Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers our Conclusions and the book as a whole.


What are your overall impressions of the book and the story(-ies) it tells?

Were you engaged with both story lines or did you find Truant’s story to be distracting?

Were the footnotes, citations of real and fictional academics, and references to fictional films and books interesting to read? Funny? Pretentious?

I found the conclusion was very satisfying, even though nothing makes sense. I had been reading Navidson's POV as a love story more than a horror story, so I'm glad that THAT was the winning plot outcome, with Karen's re-discovering her love for Will symbolically (and physically) returning him to her.

Reading through the appendices (namely the Whalestoe section) clarifies some points regarding Truant's mother, but I find her to be as unreliable a narrative source as Truant himself. We constantly question what is true and what is not (i.e. is Johnny really visiting that often? Were there 2 Directors or 3? How much of her letters is lucidity and how much is madness? etc, etc).

The strange photographs/collages didn't help me much, but maybe that was the point...it highlights how difficult it would be to be Johnny, piecing together Zampano's narrative from such sources.

This was my first reading of House of Leaves, and I read the footnotes as I encountered them, for the most part. Chapter 9 demanded some attention of course, as the footnotes meander across several pages, in forward and reverse order. By the time I had reached that chapter though, I was used to following the various trains of thought of each narrator and didn't struggle that much with the content. That being said, I read footnotes/comments with attention only when they were narrative/expositional; I didn't pay very much attention to citational footnotes aside from noticing some funny/punny/creative titles and names. Maybe on another reading I'll spend more time on them.

Violetta wrote: "That being said, I read footnotes/comments with attention only when they were narrative/expositional; I didn't pay very much attention to citational footnotes aside from noticing some funny/punny/creative titles and names..."

Me too. Some of the footnotes were just very long lists of names, so unless you're a really obsessive type, I can't see the reason to read them all.

Yes, the photos and collages were interesting but not super helpful. What I really wanted was to watch the video footage, but I had to keep reminding myself there wasn't any available because Zampanò/Truant/Danielewski made it all up. Even still, I really wanted to watch the footage, until finally, I had to sit me down and sternly say, "Dammit Jim! There is NO video!!!"

I have to add, I was immensely saddened by Truant's story arc. Regardless of how much was true and how much was made up by Truant, his spiral into madness and paranoia still offered up moments in which we saw the intelligent and poetic mind that his mother beamed about. I wish there had been some sort of catharsis for him.

Did anyone go through and decode the "nonsensical" letter that Johnny's mom wrote? (The one where you must take the first letter of each written word as the basis for the next letter in the decoded message.) Truly disturbing.

Violetta wrote: "Did anyone go through and decode the "nonsensical" letter that Johnny's mom wrote? (The one where you must take the first letter of each written word as the basis for the next letter in the decoded..."

Oh, I loved that! What I got was: "A face in a cloud no trace in the crowd". Whatever it means.
That pretty much sums up my thoughts about the whole book: I enjoyed the hidden (anti-)clues and connections (I'm a fan of acrostics) but didn't get much of Zampanó's and Johnny's story. Especially Zampanó's part felt too short.
Do you know there's a list of subtle questions on Danielewski's website?

Iselin wrote: "but didn't get much of Zampanó's and Johnny's story. Especially Zampanó's part felt too short.

Do you know there's a list of subtle questions on Danielewski's website? .."

Given how batshit crazy Truant was, there were times where I wondered if Zampanò was a character created by Truant. He is such an unreliable narrator - very intelligent, but genetically prone to madness by his mother, and a chronic drug user - it seemed reasonable that maybe there was no Z, no Lude, just crazy Johnny. But I don't think I could support that idea academically...

The website questions are fun!

"My Dear Zampano who did you lose?" is hidden in the April 5, 1986 Whalestoe letter. A case for Johnny inventing not only Zampano, but his mother's letters as well. Or maybe a case for a hidden connection?

Head over to youtube and search for "navidson record" or "five and a half minute hallway". There is some interesting and creative stuff out there. I really liked the "recovered intro" of the Navidson Record.
I acutally enjoy the text animation more than the life action videos.
What do you think?

Whitney wrote: ""My Dear Zampano who did you lose?" is hidden in the April 5, 1986 Whalestoe letter. A case for Johnny inventing not only Zampano, but his mother's letters as well. Or maybe a case for a hidden con..."

If I had been able to keep the book longer from the library, I think I would have gone back and tried to correlate the dates of Pelafina's letters with Johnny's erratic memoir. I think that would have offered some highly interesting brain fodder for the case of who is truly mad. ("We're all mad here." Lol)

Whitney wrote: ""My Dear Zampano who did you lose?" is hidden in the April 5, 1986 Whalestoe letter. A case for Johnny inventing not only Zampano, but his mother's letters as well. Or maybe a case for a hidden con..."

I realize now that Truants' mom has quite an improbable name. Another sign that something about this is made up.

for that matter, iselin, we could also argue that truant himself doesn't exist! note that all the names are expunged from the newspaper clippings by the mysterious editors!