In Class Blog Post

In Danielewski’s House of Leaves, the text appears to connect to one another (in context, form, information, etc.) as well as to outside sources. I use the word “appear” only because that nothing can be for certain in House of Leaves, for nothing can be taken for face value or deciphered and understood simply. The form of the text takes different shapes and evolves as the manuscript continues, however, the supposed separated interior context (paragraphs versus footnotes) is only an illusion. Each can stand alone, but they also relate to one another. In my opinion, as House of Leaves is meant to also be authored by the reader, the connection between varying sections must also be determined by the audience as well.

Tom’s Story is written in the form of a screenplay, but also is reminiscent of personal journal entries. These words, or entries, are to be witnessed and absorbed by readers. Johnny’s footnotes also have the same purpose, where we, as the audience, are meant to read and understand what Johnny is transcribing to us. This purpose is not the only similarity between the two sections. The diction and pacing is also similar in that both sections read fast, but convey a vast amount of information to process in a short amount of time. Johnny states, “I was in some weird kind of jittery daze,” this jittery daze reflects to the confession-like voice Tom has in his screenplay (261). Both Tom’s and Johnny’s words, or confessions, convey stories to the audience. Again, the audience is meant to help author, and determine, which information is more vital and valid.

I find the greatest significance that connects and makes both Tom’s and Johnny’s words able to coexist in close proximity to be the references to the monster, a monster, or creature (depending on how you perceive the information).

“Did you expert oration Mr. Monster? Or perhaps a little expectoration” describes the audiences want for expectoration, or expansion, on knowledge of the monster’s being and existence. The monster’s action, in Tom’s section, acts and exists but what happens is not clear. The monster’s in itself, in existence, is vague. The only concrete image is that the monster turns “into a dragon…a flesh eating dragon” (260). Johnny also refers to a creature, “born out of the absence of light, shaped with [Toms] bare hands, [is] able to exist” only by Tom’s doing. Also, within Johnny’s footnote, the monster is the woman herself, but also reflects back to Johnny in namesake.

The most concrete relation between Tom and Johnny’s words, in my opinion, is the reference and description of the monster, or creature. The monster in itself is perceived as horrible, a brute, dangerous and yet is not clear. What is the monster’s purpose? The monster is unseen, but heard. We as readers know that something exists, but the true purpose of the monster can only be better understood as more of the text is covered.