Pelafina is the author of House of Leaves!!!

[ivxenz]

one of the posts on here has a link to Mark Danielewski's interview and he says this -

"There's a reason Johnny Truant's typeface is called Courier," he says. "Everyone calls...normal type or typewriter face, but it's Courier, and Courier's important because...(Johnny) is a courier of sorts." Danielewski adds that Zampanò's typeface is Times, the title page is Dante and the editors' typeface is Bookman."

Now Pelafina's font in the letters is Dante, you can match it to the title page. Doesn't this mean she is the author of the book? Wikipedia page on House of Leaves also mentions Pelafina's font being Dante and says that the font types are very important.

Danielewski also says - "'The Navidson Record' is really the voice of Zampanò," he says. "Then there's Johnny Truant, who's another player, and there's Johnny's mother, who...is more pervasive throughout the book than most people recognize.

pervasive means to spread throughout all parts. So he is saying she is present all over the book and in the title so she has to be the author.

Also she is the only person in the book who actually has a mental problem.

what do you guys think?

[fearful_syzygy]

Well there are some fairly severe logical fallacies in your reasoning, but apart from that...

1. The correspondence of fonts between TWL and the title page doesn't imply anything about authorship, really. At least not necessarily. And in any case the use of fonts in the text is attributed to the Editors. At least if you want to keep this intra-diegetic. If you don't care about that sort of thing, then you must conclude that MZD decided which fonts to use. He's also the one who wrote House of Leaves.

2. "More pervasive" doesn't to me indicate that she wrote the whole thing, nor indeed that she is all-pervasive. "The ash is a tree and the voices are three", remember. She is more pervasive than most people realise because most people don't realise she's important at all till they get to Appendix II-E, which is pretty late in the book.

3. "Actually" having a mental problem also doesn't seem a compelling argument for being the book's sole architect. Nor does not being in a mental institution preclude having a mental problem.

Welcome to the forum.

[ivxenz]

I think the story on page 518 about the mother and the baby's death is the actual story of what happened with Johnny and his mother Pelafina. I think after her baby died, the mother went crazy and expressed her guilt by creating the story of The Navidson Record in which Navy suffers a great deal of guilt as well.

Her messed up mind probably added Johnny to her writings as a character that she thinks her son would have become and the entire johnny story is his mothers creation. Johnny's entire story is made up by her but the part about johnny's relationship with his mother is kinda like her short lived and guilt ridden relationship with her baby.

The parallels between the baby dying story and the story that johnny tells about the day his mother was taken from him are the following:

1. Johnny is unsure if his mother was strangling him or wiping his tears. This is similar to the doctors and nurses in the hospital not knowing wheather the mother said etch a poo air or if she said something about ething a pooh bear.

2. Johnny's father took his mother away from him when she was strangling him. This means the father must have been keeping an eye on the mother, which is what the doctor was doing. Also after the baby's death the doctor probably did try to take the mother away just like the father did after she tried to strangle him/wipe his tears.

[ivxenz]

also, at the beginning of the story about the baby, Johnny says, " I'm sorry. I have nothing left." and during the climax of the Navidson Record, Navy trapped in the room says, "I have nothing left."

The entire book has so many exact phrases that are repeated by different characters so according to me there is no question the whole story should be a schizophrenic brains creation. All the names, for example, Lude, Leeder, Hook, Thumper etc. are literally describing what those people do. Lude is a lewd character. Thumper is a prostitute. If you read the thread about names you'll find a lot of names are literally describing the person who bears that name or something they have done in the book. This is a sign that these people are imaginary and were created by a schizo. Chad seems to be a younger version of Gdansk man because they both are always angry and chad wants to be an architect and Gdansk man is apparently working on a construction site. This is a perfect example of the limitations of a schizophrenic person's ability to create distinct personalities. That is why a lot of the characters resemble each other and their inner fears and issues are similar. They have all been created by the same person. Now is this person Johnny? Pelafina? or Zampano?

I think its Pelafina.

[ivxenz]

also just realized all the major characters in house of leaves have the same theme in their stories. The theme is seperation from someone or something. Like all the stories deal with leaving.

When Holloway shoots at his friends, he decides to leave them instead of helping them.

Navy and Karen also get seperated. Karen decides to leave the house.

Johnny is seperated from his mother at a young age when she is forced to leave.

Zampano's eyesight leaves him.

Tom leaves navy and the injured guys when he was supposed to meet them at the bottom of the stairs.

And the story on pg 518 is basically about the baby leaving the mom because he died.

So my point is that the stories share similarities in terms of what the characters are feeling emotionally and i think this is because its all just one person's emotions.

[fearful_syzygy]

I hear what you're saying. However, you're clutching at straws in some if not all of your conclusions. In your first example, the uniting principle is that someone is unsure about something, have I got that right? Incontrovertible evidence to be sure. Donnie sees Pelafina, therefore he is like "the doctor" (what doctor)? Hardly a compelling argument, especially since Donnie's intervention can just as easily be juxtaposed with the Whalestoe staff's failure to intervene in Pelafina's suicide.

That the characters created by a "schizophrenic brain" should all be identical or even similar is demonstrably untrue. It is undeniable that loss and absence are key themes in the book as a whole, but to go from there to a claiming that the whole book was written by one of the characters within it is illogical at best. Thematic concerns belong more properly to the meta-textual level of analysis. All the characters in the book have lost something dear to them. Pelafina is one of those characters. So far you have provided absolutely no compelling evidence for her loss being in any way anterior or superior to the others' in the grand scheme of things.

Don't get me wrong; all of the elements you point to are important aspects of the text. But all the conclusions you draw from them are entirely unfounded.

[modiFIed]

This is, however, a good clinical example of how everyone brings their own history/agenda (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2259) to the novel - especially so this novel.

Fascinating, really, how many folks arrive independently at the "key" to this mythology - and the keys are all to different locks opening doors to empty halloways. It's like the explosion of post-Lutherian protestant faiths.

[Vankook]

This is an abridged version of what I came up with after reading HoL last fall.


Zampano is Pelafina's husband that she talks about being a pilot, and Johnny's father. He died before Johnny was born.
Johnny is dead the entire time. He is the baby born with holes in his brain. The one who's mother pulls the plug at the end of Johnny's narrative. The fact that he says something like: asystole, the baby is gone (forgive the bad quote, a friend is experiencing my copy at the moment), and those are his LAST WORDS in the entire book is too much to be coincidence. Johnny was Pelafina's child. She pulled the plug on him, lost her mind, and now attempts to resurrect some kind of life for her son via the letters she writes him, the largest of which being the entire text. I had the question brought to me in a class "Why would she make her son a liar and a drug addict?" And I believe that it makes the separation between them that much easier. In her letters she really has higher expectations for Johnny then the reader EVER gets to see in his narratives. I believe that in some delusional way (and she is quite delusional) Johnny being a liar and an addict helps her by giving her an excuse to not expect his visits or his letters. By giving her son a dead end life, she doesn't hope to hear from him as hard, which is tragic because she killed him shortly after his birth. The story of the infant with holes in its brain is the only thing in the original text (minus the Whalestoe letters) that actually occurs. The rest is all fiction created by a delusional P. And because it's the last item (I think) in the text, the letter is over, the memory is exorcized, She won't write another one because, well, she kills herself after finishing it. There are also too many commonalities between things Pelafina mentions (colors of her pills = colors on the locks of the doors, numerous referrences to spanish dolls, Lemon meringue Pie, and descriptions of characters like Tom.) Also, she mentions that she would put a mark in the margin of a page so that Johnny would know it was her writing as part of her code. As I mentioned, I don't have my copy of the book with me, but there is a mark on a page that just comes out of nowhere the first time you see it. It stands to reason that a woman, driven mad by the grief over losing her son and her husband shortly before that, could have set up this fantasy where her son discovers his deceased father's documents, and forms a bond (abeit disturbed and unnatural) with him. Pelafina gets everything she wants out of writing this text, and then offs herself because she has nothing left to write for/ no one left to write to.

[fearful_syzygy]

Didn't you just post that in that other thread?

[modiFIed]

I never read abridged works.

I remember a couple of Reader's Digest Condensed Books that were pretty good. You had to add water, and stir, and then they sort of fluffed up into normal books.

[Vankook]

Yeah, I think so. Whoops!

[SirensandSuch]

the fact that the title is in Dante font as well as the letters from Pelafina, might it not just be a nod from Johnny to his mother, be it subconcsiously or not? his mother was an incredible writer, something he clearly inherited, so perhaps the title being in Dante is simply a nod to the influence his mother imparted to him via The Whalestoe Letters. just a thought, but in closing, i will say i don't agree with the OP on his theory, though credit for having it thought out.

[The Coma-Man]

^
Very interresting thoughts though, but I don't dig it - she committed suicide, so who is it that is communicating with the editors???

[Ellimist]

Shocking new revelation:

Pelafina IS the "Editors"!

[heartbreak]

Pelafina's letters are not in Dante. (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101858&postcount=39)

[Melek]

Shocking new revelation:

Pelafina IS the "Editors"!

I actually recently re-opened my old HoL copy and noticed something soon after reading this post.


Pg. 4 footnote 5:
In an effort to limit confusion, Mr. Truant's footnotes will appear in Courier New while Zampano's will appear in Times. We also wish to note here that we have never actually met Mr. Truant. All matters regarding the publication were addressed in letters or in rare instances over the phone.


Note the oddly similar relationship The Editors had with Johnny compared to Pelafina.

[John B.]

Note the oddly similar relationship The Editors had with Johnny compared to Pelafina.

Um, Pelafina has "actually met Mr. Truant."

(That may seem snarky, but I think it's a crucial thing to keep in mind.)

[Ellimist]

Another coincidence, not intent. :biggrin:

It is coincidence that Melek pointed out, but it would only have been intent had he been correct. But, alas, John B. pointed out the discrepancy, thus making the connection a coincidence.

[fearful_syzygy]

But it's not even a coincidence. There's nothing there.

Beware.

[Ellimist]

Growl.

[Melek]

Um, Pelafina has "actually met Mr. Truant."

(That may seem snarky, but I think it's a crucial thing to keep in mind.)

I was well aware of that. If you removed the fact that Palefina has actually met Johnny, it would be the exact same relationship. But if you consider Palefina writing as the editors, perhaps the statement means a bit more. "We have never met Johnny in person" doesn't have to particularly refer to a physical sense, especially if it's actually Palefina writing.

It was just a thought, though.

[On a Map of Swirling Cord]

Vankook's angle is not something I would have ever considered until he posted this. It is so profound that I wouldn't doubt it if this were one of the angles the author had intended. It has a completeness that really has lots of loose ends tied up. If there were a theory that tied every loose end I don't know that this forum could have lasted as long as it has. Thank goodness for ambiguity or whatever it is.

[Adam King]

To further elaborate on Vankook, refer to 517:

"Her letter was hopelessley wrong. Maybe an invention to make it easier for me to dismiss her. Or maybe something else. I've no idea. But I do know her fingers never closed around my throat. They only tried to wipe the tears from my face."

Perhaps this is a veiled manifestation of the fact that the entire book is an invention to make it easier for her to dismiss him. It's true, her fingers never wrapped around his throat because he never made it to that memory. The letter was certainly hopelessly wrong, but for a reason not explicitly examined.

Though, I'm not quite sure I buy the theory quite yet. If this isn't the case, then this entry is more of J exploring the recent discovery that most of his troubles stem from his mother; his inability to possess (a common theme) her in memory, to reconcile the mother and the destroyer that she represents, or to forgive her for her illness.

[Adam King]

Additionally, the cryptically struck "what I'm remembering now" on 518 being, as mentioned here before, purple (between the red of the monster (or a red, suffocating face) and the blue of the immeasurable house (or a dead, suffocated face)) is perhaps the life-that-would-have-been flashing before the eyes of the son-that-never-was.

[welladjusted]

This is, however, a good clinical example of how everyone brings their own history/agenda (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2259) to the novel - especially so this novel.

Fascinating, really, how many folks arrive independently at the "key" to this mythology - and the keys are all to different locks opening doors to empty halloways. It's like the explosion of post-Lutherian protestant faiths.


like echoes? or the monsters we see in the dark?

[On a Map of Swirling Cord]

After giving it more thought, I don't think that Pelafina wrote HoL.

I cite the reasons in another thread but, for the record, here's a quick reason. First of all, we can rule out that she was not institutionalized when she composed it because of simple logistics involving access to the images, word processor/computer, contents of the collage.

Also, if she were hospitalized and did not want to be and was so brilliant as to write the whole thing she would be condemned to a more restricted life by putting into words that doctors would read and potentially held liable for- words forecasting suicide. She wouldn't be allowed to be anywhere close to shoelaces much less computers with cords.

If it is "Pelafina" then it is not the Pelafina we come to know. It may as well be, as Ell (?) said, someone in Hawaii.

I can understand how it's easy for us to read the bit about the boy with holes in his brain and just try to get closure but there are too many loose ends that prevent that door from closing.

[Pyro62S]

Pelafina, Johnny, and Zampano wrote HoL. We already know that. I think these explanations that make one character take center stage just detract from the book. MZD said that it was essentially a conversation between the three of them, right? So rather than say who wrote HoL, we should examine their individual positions within the narrative.

Pelafina was obviously an important character throughout the book. Every time the word "purple" appeared, I thought of her. Johnny had all kinds of moments of, uhm, lucidity (or something) in which she is apparent. The main question to me is how she relates to Zampano. Were they lovers, siblings-in-law, what?

[On a Map of Swirling Cord]

Purple, eh? You may have something there. I tend to think of interpretation of this book on par with that of our dreams.

Now, I'm thinking a bold new direction (which echoes some of what I had initially been taking from the book).


The repetition of the mysterious origin of the scars on Johnny's forearms; the twice-mentioned fact that Johnny's boss was a former heroin addict (or was that just one of those stories he had to believe should anyone ever find the junk in his stash at the tattoo shop! c)%7o);
the colors of blood inside and outside of the body (hence, syringe),
Thumper (a verb that could symbolize the act of shooting the nasty, vomit-enducing junk, thumping the needle to let the air out, thumping the arm to bulge the veins to make the heart thump; there's more but that's for another thread, maybe.

So, let's suppose that the scars are from the drug abuse and that Thumper is a literary symbol. Thumper is not with Johnny when the darkness sets in..maybe he shot up an air bubble and this caused him to fall and bleed and all. When Thumper is there with him and they are having a heart-to-heart they are in a Thai restaraunt (the tie refering in a coded way to the tourniquet) and she is not there when he goes through whatever he goes through alone in the darkness where the sunlight is sharp.

I've writ all this before but what I have not is that, and I'll admit this part requires some suspended belief, that Pelifina serves as a symbol for his low (Thumper being his high).

There are all kinds of ways that Johnny could have described how he wanted to harm his boss but, of all possible colorful descriptions, he compares boss' head with a cap. Granted, Johnny worked with tubes of ink but why did he have to mention twice (or more) that his boss was a former junkie?

[Pyro62S]

Minor thing: You know that blood is not actually blue within the body, right? Blood without oxygen is just darker, and the veins look sort of blue through the skin. But the blood is still red, or like, burnt sienna or something.

It's weird how every time I have this conversation I think of an asteroid field... The first time I discussed this I was playing the asteroid level of a Star Wars game and it always comes back to me...

[Short_Fuse]

I have something similar Pyro, my bro would play guitar hero while I played Counter Strike, when I play a level, I always think of the same song

[On a Map of Swirling Cord]

Pyro, it was not long ago that I was leaning towards Pelafina having a larger role in the book. It's easy to attribute more to because she may be the character that some of us may have the most pathos for. However, let us not forget the "second person" that this author is asking make notes in margins.

I am convinced that the three authors of the book are Johnny (and posing as the editors), Zampano, and the reader (who is asked to write in the book by the author).

There are conclusions that we must boldly draw. Here we throw limns up on the cyberwalls and at the risk of the loss of face.

Edit: The question is, which of the leaves are and which
<TABLE border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=20>

</TD><TD width=180>"are" </TD><TD>(are is 1/100th of a hectare) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Pyro62S]

As so often happens, Cord, you lost me towards the end. The idea of the reader being the third (or perhaps even fourth) author is intriguing, particularly since most people I've spoken to about it write in their copies of HoL. I've always been too neurotic to write in books but I suppose I might make an exception for this one, if only to mark down codes and page associations and stuff.

[ouroboros]

An interesting thread, but I am not convinced that Pelafina is the author of HOL. The reason that I say this is many of the footnotes reference actual articles and books written long after her death. The last letter from the Whalestoe institute cites her death as 5<SUP>th</SUP> May 1989. An example that exists in one of the footnotes of an actual book written after her death is ‘1001 sex secrets every man / woman should know. 1995.’ A simple Google search will reveal that you can actually buy this book from Amazon and it was indeed released in 1995. Unless the dates on the Whalestoe letters are false then I think it’s safe to say that she didn’t write anything other than the letters themselves. But I do not think that the dates on Pelafina’s letters are false. There are several reasons I believe this:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
The first reason is that on page 503, Johnny states that he visited the Whalestoe on July 1, 1998 and found out that it closed down in April over 5 years ago. That puts the date of the Whalestoes closure at around April 1993. Johnny could be lying, or he could be a figment of Pelafina’s imagination but there are other key factors to consider.
<o:p> </o:p>
On January 12 1989, Johnny receives a letter from the Whalestoe informing him that his mother’s condition was on the decline again. The name of the director has been omitted, but the fact that he is M.D.,Ph.D. hasn’t.
<o:p> </o:p>
On May 5 1989, Johnny receives a letter from the Whalestoe informing him of his mother’s death from David J. Draines M.D. who Johnny was told would be taking over at the end of March. Note that the Ph.D. is absent at the bottom of this letter so it would appear that 2 different directors have indeed written to him.
<o:p> </o:p>
In the separate Whalestoe letters book there are eleven extra letters that do not appear in HOL. These are introduced by Walden Wyrtha and we are told that he rescued them from a bonfire upon the institutes closing.
<o:p> </o:p>
So to sum up, we have external confirmation of the Whalestoe’s existence, Pelafina’s residency there, physical proof of the letters existence and confirmation of the Whalestoe’s closure. (Walden Wyrtha).
<o:p> </o:p>
We have a rough date of the Whalestoe’s closure (Johnny Truant)
<o:p> </o:p>
We have confirmation that she was at the Whalestoe and died in 1989 (Johnny’s letters from the directors).

As mentioned above, many of the footnotes throughout HOL reference actual books and articles written long after this time. Coupled with the fact that we have at least four sources outside of Pelafina’s letters either confirming the dates she sent them or the date on which she died, I do not see how it is possible for her to be the author.

[The Coma-Man]

I would LOVE to add some stuff.

1st: Johnny is a young man when he writes HoL. But looking back his mother died with 59 in 1989. She was into the institution since 82. And Johnny would be in his 30s. Is this really to be believed?

I do not think so.

We know one think for sure: Pelafina is sending out letters to Johnny and receivs kind of an answer.

We know that she told him to put a checkmark on the bottom of one letter.

Johnnys fond is COURIR.

WHAT - IF: Pelafina was still alive during parts of HoL, and she had access to a computer?

I guess you can see where I am heading.

SO, Pelafina is obviously OBSESSED with an internet page about a very disturbing book. The doctors do not worry, for their patient is labled as being mad. So anyways, this is a good way for Johnny to communicate with her. She realisez this due to the font he uses - COURIR. She tells him to place the checkmark, and he does.

HoL IS a sort of a system to write letters to P. kind of like the system of W.A.S.T.E. in Crying of Lot 49.

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

Johnny is making up things in a The usual suspects kind of style, twisting names of places to make them fit into the book (just look at the DAYS INN paperpiece in the collagues).

I might be up to something, but I'm still proofreading.

Also - where is the definite part where Pelafina dies? And why? Has Johnny hurt her that much?

EDIT: The book really serves as a kind of diary for me for sure...

[The Coma-Man]

These Heroin-refferences are haunting.

[Ellimist]

WHAT - IF: Pelafina was still alive during parts of HoL, and she had access to a computer?
What if indeed...

Pelafina died in 1989, as you stated. No internet for her. The timelines don't work out. More importantly, if you are going to throw out any fact that contradicts a what-if scenario, they should all go, shouldn't they? That way we can just write our own story using the same characters!

[The Coma-Man]

Yeah, sure, but just think about it - how old is Johnny when he is writing HoL???

How sure can we be, he did not change the 80s by 90s??

If Johnny is some kind of a courir, HoL is, even if he does only edit it together, meant to be for his mother, hence the "This is not for you" refference in the beginning.
It is for his mother.

We know that his mother is dead - but the checkmark implies that she has at least read up until that point. So, I am wondering, how did he send it to her, and when??
I think this is a valid question.

OK, he might have written these arts before, but it wouldn't make any sense to publish it AFTERWARDS.

I see a sense of open source in Johnny releasing HoL on the internet - and if you think about it, it makes a lot more sense this way - if only thse damn dates WPOULD make any sense!!

(BTW - does anythig of the timeline make remotely sense?? Johnnys ages for example??)

[heartbreak]

How does the check mark imply that Pelafina has read The Navidson Record?

[amphigouri]

I would LOVE to add some stuff.

1st: Johnny is a young man when he writes HoL. But looking back his mother died with 59 in 1989. She was into the institution since 82. And Johnny would be in his 30s. Is this really to be believed?


Maybe I've missed something here, but if remember correctly, Johnny's notes are written in '97 or '98 aren't they? And he was born in 1971, which would make him 26 or 27.

Pelafina was institutionalized when Johnny was 7, which would be '78, but she didn't start writing until '82 after Donnie died.

[The Coma-Man]

Pelafina snugs a letter out to Johnny. In this letter, she asks him to place a checkmark in one of the corners of his next letter to her.

Since she snugs this one out, I doubt Johnny is just ging to SEND her a letter and post the checkmark in there. So, I guess, the chaptr with the checkmark is already a letter to her - I mean, this is one of the biggest clues Dnielewski has put in there!! If P has never received this from Johnny, its existence does not make any sense AT ALL!!

So let us think further. If P. was not allowed letters, a good way for Johnny to comunicate IF she lived during the 90s, would be - the internet. Each new update to his site is a coded letter from J to P. The checkmark therefore implies that the first edition did consist of letters to P.

Now, the only problem here is the timeline. If P was dead, there is no use for the chckmark, and it only implies Johnnys madness (yeah, sure...).

Looking at Johnnys age, I'm somehow doubting all this though... how old is he, when he is editing HoL?? in his 30s?? Pelafina was 59 when she died in 89, let us say she was pregnant with him 2 years ealrier, although being pregnant with 39 is kind of late to be pregnant... Hence by 1999, Johnny would be 30. It just doesn't add up at all!!

If Pelafina DID DIE in 1999 however, and Johnny is shifting the timeline for 10 years, it would make a lot more sense!!

EDIT: Thanks for the above date - that does make P 41 when she was pregnant with Johnny... somehow, I doubt that age...

[heartbreak]

Pelafina was 41 when Johnny was born. While older then normal it is not unheard of. My girlfriend was actually born when her mother was 41. According to her, menopause doesn't start till around 50 and there are even cases of women getting pregnant after that.

So I do not see how her age can be used to draw definite conclusions.

As to the check mark, perhaps something in that chapter reminds Johnny of the check mark he and his mother used. A coded signal.

[The Coma-Man]

^
... OK, you are right...

Still, does it really make any sense?? If it is what you say, I consider it a red herring, but if it is not, it is one of the biggest clues in the book.

Apart from that - your aboe point really makes the original theory posted in this thread more valid. Doctors often warn older women (above 30) that their children might be disabled. Whilst this is kind of a dull thing (they told my mother the same, when she was pregnant with me, and she was 33, what is today a common age for women to have a child), her older age could be a hint at the Baby with holes in his brain being Johnny.

[heartbreak]

It could be. Or maybe the Baby was Johnny's twin.