kind of have to decode, by looking at just the first letter of every word.

Casceil wrote: "I've noticed the misspellings and wondered about them, but I don't have a theory to explain them. I also wondered if the "mourning paper" was intended as a double entendre. I think it must have been intended as a commentary on the contents. It's not the sort of mistake a person of poor education would be likely to make, but I could see Johnny Truant making that kind of joke. "

I think it's deliberate.

Casceil wrote: "Julie, there are a lot of appendix pages that go with Chapter V, but they go quickly, with one exception. Starting on p. 620, there is a letter you kind of have to decode, by looking at just the first letter of every word."

Did you bother to do that? I must say I passed on this one. I've worked hard with every single footnote and 'mark' and found them all, but there are limits (!)

Sophia wrote: "Casceil wrote: "Julie, there are a lot of appendix pages that go with Chapter V, but they go quickly, with one exception. Starting on p. 620, there is a letter you kind of have to decode, by lookin..."

I think that sounds like fun!

Julie wrote: "I noticed in the collages, there is a part of something that looks like it says phobia and Sheehan on it. It also says at the beginning of the exhibits that Zampano left instructions for things he planned to do but didn't. So maybe the collage is just the odds and ends he had that Truant found? That's my only guess. "

That sounds very likely. But who knows... ???

Re: the letter on p. 620. I was glad I took the time to figure it out. For those who didn't, here's the gist of it. (view spoiler)[ The patient reports having been raped, repeatedly, by staff at the Institute. This is apparently something she has been trying to communicate for a long time, in the letters that went missing. The puzzle for the reader is, is it true, and did this one letter get through because it was in code, or was it just another delusion of a crazy person? (hide spoiler)]

Thanks for posting that summary, Casceil. I went through the effort myself, but I imagine there will be many people appreciative of the legwork that you just saved them.

Daniel wrote: "I was getting a bit upset at the misspellings in Truant's footnotes, until it clicked that it had to be on purpose. Footnote 36 on page 31 is a decent example of this, ..."

Later on in that same footnote, Truant writes "errors, especially written errors, are often the only markers left by a solitary life: to sacrifice them is to lose the angles of personality, the riddle of a soul".

So yes, I think the errors are very deliberate, especially as this statement is placed right after his own written errors. We know that Truant is often writing drunk or intoxicated with a variety of drugs. Maybe when he is WUI (writing under the influence!) he is not as careful as he normally would be? If so, this gives us insight into that particular "angle" of his soul.

I have a theory about the relationship between Zampano, Truant and Navidson, but I don't want to divulge it here yet in case it spoils anything later.

Daniel wrote: "Thanks for posting that summary, Casceil. I went through the effort myself, but I imagine there will be many people appreciative of the legwork that you just saved them."

Yes, thank you. No surprises, but it was nice to see the 'answer'!

@emdoubleu: WUI. I like that...

I'm not sure how far I truly want to dig for an answer on the misspelling issue, but I'm happy to know that others have noticed it and have theories of their own (or at least are annoyed by it). If I look too hard, though, I'm afraid it won't be long before I'm cross-referencing footnote citations for meanings behind the lies.

That said, I'm curious to eventually hear your theory on the relationship between the three characters. It sounds rather substantial.

Casceil wrote: "Re: the letter on p. 620. I was glad I took the time to figure it out. For those who didn't, here's the gist of it. [spoilers removed]"

I worked out the whole letter myself. That took awhile!
I also noticed that some letters were capitalized in the middle of words. I wrote those out and it spells "A face in a cloud not race in a crowd". I think. Whatever that means...