Borges
posed the question that Danielewski seeks to ask again: How does he do that? By
being himself.
“…truth,
whose mother is history, who is the rival of time, depository of deeds, witness
of the past, example and lesson to the present, and warning to the future.” –
Ed. (43)
It is clear through a comparison of “Pierre
Menard Author of the Quixote” and House of Leaves, that the later
Danielewski was heavily influenced by Borges and sought to advance his work
into the questionable future of the 21st century. Borges used
footnotes and a heavy academic language in his short story, and while the
Navidson Record sections of House of Leaves play and expand at this,
they also counter Borges’s clarity with footnotes upon footnotes, and colorful
narration upon academic narration. Responsible for the chief differences
between the two works is Johnny Truant’s presence in HOL. Johnny Truant serves
the purpose that Borges himself identifies, “Unfortunately, only a second
Pierre Menard, inverting the other’s work, would be able to exhume and revive
those lost Troys…” The lost Troys inspire visions of The Illiad, arguably the
literature upon which all literature is built. By asking the same questions
that Borges asked, and asking them again through Johnny, Danielewski attempts
to ask the age old question in a novel way: how to approach truth through
literature in an uncertain past, present and future – the same uncertainty that
has affected so many others and has been pondered so many times.
Zampanò seems to some a Borges-like
figure, though not a copy. As one website notes,
Indeed,
Zampanò himself is a thinly veiled Borges figure, like Eco's Jorge of Burgos or
García Márquez' Melquíades. The old writer is blind, has a penchant for old
languages, writes lonely poetry, and, like the fictional Borges of "El
Alef," counts a "Béatrice" among the great loves of his life.
And like Borges, he is fond of mixing real sources and fictional sources in
order to provide an academic veneer to his work.
I
would agree with this comparison, though noting the differences between Borges
and Zampanò is probably also useful. Where Borges was successful, Zampanò died
unpublished. Where, at least in Pierre Menard, Borges dealt with the real work
of Cervantes, Zampanò deals with the faux fantasy/documentary that is The
Navidson Record. Perhaps, in the face of such literary giants as Borges
referencing Quixote, Danielewski sees the opportunity to comment on his own
difficulty living up to such legends.
From
the words of Johnny: “Here’s the point: the more I focused in on the words the
farther I seemed from my room” (43). Zampanò projects Johnny out of his comfort
zone and into the unknown. Johnny has
been reading the complex manuscripts of Zampanò, and usually he cares about
what the old man has to say and expands upon them in logical if extreme
parallels. But sometimes the words, or memories of them, produce a moment of
paralyzing existential dread in Johnny. Later on page 43: “…leaving me no sound
way to determine where the hell I’m going, though right now going to hell seems
like a pretty sound bet.”
It
would be worth noting here that Mark Danielewski’s father, Tad, was a filmmaker
who perhaps most famously directed a version of Sartre’s No Exit, a/the
literary icon of existentialism. I reason that HOL deals with several
autobiographical issues then. Zampanò the intellectual father of Johnny/ Tad
the father of Mark/ but also Borges, and literary icons like him, as the intellectual
fathers of Mark.
So,
even though it may not be clear enough yet, Mark Danielewski’s House of
Leaves, which at its core is a love story according to the author, can be
looked at as an examination of the influences that keep us going in the face of
struggle – what forces bring us up and down. As Danielewski recounts in a YouTube
video dedicated to HOL: the story of people’s experience with the book that
sticks with him most is that of a father, whose daughter attempted suicide and
failed. When she woke up her father asked what he could do for her, and she
asked for a copy of House of Leaves. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9mbd3a5AHU
So
yes, HOL is both a horror story and a love story, but it’s also a story about
why we try things again, in the face of disappointment (wherever it comes
from), in search of closeness and personal acceptance.
1 comment:
You drift in interesting directions here. All of them are good, but I don't know whether to focus on your individual interests, or to try to figure out the pattern of the drifting itself.
You're good on Zampano-as-Borges. You're also good, but far from complete, on your ostensible argument - that Johny is the 2nd Pierre Menard reconstituting the first. That's worth a final project in itself, but you nonetheless move on from that into the biographical material on Danielewksi & his father. This is good material, but ideally (in a longer version) it would need to be looped back to the ostensible main topic. How is it, in other words, that understanding HOL as a love story rooted in biography (ironically, a biography itself rooted in philosophy)helps us understand Johny - as - 2nd - Pierre Menard (or vice versa).
This is all great material, but it drifts. If you turn it into a final project, you need to deploy all of this great material in a more focused, systematic way.
Post a Comment