"prolix--your word--"

[Sharzak]

I was thinkin--isn't prolix the last word in a long list of words that all mean the same thing? Maybe he was simply tired of listing synonyms, and asked you, the reader, to fill in the blank with "your own" word.

[Rock Hyrax]

So I finally got around to reading Pale Fire. Right on the first page "Canto Two -- your favorite". Same trick, and perhaps even more ambiguous. I have no idea who the annotator (it is in the introduction) thinks he's addressing. Not that this helps here in any way, but it leaped out at me.

[Rock Hyrax]

Originally Posted by Sharzak

I was thinkin--isn't prolix the last word in a long list of words that all mean the same thing? Maybe he was simply tired of listing synonyms, and asked you, the reader, to fill in the blank with "your own" word.

Except he keeps listing after "prolix". And they're not exactly synonyms.

[Ellimist]

Originally Posted by John B.

On p. 510, we read that Johnny has been trying, unsuccessfully, to reach Lude; then, for "October 25, 1998," we read, "Lude's dead," followed by the three rows of dots.

Not sure where else to put this, but looky - I had not noticed the difference in separations until today, so I made a diagram:

[ovanoshio]

Funny... a lot of things have been adding up, or so much as to say I have drawn lines collecting several ideas, including something relating to those dots from that chapter about nightmares. but I haven't logged in in a few years, so that's a little creepy there.

All this deconstruction (almost posted in that thread) and talk about difference/differance, derrida, and baudrillard have really got the gears going.
If One reduces the words to meaningless letters One might find a code in Johnny's grid-creating courier font--a grid that shifts a little in lines with dashes. this would be an acrostic code, right? no, it wouldn't.

I think of the "errors" and shifts in Johnny's apparent level of education as indicators of something else. Combine this with the 'hint' from the remastered edition and One COULD find where to look and how to look. I think this means to go into rewind mode and search near said inconsistencies for words in the grid pattern that reveal a code that leads from the bottom of the page up. or possibly even diagonally, but let's not get too carried away.

Hello? wrote something sort of like this, relative to the courier font, and referenced some who search for codes in the Old Testament, but no one really even replied. Hey remember how HoL was essentially erased from the internet? Maybe plugging the text into the computer programs people use to scan the hebrew words would have been too easy. But also when the elements of tweakage come up, someone would probably ask are they to align the message (which I'm treating like it's four of four) or distort it? I think it seems the tweakage would be to align it in courier font, but I don't really know (and I just moved so the House along with my other books is still in a box.)


A Brief Examination:

Starting with the end of the book because of a hint from the remastered edition, the film engagement and interactions with Fellini (which "in I fell" or "I fell in" could eventually apply here when describing explorers like Navidson and you and me with respect to the House) and apparent similarity to the drama of La Strada are rewound. But this is strictly as an aside. The last thing is the DOT. A cigarette burn. Like a film REEL. To get a film an image must be captured as a Negative, obviously, and there has to be a creator. And in order to get there somewhere before in time there was a printing press and the evolution of media. But I get sidetracked again, too easy with this novel. Point being that the relationship to memory that film has versus an interpretive symbolic rendition or textually understood reality is the crux of the issue. And that a film must be rewound just as human consciousness experiences the outer world as a reflection. (ok so maybe a stretch, but so much of experience is actually something in need of reversing to understand, in need of being split from its context in order to learn that indeed it is context that is vital in becoming systems aware)

Yggdrasil (forwards) is really like an introduction to a new world, a real world (represented with text) through which Susan Sontag wasn't entirely right about the Image World Ideology--a world that also shows meaning can be carried by text in as many ways as you can imagine (deconstruction of deconstructions).

Q: What would the negative of a photograph of a page of TEXT look like?
A: I don't know exactly but the lines all become dark paths with white letters everywhere.

Photographically the darkness and inversion of 'that place' emerges, the white space becomes smooth dark walls. MZD engaged in creative usages of reading text--this is nothing new, but if you note the importance of the acrostic you might, eventually get to ponder where is the reversetic? I've been looking for it, nothing so far, but sure enough the spans and snaps exploration takes this on in a linear vaguely horizontal example.

Ironically the Weird (in the German sense) INDEX which provides a foundation for the novel to rest on (and contains plenty of psychological quirks of it's own, namely the absence of certain words) is like the brain mechanism of a Lexicon, and beyond this, understanding the structure as the pages rewind through the Prolixed Poems (hey it's got enough letters where it appears referenced but x'd) also called The Pelican Poems (or youth's XXXXXXX travails), as well as the constructions of Pelafina, reflect a communication with a growing being and evidence proving EXISTENCE of something that rhymes symbolically with a baby who gains knowledge and grows up. Four of four may be in the poems or index, but it's not where I'm looking first. [End preliminary investigation of structure in reverse]

Q: Why?
A: Because of other evidence, namely the discovery of the hidden phrase sew buttons. And I'm looking because I may have a few papers and books of my own. O ya and the healing.

Kurt Vonnegut said "Writing makes the soul grow." I'm not saying he's a genius for saying this or anything (even though I think he was awesome) but what does this mean for the act of READING. White letters make a little more sense when they could contain some form of personal forgiveness now, don't they? now that's holy...or buddhist...or at the very least spiritually evolved.

To go back (heh) to deconstruction for a minute, these dots pictured above rhyme symbolically/metaphorically with a reduction of words or letters to mere points, death's reduction, or even an analytic one. Hey wait, I'm not killing the text by analyzing it am I? I am not so fond of critics either but that's no need to be so harsh, though it does highlight an important struggle. The struggle named is the aforementioned importance of context.

If every letter was indeed a 'button,' then finding the codes of an acrostic, anagrammatic, or reversetic nature is metaphorically sewing them together!

Finally, with all the balanced inversions and contradictions, the forward flow that prolix suggests (along with it's obsequiousness) has as it's opposite a more concise counterpart in reverse. I think. Someone's hidden letters make a letter, but where is it? I'm looking in Chapter 21, but there are obviously other big and little blocks of courier to search.

A lot of things in this thread led me to post this here, and the strength lies with these ideas and the phrase of the title of this thread, which takes on a deeper meaning that reflects only a life lived through text. That is...if we choose to believe the last courier story, then we also choose to believe that Johnny couldn't even speak...couldn't live. Now trace the path from a life-destroying guilt to forgiving yourself and see if its about 708 pages...or longer...


that's a lot from just dots, huh?

[ovanoshio]

This binding(!)...isn't cracked. yet. So, I dug my book out and I'm sure I need to write the exploration down (because the video would be boring) or I'll get lost.

It's all been encouraging so far...especially the fact that XIX (where the I is potentially a mirror) starts with a quote from Susan Sontag. Yet it's in Zampano territory, Johnny is "ABSENT" from the 'shortest' chapter in the book. Or did he move all the pages elsewhere in the novel instead? I mean, I love short chapters, but it didn't happen here just because Richard Brautigan thought it was cool, or anyone else except... I believe this has been asked, but it's relevant to this analysis and I don't recall the answer. (it would be a useful link if one of you Minotaurs is into it.) Chapter XX starts as wars, spring, and much literature. And clearly it becomes complicated quickly, because Zampano's rending of TNR is formed into funneling shapes, possibly a flare or upside down doorway and path, by someone else. Oh by the way Chapter X, which starts with a quotation on paths is a lot of fun to flip through fast.

Sticking with 'prolix theory' we have to burn the extraneous words off the page somehow, to distill a message...I'm basically just playing with the novel right now and seeing if something stands out right away (well hoping). Thoughts about the binding itself as a possible staircase or content of the novel can even get me thinking I'm supposed to literally take the glue off. Has anyone done this besides Navy? and wait, didn't he not have enough time to read each page entirely? (so hope is founded)

Ok so I ask too many questions, but it sure is a new level of reading.

[Ellimist]

Prolix.

[heartbreak]

I wanted to bump this thread for two reasons. One its got some great discussion in it and John's original question of who is the you that Johnny is speaking to is a great one to ask. Also, I wanted to put forth a question about the following quote.

Originally Posted by John B.

...but I'd prefer not to think (and especially not know) that this book is nothing or little more than MZD's self-satisfied textual gazing into the labyrinth that is his navel. If that's all it is, then "reading" it becomes a rather smug exercise for those who are clued in, in the know. It's "not for you"--or me--indeed.

What if House of Leaves contains all or almost all the information we need to know to be in the know? That MZD has included, hidden in its dense layers, the information we need to understand his personal interpretation. That without realizing it, we are in the know. I've heard people say that he sounds like he is reciting canned responses in interviews. Some have taken this to mean he is fake or scripted in regards to his interactions with others. Now, if he was scripting his responses in order to sound intellectual or portray a certain persona that is not quite his true self, that would be disappointing but what if he does it because those responses are the information we need to augment with House of Leaves in order to understand it at some level. Think of it as yet another layer of the book he has written.

[John B.]

Thanks for the kind words, HB.

I think you're right when you say that the novel contains what we need to have in order to unlock its secrets, as Pelafina says in a different context, if only because MZD says somewhere in an interview, "No one has found the Grand Staircase." I understand that to mean that there's some textual double helix waiting to be revealed.

It's easy for some to read MZD as being smug when he talks about the novel because, well, he knows something we don't, and he knows we don't know it; to some, that's going to sound smug, whether or not that's intentional on his part.

I just want to be clear about my meaning in the passage you quoted, though: I want HoL to be about more than some big hidden message that we haven't yet found. Personally, I think it is; there are plenty of reasons to return to this book apart from the Grand Staircase. But then again, good literature should feel like it's larger than the sum of its parts; it shouldn't be only about itself but should have something to say to/about its readers as well that's distinct from what it says about its characters. Codes, though, are only about themselves; moreover, they have meaning only for the sender and the receiver. I'd be greatly disappointed if the code revealed, say, that Zampanò really is Johnny's biological father, because, really, how would knowing that really change our understanding of the novel--or, for that matter, ourselves? I'd argue, speaking for myself, that it doesn't. So, then, why do such a thing in the first place? What's gained by encoding it (and running the risk that no one would decipher it) if it's considered such vital information that it's included in the novel?

So: if there's some secret code running more or less the length of this novel, I'd better be its intended receiver.

[Magda]

Originally Posted by heartbreak

What if House of Leaves contains all or almost all the information we need to know to be in the know? That MZD has included, hidden in its dense layers, the information we need to understand his personal interpretation.

I must say that I have some difficulties to comprehend what you - personally - mean by "contain" and "information", heartbreak. It sounds - to me- as if you wanted to say: we don't need to understand who is Hekate Pelafina is invoking in one of her letters, or that we don't need to know that the Bald Gnome ist taken from Bloom's Anxiety of Influence (both of them extratextual references) because the "solution" can be found without that knowledge. That would mean that the numerous extratextual references only are red herrings, l'art pour l'art. Is it that you mean? Sounds like the opposite position to member Samael's who stated that HoL is ONLY its own meta level. Funnily both of you plead the author's intention.

Now if you don't mean it that strict I am bringing out it now, where do you draw the line and how sure do you want to be? Or, in other words: is it possible to leave out the "you" this thread is talking about?

And to add another thought: Your statement sounds as if you think a satisfying solution has not been found yet. Because the solution is NOT to be found on the meta level?

I would actually be pleased if the occurrances of the Four in your other thread would be diciphered as the transcript of a Bach fugue (perhaps the name of that fugue would give us a hint), but, to second John: would it be strong enough to outshine my idea of the book I have so far?

Originally Posted by John B.

Codes, though, are only about themselves; moreover, they have meaning only for the sender and the receiver.

Reminding me here how the greatest love letters are always encoded for the one and not the many?

[heartbreak]

Hi John, Magda, thank you for replying. I've got a test tonight and one tomorrow, so it might not be until Saturday that I get around to replying. Just wanted let you know that was the reason and that I do appreciate the discussion. :)

[Magda]

Good luck!

[heartbreak]

Thanks. :)

[noevilstar]

"House of Leaves was consumed with ancestor to progeny. It was all about the interior...It's a book that's pretty self-contained. It's a playpen which has all the toys you're going to need to involve yourself in. [Only Revolutions] pushes you way outside. It requires you to move outside the book, even though it seems self contained and cyclical."

To add a few thoughts, Mark's comments seem to neither support or disclaim either consideration. Magda makes a good and complicating suggestion, at what point can we consider the extratextual significant to interpretation. Is the intertextuality enough?

As a further example, one reads the book and immediately has a contextual background to bring to Steven King's interview. Most everyone can immediately associate King's persona and canon. But then of course you have thinkers like Hofstatdter and Bloom. Even intertextuality inside of intertextuality, as Hofstadter reads into Bloom. Now these thinkers bring with them a literary and philosophical canon that is not known to the average reader, therefore, the interpretation can merely rely on the intertextual "interviews" provided, which do give us some small sense of their application, or we can go "outside" House of Leaves and bring to bear further interpretation provided by extratextual resources.

Heartbreak posted another MZD interview that adds fodder to the demarcation of this complicated line.

One of the rules I made for myself early on was not to underestimate the intelligence of the reader. I would write for the reader who gets it all, who can suspend it all, until the last possible moment before it must necessarily resolve with that final chord. During the ten years that went into making House of Leaves, I never flinched from that, and gradually this idealized reader I addressed came to life in my imagination, taking in every single note, noticing every twist of phrase, appreciating all the intrinsic complexities of my narrative, understanding every modulation and harmony, hearing the ways the different parts came together to form a single melody. And with that kind of an audience, the rest was easy.

"A woman who will love my ironies."

Danielewski's latter interview does not speak specifically towards extratextuality, but there is a sense that to understand "every twist of phrase," this ideal reader¹ will possess not only the necessary deductive and inductive faculties, but will have the necessary a priori knowledge for comprehension.

That said, the work itself, Danielewski considers autonomous. Self-contained. Intertextuality, perhaps, then helps to actually achieve this. Something Bloom provides towards this dilemma, is an argument that we haven't ever "gone outside" the text, in the way that Bloom talks about the idea of the new reconstituting the old. If HoL has achieved a sort of poetic priority for the reader, than the precursor texts (or precursor ideology), is ever affected by Danielewski's strong misreading, House of Leaves. In that sense tradition is already inherent in the text, in constant oscillation with it. Extratextuality is inescapable. Meaning must be derived from the textual playpen, not from Danielewski's intended meaning.

A difficult meta-leveling, one might even argue paradox, that always complicates, for myself, the understanding of the novel is the chain of historical meaning created by intertextuality. Not only does intertexuality force the reader to consider the hermeneutic relationship between history and House of Leaves, but we are also considering a hermeneutic relationship of House of Leaves and ourselves, and in turn, of course, history and ourselves, for HoL sank like an atrocity into those dark waters of history immediately after Truant's trip to Kinkos.

In a complicated way then, Truant's journey as a belated poet forms a sort of parallel with our journey as critics.

Unpacking Bloom's influences a bit will help to explain this. Forgive my tendency for prolix circumlocution, but I think the conversation here strikes at the very essence of the book.

Gadamer:

Originally Posted by Truth and Method p.270

The text that is understood historically is forced to abandon its claim that it is uttering something true. We think we understand when we see the past from a historical standpoint, i.e., place ourselves in the historical situation and seek to reconstruct the historical horizon. In fact, however, we have given up the claim to find, in the past, any truth valid and intelligible for ourselves.

Gadamer's position is that of "merging horizons" between the history, or the context of the book and that of the reader. We do not place ourselves into the book's context in other words, but merge what context we share, or agree on. To look at HoL ontologically, or as something purely self-contained from the reader's history, knowing it only for itself, does not provide us with the potential to derive any meaning from it. Wolfgang Iser deviates from Gadamer, I'll save any wordy quotation, but Iser stresses in this Gadamerian relationship, the imagination of the reader. It is in the text's failure to meet our expectations of it, to create suspense between the meaning we expect and the discourse that happens, that one finds value. It is as if Iser suggests that the very inescapability of the hermeneutic circle is its value.

So, Gadamer stresses that agreement, continuity, is the valuable relationship between reader and text. Gadamer captures and prohibits the "us" to common ground. Iser, on the other hand, values change, discontinuity, innovation. Iser frees us, to wander. Gadamer fills the void with continuity, Iser values the void for its discontinuity.

Now, getting back to something more directly applicaple to our immediate playground.

Originally Posted by House of Leaves - Pg. 114

Or in other words, like the House, the film itself us captures us and prohibits us at the same time as it frees us, to wander, and so first miss leads us, inevitably, drawing us from the us, thus, only in the end to lead us, necessarily, for where else could we have really gone?, back again to the us and hence back to ourselves.
See Daniel Hortz's Understanding the Self: The Maze of You (Boston Garden Press, 1995) p. 261

Although the line, specified towards a "film" seems to derive out of Metz or the like, it is very in line with Iser. Bloom's dialectic, perhaps, provides a further synthesis between Gadamer and Iser, in that both possibilities are always already present. And so reiterating what I stated above - "Something Bloom provides towards this dilemma, is an argument that we haven't ever "gone outside" the text, in the way that Bloom talks about the idea of the new reconstituting the old. If HoL has achieved a sort of poetic priority for the reader, than the precursor texts (or precursor ideology), is ever affected by Danielewski's strong misreading."

The relationship of the texts is mutually rendering. Each informs the other. Bloom has privileged both continuity and discontinuity. Tradition and change. Tradition has said everything always already, yet there is a constant innovation, or reworking of it within the stasis of "everything already."

Meaning is always a meeting? Right?

As I mentioned above, one must demarcate their own act as interpreter's from that of HoL's characters/poets. In a final gesture of obfustication, consider the paradox of interpreting interpretation. In a sense what we are asking is an impossible question. Not that of 'how we should interpret House of Leaves,' but rather, 'how House of Leave's desires to be interpreted.' This is an endlessly complicated cycle, as the book defers it's own meaning to beg the very question of it, and thus we are left to interpret a statement for ourselves, that already is a statement on interpretation. Danielewski establishes this problem for us, and thus complicates the hermeneutic, as if there is a third perspective we are leaving out. Now that's autonomy!

__________________________
¹ Danielewski's "idealized reader" is a rather ironic concept, seeing that HoL is always already aware of the absence of understanding, or the ever-present non-presence of some transcendental signifier. Just an aside.


Edit: A pointedly obtuse means of reiterating the laconic John B...

[Magda]

This is the sequel to a very old discussion. There are many points that could let one argue against what you said, heartbreak, but I think the arguments will probably always go into the same direction. What I’d really like to know though is what you think is the alternative. This is sort of a practical and personal question. It is really hard to decide where you are with your approach because I did not see any interpretation of yours or a thesis about what the book means to you (please excuse if I missed something), which makes your statement a quite dry one.

Now I’d like to support you in a way, heartbreak. When I read the book I started with the German edition; my second read was with the English one, and it was here I finally had fun with the codes, puns, word references and allusions. Many of those are simply lost in the German translation. After a while I got a strong idea of the book and what it means to me, my personal staircase if you will, and I thank you again that the fact that you did NOT agree and that you did not understand me in the orther thread helped me to articulate more precisely (perhaps not on the board but at least in my brain) what to think of HoL.

The crucial question is: could I have come to the same basic conclusions if I only had read the German edition, if I had not consulted the forums? The answer is yes, I could have – but only seen backwards. This sounds like a paradox, but is has a practical implication, too: I would not have been able because of laziness or lack of time. So I needed the allusions and hints to come to my solution. But looking backwards the whole story (the basic idea, the overall notion) makes sense – at least to me - WITHOUT those hints. The idea can be told without Bloom: the theme of victim and culprit, the strange tension between ancestors and their children and so on, how this tension goes into the artistic activities of the protagonists, the question of creativity. (Only without those references it would be a completely different book.) All this also can be found in the German edition which would mean that codes are not that important.

Writing that I feel a gloomy uncertainty, because it is hard to forget what one knows...
Is it possible to understand HoL in a naive way?

To come back to the topic of this thread - who is addressed by “you”:

Another difference (apart from the lost codes) between the German and the English edition is “La feuille” on page 564. In the English edition this text is written in French, in the German edition it is written in Otjiherero - while in the French edition it is translated into Vietnamese. So what is the purpose of these differences that were made because MZD explicitly instructed the translators to include them? Obviously the use of language in “La feuille” is especially addressed to a certain circle of readers (“you”): to the US-American/British reader, the German reader, the French reader. As far as I see it it can only be understood in the context of the history of those respective countries. But this distinction is already a beginning of a personal reading, and when differentiated it will end with each single reader.

Now my question to you, heartbreak: to what extend would you accept a personal reading as a valid one?

[heartbreak]

I am going to answer the replies all together, but in a general manner. Then I will answer the more personally oriented questions at the end.

The theory that things in House of Leaves do not make sense so that the reader feels the same as the characters is an overall theory which explains that what we do not understand is not to be understood.

This theory is quite possibly the correct one. It makes sense. It is logical. But is it valid? We don't know. The very fact that we don't know leaves open the possibility that there is an interpretation of the book where all the parts and things we do not understand in the book tie together and do make sense.

This, coupled with the fact that we keep finding new information that we hadn't considered before, leads to the conclusion that an ongoing search for an explanation in which all the pieces fit together is not unreasonable.

A code or hidden message has whatever significance or meaning that the message it hides has. It could also have more significance when used in a metaphor. For example, if you wanted to write about what influences people to do things. There are surface level influences that everyone sees and there are sub-surface influences that not many people see, not even the person themselves at times. These sub-surface influences could be worked into the story as coded messages, hidden from the reader's view, and yet they are there all the same. House of Leaves is not neccessarily this way, but this would be one way that codes could gesture at something beyond themselves. They are as simple or as complex as the person who writes them makes them. Not only in the means to decipher them but in the meaning and context of the message itself.

With the above example of a metaphor for what influences people, it might not be apparent without further scrutiny by the reader why the characters behave the way they do. It might not make sense until after the codes and hidden messages are uncovered.

House of Leaves most likely does not have a singular code running its length, but it quite possibly has many different codes and references that when fit together do present an overall cohesive story.

MZD wrote for an idealized reader. The reader who could take in all the references and piece them altogether. This isn't one particular person but one particular type of person. We all have the potential of being MZD's idealized reader. If there is an overall message hidden within House of Leaves it is very likely to be one that applies to people in general.

For House of Leaves to contain all the information the reader needs to be in the know, it would mean that it contains or refers to all the knowledge the reader would need to understand House of Leaves. The references, either surface level such as Bloom or Kubrick, or sub-surface such as Taema and Kuellster, provide the reader with direction on where to seek further knowledge they might need to understand the book.

Once again, this is not neccessaryily the way it is, but it is a possibility.


On to some of the personal questions and some questions of my own.

Where do I draw the line?

I draw the line when I have researched every word I don't understand, every name I do not know, and every line that seems a bit odd, take "on on a step" for example which reads "pets a no no" when read backwards. There are a finite number of words in House of Leaves and there are a finite number of meanings defined for those words, thus there is a finite number of possible combinations of interpretations. Granted that number is huge, but the surface area of the Earth is 197 million square miles or 510 billion square kilometers, should we not attempt to map it because it is a vast area?

Has a satisfactory solution been found?

Many adequate solutions have been found, but they were formed without having all the information presented by the book. Does that matter? We do not know.

A few words on the fours thread.

The fours thread is just data. The only thing it suggests is that MZD might have used the number four to set the structure of the book and the proportions of the character's voices. It does not have to be a code for anything.

What do I think is the alternative?

Why do I have to think the alternative is anything at this point? Isn't the possibility that it could be something else enough? Why do I have to decide what the book means before I finish reading it?

No codes within the German edition?

An interpretation based on the German edition and an interpretation based upon the American edition without all the codes known would fall prey to the same problem. They were both made without information that might influence the interpretation. To say that the codes make no difference to the interpretation is to say that one either knows all the coded messages in the book or that one knows that any remaining codes do not change the interpretation.

Is it possible to understand House of Leaves in a naive way?

Is it neccesary to forget what you read before or only to augment what you read previously to what you read in the American edition?

To what extent would I accept a personal reading?

If by personal reading you mean a personal interpretation then I would accept it, if it is founded squarely on accurate information taken from House of Leaves. If it is not to be taken in context of the book at large then it is clearly stated as such and if all assumptions are stated as well. Otherwise I will question things that are not quoted accurately or that are not supported firmly.

[fearful_syzygy]

Originally Posted by heartbreak

An interpretation based on the German edition and an interpretation based upon the American edition without all the codes known would fall prey to the same problem. They were both made without information that might influence the interpretation. To say that the codes make no difference to the interpretation is to say that one either knows all the coded messages in the book or that one knows that any remaining codes do not change the interpretation.

That's only the case if ultimately there is only one true interpretation of the book and all currently-existing interpretations are merely incomplete placeholders; stations on the way to the final interpretation.

At this point, the belief in the possibility of an all-encompassing interpretation of the book in which everything fits together and makes sense is an article of faith. I'm afraid I lack that faith.

Except that I still maintain that the incommensurability of different elements of the text is not only part of its meaning, it's absolutely fundamental to an understanding of what the book is about, which, to a very large extent, has to do with the unaccountable-for 1/4". A very large extent. Unimaginably large. Any complete understanding of the book would have to take into consideration the importance played by incomprehension and incommensurability in the book.

A reading in which everything suddenly made sense would make the least sense of all.

So let me ask you something, heartbreak: do you believe that there is something intrinsic about House of Leaves itself that leaves open the possibility of the universal solvent interpretation, or do you believe that this is a factor in all works of literature? Moreover, what are the criteria by which you would determine whether everything made sense or not?

Originally Posted by heartbreak

the surface area of the Earth is 197 million square miles or 510 billion square kilometers, should we not attempt to map it because it is a vast area?

Not at all. But what you seem to be proposing is a map to the scale of 1:1. Which would be just as unreadable as the surface you're mapping.

In order to make sense of it all you've got to take a step back. Sure you, lose some of the detail, but any global reading needs to be conducted on a global scale.

[Stencil]

Originally Posted by fearful_syzygy

do you believe that there is something intrinsic about House of Leaves itself that leaves open the possibility of the universal solvent interpretation, or do you believe that this is a factor in all works of literature?

That's what I don't get about this: people come up with new interpretations of Shakespeare every year; why should HoL be any different?

Also, you've got to think about the person gathering all this information for the final interpretation: all of us are prey to some sort of bias, and whether we know it or not, our interpretation of information can be affected by it. Therefore, isn't there loads of mini-interpretations to be done before this grand theory is synthesised?

And once we have this information - leaving aside for the moment how one mind can retain it all without bias or forgetting - what criteria do we us to sift through levels of significance? We could have multiple readings of the same word yet not know which fits with other word meanings. Or we could be lost in the codes: what do they mean? Who wrote them? What do they mean in light of the meaning of this word? Or this other meaning? Or this other word? Or . . .

Furthermore, I'm having difficulty seeing how the fact that not all the information is in yet should affect how we conduct ourselves: we do not have all the information yet, okay. So? Does that mean we should stop coming up with ideas? Of course there may be an important discovery to be made in the future; when it happens, let's look at it then.

There's no harm in throwing shit and seeing what sticks, is there?

Figuratively speaking of course.


Also, that map thing only makes sense if after we've mapped the land and the sea, we dig out all the oil, coal, coal, diamond, quartz, ancient ruins etc. I mean, we're getting pretty close . . .

[heartbreak]

Originally Posted by fearful_syzygy

That's only the case if ultimately there is only one true interpretation of the book and all currently-existing interpretations are merely incomplete placeholders; stations on the way to the final interpretation.

If by true you mean an overall comprehensible interpretation than I'm glad that we agree.

At this point, the belief in the possibility of an all-encompassing interpretation of the book in which everything fits together and makes sense is an article of faith. I'm afraid I lack that faith.

OED: possible- That is capable of being; that may or can exist, be done, or happen.

It is possible whether I believe in it or not. That which is possible is not based on faith.

Except that I still maintain that the incommensurability of different elements of the text is not only part of its meaning, it's absolutely fundamental to an understanding of what the book is about, which, to a very large extent, has to do with the unaccountable-for 1/4". A very large extent. Unimaginably large. Any complete understanding of the book would have to take into consideration the importance played by incomprehension and incommensurability in the book.

I agree completely. Incomprehension, incommensurablility and misunderstanding would be a very important part of an overall interpretation.

A reading in which everything suddenly made sense would make the least sense of all.

Again I agree. I don't think it will suddenly make sense but only that it might make sense under more scrutiny.

So let me ask you something, heartbreak: do you believe that there is something intrinsic about House of Leaves itself that leaves open the possibility of the universal solvent interpretation, or do you believe that this is a factor in all works of literature? Moreover, what are the criteria by which you would determine whether everything made sense or not?

All books have the possibility of making sense. All books have the possibility of not making sense. You might recall this quote:

The theory that things in House of Leaves do not make sense so that the reader feels the same as the characters is an overall theory which explains that what we do not understand is not to be understood.

This theory is quite possibly the correct one.

How does anyone determine whether things makes sense?

Not at all. But what you seem to be proposing is a map to the scale of 1:1. Which would be just as unreadable as the surface you're mapping.
In order to make sense of it all you've got to take a step back. Sure you, lose some of the detail, but any global reading needs to be conducted on a global scale.

In order to make an accurate map you must first examine in detail, second fit the pieces together and then step back in order to see it all.

[noevilstar]

Originally Posted by heartbreak

I agree completely. Incomprehension, incommensurablility and misunderstanding would be a very important part of an overall interpretation.

Originally Posted by heartbreak

If by true you mean an overall comprehensible interpretation than I'm glad that we agree.

So you believe "Incomprehension would be a very important part of an overall interpretation" that is "an overall comprehensible interpretation?"

Heartbreak, this station of a "all-explanatory truth" is borderline metaphysical. Think of it this way. Let's say you found a code from Zampano that confirmed he was Johnny's legitimate father, and was in fact Donny, or was an affair, or whatever. What would that tell you, other than the facts it presented. It would make a literal family where one might have already found a figurative one, I guess, but what would it mean? What would it mean for Johnny as a son? Zampano as a father? Pelafina as a mother and mistress and spouse? What would these fact serve but to further an interpretative field?

Originally Posted by heartbreak

The theory that things in House of Leaves do not make sense so that the reader feels the same as the characters is an overall theory which explains that what we do not understand is not to be understood.

That sentence is a little hard to unpack / Who said that?

Originally Posted by heartbreak

MZD wrote for an idealized reader. The reader who could take in all the references and piece them altogether. This isn't one particular person but one particular type of person. We all have the potential of being MZD's idealized reader. If there is an overall message hidden within House of Leaves it is very likely to be one that applies to people in general.

So you really think it is a type? One type of person will understand all the "twists and turns?"

...Expounding further on the Gadamer quote I stated above in my pretentious post, allow me a hypothetical. Pretend it's 200 years from now. Tattoo's have been replaced by something less permanent yet more pervasive, the idea of the written text has been surrendered to some futuristic audiobook, we all live in caves, communism reigns worldwide, 75% of the population is blind due to a new disease, etc... etc... Does House of Leaves have any meaning, or does a reader in 2209 have to resurrect the culture of turn of the century America to find meaning? To say this privileges the book to a rather limited set of generations. Consider the shift in themes for that population. What do yo make of their interpretation? sure, it's a quixotic hypothetical, but how do you address this kind of thing?

Last, how would you interpret these lines...

Or in other words, like the House, the film itself us captures us and prohibits us at the same time as it frees us, to wander, and so first misleads us, inevitably, drawing us from the us, thus, only in the end to lead us, necessarily, for where else could we have really gone?, back again to the us and hence back to ourselves.

[heartbreak]

Originally Posted by noevilstar

So you believe "Incomprehension would be a very important part of an overall interpretation" that is "an overall comprehensible interpretation?"

Yes.

Heartbreak, this station of a "all-explanatory truth" is borderline metaphysical. Think of it this way. Let's say you found a code from Zampano that confirmed he was Johnny's legitimate father, and was in fact Donny, or was an affair, or whatever. What would that tell you, other than the facts it presented. It would make a literal family where one might have already found a figurative one, I guess, but what would it mean? What would it mean for Johnny as a son? Zampano as a father? Pelafina as a mother and mistress and spouse? What would these fact serve but to further an interpretative field?

If attempting to understand fully what one reads is metaphysical, then I imagine it is so, but then that would apply to any case and really wouldn't matter much.

As to your example, it is not quite accurate because you place a limiting factor on the value of the information, or the importance of the information. If there are things still uncovered in House of Leaves, we have no idea what they could be and thus can make no conclusions on how they might affect our present interpretations.

That sentence is a little hard to unpack / Who said that?

It seems to me that it gets mentioned any time people try and make sense of things in House of Leaves.

So you really think it is a type? One type of person will understand all the "twists and turns?"

Yes.

...Expounding further on the Gadamer quote I stated above in my pretentious post, allow me a hypothetical. Pretend it's 200 years from now. Tattoo's have been replaced by something less permanent yet more pervasive, the idea of the written text has been surrendered to some futuristic audiobook, we all live in caves, communism reigns worldwide, 75% of the population is blind due to a new disease, etc... etc... Does House of Leaves have any meaning, or does a reader in 2209 have to resurrect the culture of turn of the century America to find meaning? To say this privileges the book to a rather limited set of generations. Consider the shift in themes for that population. What do yo make of their interpretation? sure, it's a quixotic hypothetical, but how do you address this kind of thing?

Consider any antique text that we ponder over. If we are going to interpret it do we not try and interpret it from the original language it was written from a perspective of the times and places they were written? If I'm reading a British novel and the main character is said to be smoking a fag, do I think "Oh! He's burning homosexuals." or rather do I realize that he's smoking a cigarette because the book was written in a different country and certain words have different connotations?

Last, how would you interpret these lines...

If we are considering those lines in and of themselves un-struck and not in red, then the book, like the House, like the film draws us in, it confuses the hell out of us, it seems to mislead us, but in the end, if we wander long enough, there might be some truth that we learn of ourselves. Much like a labyrinth.

[fearful_syzygy]

Originally Posted by heartbreak

If by true you mean an overall comprehensible interpretation than I'm glad that we agree.

We don't agree. That's what I meant, but I don't think that this is the case.

Originally Posted by heartbreak

It is possible whether I believe in it or not. That which is possible is not based on faith.

Sure it is. If you didn't believe it, you wouldn't believe it to be possible. If you say it's possible, that means you believe it to be so.

Originally Posted by heartbreak

If attempting to understand fully what one reads is metaphysical, then I imagine it is so, but then that would apply to any case and really wouldn't matter much.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean by "understand fully".

Originally Posted by heartbreak

Consider any antique text that we ponder over. If we are going to interpret it do we not try and interpret it from the original language it was written from a perspective of the times and places they were written?

That's one way of reading literature, yes. And it provides answers to one set of questions. But it's not the only one and those aren't the only questions one can ask of a text.


Edit: "I mean even if you could connect those dots, which I don't think you can, what kind of picture would you really draw?" (p. 117)

[heartbreak]

Originally Posted by fearful_syzygy

We don't agree. That's what I meant, but I don't think that this is the case.

This is what we agree on:

That's only the case if ultimately there is only one true interpretation of the book and all currently-existing interpretations are merely incomplete placeholders; stations on the way to the final interpretation.

Sure it is. If you didn't believe it, you wouldn't believe it to be possible. If you say it's possible, that means you believe it to be so.

The belief is not one based on faith because the possibility exists whether I believe in it or I don't. The possibility exists whether I believe in it or not.

I'm still waiting for you to explain what you mean by "understand fully.

When there is nothing left to learn from the book.

That's one way of reading literature, yes. And it provides answers to one set of questions. But it's not the only one and those aren't the only questions one can ask of a text.

I've never contended that it is the only way. Only that it is a way.

Edit: "I mean even if you could connect those dots, which I don't think you can, what kind of picture would you really draw?" (p. 117)

Because Johnny is the best of us? If he can't make sense of it no one can?

[fearful_syzygy]

That's not agreement. I'm restating the premise of your statement and then rejecting it as false.

Belief = faith

There will never come a time when there is nothing left to learn from the book. As Stencil says, new interpretations of Shakespeare are written and conceived every day.

Here, I'll let Todorov do the talking for a little bit.

Originally Posted by Tzvetan Todorov

Every work is rewritten by its reader, who imposes upon it a new grid of interpretation for which he is not generally responsible but which comes to him from his culture, from his time, in short from another discourse; all comprehension is the encounter of two discourses: a dialogue. It is futile and silly to try to leave off being oneself in order to become someone else; were one to succeed, the result would be of no interest (since it would be a pure reproduction of the initial discourse). By its very existence, the science of ethnology proves to us, if need be, that we gain by being different from what we seek to understand. This interpretation (in the necessary double sense of translation and comprehension) is the condition of survival of the antecedent text; but no less so, I should say, of contemporary discourse. Hence interpretation is no longer true or false but rich or poor, revealing or sterile, stimulating or dull.

[heartbreak]

fearful, is there no possibility of an overall comprehensible theory where everything makes sense?

[fearful_syzygy]

What's "everything"?

[Stencil]

Originally Posted by fearful_syzygy

What's "everything"?

Haven't you been reading? According to HB, "everything" equals "all that can be imagined existing." Or:

Originally Posted by Heartbreak

OED: possible- That is capable of being; that may or can exist, be done, or happen.

It is possible whether I believe in it or not. That which is possible is not based on faith.

This is an exciting development in the history of epistemology, and certainly knocks Wittgenstien into a cocked hat.

How blissful to be alive on this day!

Inspired by HB's theory, I want to put forward the idea that the ultimate meaning of HoL is "shoes, cornflakes and the Urals."

I have no evidence of this at the moment, and don't actually believe it, but how can we dismiss it when we haven't got all the information in? All I'm saying is isn't there just the possibility that it could be right? You can't deny that, at some later point, there will not be a data set that proves it to not be the case. To do so would be to limit the value of all subsequent information.

But, more seriously HB, what do you mean by "makes sense"?

[heartbreak]

So it goes.

[Stencil]

Could you expand on that?

[Magda]

Heartbreak, what you write about “scrutiny” reminds me of something John posted in another thread, about Borges’ On Exactitude in Science.

That’ll be a day!

Originally Posted by heartbreak

What if House of Leaves contains all or almost all the information we need to know to be in the know?

Your replies to my post show me that you did not quite understand what I wanted to know. When I asked where you draw the line I meant the line between inside and outside HoL.

Originally Posted by heartbreak

I draw the line when I have researched every word I don't understand, every name I do not know, and every line that seems a bit odd.

A name is nothing without the story connected to it. How much of this story is acceptable for you to be considered as “information” for that overall solution?

Your discussion about possibility on the one hand and belief on the other hand sounds a bit nitpicking to me, to be frank. It is not the first time here on board that you claim the “possibility” of an overall solution – which is okay, I think, because it indicates that the question is a great concern to you. But if you only claim it as one possibility among many and don’t put some life into it then it leaves me with a shrug. What is the point of it then? You have a reason for that you come back to your statement again. Why don’t you show your colours?

So what kind of solution do you have in mind? Any wild example? Why is the question relevant for you? What do you want to discuss? What is it that does not yet make sense to you?