Talk:House of Leaves/Archive 1

Why was the Minotaur section crossed out?

I could only think of two reasons why everything about the Minotaur was crossed out: [1] either Zampano thought it was too irrelevant to be mentioned, or [2] Zampano crossed it out because he didn't want anyone to know about it. I doubt he got rid of it because it was irrelevant, he did, after all, leave in the whole bit about the myth of Echo. Which really only leaves reason two. Did anyone else wonder why all references to the Minotaur were crossed out? Maybe Zampano really thought there was a creature in the house, and he got rid of all references to the Minotaur because he didn't want people going in after it? Or something? There must be a reason why Zampano didn't want us to know about the Minotaur myth. 24.12.150.27 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it's pretty irrelevant to the article as it stands ;-) 81.104.175.145 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read Truants diatribe on the pages leading into the Minotaur section, and then contrast that to the stange form and redness of the Minotaur section, am I the ONLY one who finds the organization of the words and their shape intentionally phallic? It seems to me as if Truant has reorganized much of this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.27.153 (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was supposed to be a key shape. Also, I think Zampano's 'minotaur' theme was kind of his own minotaur. He wanted to keep it hidden in the labyrinth of the book once he decided it was too awful to be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.131.234 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Zampano wanted the reader to be kept in suspense about "the monster," continually questioning even its existence throughout the narrative, so as to heighten the psychological fear factor of the Navidson Record. If he had included the passages about the minotaur, most of his readers would have associated the growls in the labyrinth with some kind of minotaur from that point on (and so as not emanating from some other unimaginable beast, the mental picture of which would otherwise be constantly changing). And once that happened, they would also be more likely to limit their idea of the house to a labyrinth of some kind. Because the other explanations do not admit the presence of a minotaur. Whereas by not including it, these issues are left more open to interpretation. So a bigger question would be -- why did Danielewski include those passages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.11 (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes? and Full Color comment

Are the spelling 'mistakes' really mistakes? Mourning instead of morning? It seems fairly deliberite(sp). And house isnt in blue on page 708 in the full color editon. Why?

• Some are and some probably aren't. As for the appearance of "house", I'll have yo check my copy when I get home. --Scorpios 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two possibilities for the lack of blue:

1. It's meant as a storyline thing; you've finally found your way out. You're not under the influence anymore. Or 2. It's a mistake.

I find possibility #1 more intriguing, myself. Snowbeat 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• That page is still part of the House of Leaves By Zampanò, therefore actually part of the storyline. MArk Danielewski migh've thought differently. Aijuan Gradlini 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Likely not, though, since the same page with the blacked-out "house" includes a fictional thank-you for the Exploration #4 video tape that appears described in the novel. dndnerd 07:15, 12 Dec 2007 (Central)

No, they're not. Some, like the one you mention, are examples of Freudian slips. Others, which appear to be natural mistakes, are there to cause you to doubt the nature of the others. Just another way Danielewski is toying with the reader's mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.31 (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I would disagree with the comment RE: the typography and it's similarities to the author cited. You cannot jump around from section to section in "redHouse of Leaves" and read the book propertly. The narrative *IS* linear, and goes from page to page in numerical order. You *COULD* choose to read it as two seperate books: the top half being the story of "The Navidson Record" and the bottom half being the story of the life of Johnny Truant. But still you must follow the pages numerically to get the story. 68.167.28.243 01:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there any possibility of getting page numbers cited in this article? --InShaneee 04:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of Truant

It also should be pointed out that Johnny´s last name is meaningful.

A quick search for truant with google brings this.

1. one who is absent from school without permission
2. no-show: someone who shirks duty
3. absent without permission; "truant schoolboys"; "the soldier was AWOL for almost a week"

This goes along with his non participation with work and eventually society.

165.98.213.117 23:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Lucian

Related to this, the page in the Appendix that describes Johnny's father's death mentions that Johnny had his father's last name redacted. So Truant probably isn't his birth name. Rpresser 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Truant is not his real name. One of the Whalestoe letters refers affectionately to him by either that word or one of its many derivatives; I can't remember which right now, and don't have the book in front of me ... But that's why he calls himself Johnny "Truant." He also appears to be the author of the Pelican poems, as in another of the Whalestoe letters, his mother rbriefly efers to him travelling around Europe with nothing but a "Pelican pen." Jlionheart (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Published online?

The page states: "The novel quickly became a bestseller following its March 7 2000 release, although it had already developed a cult following through gradual release over the Internet."

When I read the bit about dissemination on the Internet in the preface? (I don't have a copy handy) of the book I assumed it was true only in the world of the novel, but the DisInfo page [1] implies otherwise. Nonetheless, it would be nice to have more detail and/or verification of the fact; how was it published? On the Web? On mailing lists? Via a .plan? Can fragments be seen via the DejaNews/Google News archives, or the Internet Archive?

• At http://www.flakmag.com/features/mzd.html , it mentions that he posted the entire thing online for friends and family to see (so he wouldn't have to print the entire thing out and pay to ship it), and that some strangers found and read it and sent others the link, etc. 71.114.28.46 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has removed this info from the article. I think it's worth noting and should be re-included by someone with more info about it.--74.100.117.52 (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Colors

I may be mistaken but as far as I know there are only these editions:

Black and white - No color

Blue edition - House in blue. Minotaur and struck passages in regular black

Red edition - House in light gray. Minotaur and struck passages in red

No full color or two-color editions exist as far as I know

I think the "Full color, including braille parts" first edition is an intentional misdirection, like the "Unexpurgated" Princess Bride. D'you suppose this should be mentioned in the article? Scix 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

A full color edition (which is actually to say two color) employing both the blue and red text was released recently (the date on the flyleaf reads 05/06). - JacobB, 19 June 2006

The full color edition also includes color versions of the pictures of the house and envelopes and sketches. This was probably planned the first time through but not in the budget for the original. The first or "blue edition" is available as a hardback or trade bringing the total to five real world editions of the book. I have a first ed trade and decided against the hardcover since there is no real change.

Full Color - The word house in blue; minotaur and all struck passages in red. Rory fireshaper 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a "two color" edition, but the Full Color edition actually includes 3 colors. I do not have book with me at this house, but there is one instance where Johnny is arranging tattoo needles and has a panic attack, during this somewhere there is a struck passage that appears in Purple, not red. I also think it clearly states this on the copyright page [at least in the Full Color paperback edition] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.233.231 (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The third is Palafina's purple: P. which may be read in the appendix, and is recalled by Johnny when he has a panic attack at the shop. If you don't have the full color edition you may find her letters in the book "The Whalestoe Letters" which I recommend 500% to understand Johnny and the House. EduardoNeto (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Truant's inheritance

"When Zampanò dies, the manuscript and notes are discovered by a Los Angeles club kid named Johnny Truant, who was hired to clean Zampanò's apartment."

Truant wasn't hired to do anything--he was looking for an apartment about the same time that Zampano died, and Lude, living in the same building, told him of the vacancy and led him there, where he made his discovery. There is as much evidence that he was hired, and thus contacted, by Flaze or whomever, as there is that he'd gone as far as breaking in and stealing Zampano's legacy for himself. Afterall, Truant did imply his feelings as a trespasser in another realm or reality.

Actually, don't mean to contradict anybody, but can someone with a copy of the book actually check that? I seem to remember Johnny living in the same apartment complex as Zampano and having him as a neighbor, but I could be wrong.

And furthermore, Johnny was never really described as a "club kid." He worked at a tattoo parlor and he went to bars a lot. His story and segues and asides are filled with accounts of pretty shady sexual escapades. The kind of imagery I associate with "club kid" is more flashing lights and dancing and I don't think Johnny danced once. :) --mixvio 04:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Johnny didn't live in the complex, Lude did. Johnny was called over by Lude. Have the book. --65.25.220.188 00:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The confusion comes when Johnny mentions seeing Zampano in the yard. Later, Johnny makes references to Zampano's living quarters and his ow

• It is deliberate, one can mistake this Zampanò character as Truant himself sometimes, just like we can trace a paralelism from Zampanòs story of the house to Johnnys (or anyone else's) mind. He tells it himself in the beginning of the book EduardoNeto 22:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he;s no 'club kid'. He;s more of a cheap Charles Bukowski knock-off. Artw 16:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zampano wasn't Hispanic

"deceased Zampanò, an apparently blind, elderly Hispanic or Latin man"

Not only is there no text in the book describing Zampano's appearance or ancestry, what hypotheses there have been regarding his ancestry all consider Zampano to be French.

Consider the following:

1) The name of Zampano's seven supposed "lovers" are Beatrice, Gabrielle, Anne-Marie, Dominique, Eliane, Isabelle, and Claudine. Johnny writes on page xxii "he apparently only brought them up when he was disconsolate and for whatever reason dragged back into some dark tangled time." These names were not chosen merely because they sound French, rather, they are the nicknames of the seven defense lines at the military disaster of Dien Bien Phu [[[2]]].

2) Johnny tells us Zampano was in his eighties when he died in 1998 (xxii). Therefore he was 26-36 during the battle of Dien Bien Phu, making him the perfect age to have served in the French Foreign Legion.

3) Appendix D, "Letters to the Editor," consists of a letter that Zampano wrote to the editor of the LA Herald-Examiner about the legitamacy of some rare World War II trench guns mentioned in an article the previous week. The letter is dated September 17, 1978. In the last paragraph, Zampano writes, "On a personal note, I wish to add that as I have been blind for over two decades, I had to determine most of this by feel" (554). Over two decades before 1978 puts us at 1958 at the latest, 1948 at the earliest. Too late for World War II, but early enough for the French Indochina wars, with Dien Bien Phu almost right in the middle at 1954.

He's French.

Sounds good. Make the update. - Lifefeed 13:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

More, or less?

OK, I've been working on this page for the last few days, because it needs some serious work. I've got several of the sections done, but I'm gonna hold off on uploading the edit until I've finished more, simply because of how much section reorganizing is involved in the edit. However, there is one thing I want to know regarding people's opinions on what direction this page should go in.

After seeing that this page has multiple paragraphs written about something as ridiculously obscure and tangential as the ethnicity of Zampanò, it became clear to me that this page needs to be either dramatically shortened, with all but the most central, critical, and non-speculative info removed from the page, or this page needs to be dramatically expanded (something I'd be happy to help do if that's the direction that's chosen) so that it encompasses all manner of other minor-but-substantiable aspects of the story.

My gut tells me that the only way to conform this page to Wikipedia standards is to trim off the non-critical textual analysis big-time, but my heart tells me to try to only trim off the really speculative and unsubstantiable stuff and to add a lot more interesting, tiny details from the book because it will make the page so much more useful and enjoyable.. so I'm too on the fence to decide this for myself. I wanna hear what people think. Right now I'm continuing to add more data to my edit to balance the page out, but my gut's Wikinstinct is becoming more and more insistent, and may force me to start carving away soon.. -Silence 23:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Follow your heart, Silence: onward, ever onward. This article should be hypertextually larger than wikipedia in order to do justice to the novel. --noösfractal 23:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Definitely the direction the article should go. Love the detailed work re: pieces vs. pisces. --noösfractal 03:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I thought that the title "House of Leaves" referred to the book that Navidson took with him into

the labyrinth and which was instrumental to his return to the outside world. I think it refers to a book of poetry, and there is a real book of poetry, published in 1976 by Nathaniel Tarn, entitled "The House of Leaves."(Black Sparrow Press) Runtape 06:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)runtape

Small suggestion

In one of the articles, it is mentioned that Zampano might have been killed by the minotaur, evidenced by the fact that his floor has strange scratches on it. Why not mention that Johnny Truant is scarred? Sure, the injuries were inflicted years ago, but that doesn't matter. Look at that checkmark in the corner of one of the pages, that was way off in the timeline. Johnny's scars should be included also. 207.232.137.104 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• The checkmark is related to one of Pelafina's letters on The Whalestoe Letters. EduardoNeto 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

the heart and the machine

I've been holding off for as long as possible on this because I really want to see more fascinating contributions on this topic, but the fact is, it can't be held off forever. Change, whether good or bad, is inevitable. I strongly recommend that a House of Leaves-specific wiki be created as a repository for all this information (and much more, there are countless fascinating theories and discussions on the message board) if there is any interest whatsoever in such in-depth analysis. Because Wikipedia is going to kill this thing before long, I can feel it approaching.. -Silence 07:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are requesting, nor why you think the article is going to be killed? Scix 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm requesting and suggesting making a MediaWiki site based entirely on HoL (much like the Homestar Runner Wiki, the They Might Be Giants Wiki, etc.) and its related works for storing all types of fan-originated (i.e. unpublished) theories in an organized and consistent manner. And the reason I bring this up is: WP:NOR. The article won't be killed, but a severe cut-down is inevitable. -Silence 13:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Poe (Ann Danielewski)

In the article about companion works it mentions the several references to Poe’s music. I think that although it suggests references to Poe’s original CD, Hello, it should be more clearly stated that it isn’t exclusively haunted. As a big fan of Poe’s (an Angry Psycho), I find the connections between House of Leaves and Poe’s music particularly interesting. I am going to edit the article by clarifying the references, and I would really like to see a comprehensive list of song references and connections. Starting with the most obvious;

• Page 423, Chapter XX’s quote is “No one should brave that underworld along.” Before I even read the name of the person accredited with the quote, I recognized it from Poe’s first album’s title track “Hello”.

•

Please do not exclude loose connections from events in the book and feelings portrayed on the CD Haunted. On the last page of the CDs book is a list of three pages for each of the tracks (one for Johnny, one for The Navidson Record, and one for the letters sent by Johnny’s mother who was hospitalized at the Three Attic Whalestoe Institute). I have written these down on an index card. I will type the pages soon, and the reasons behind the selection of these pages for the tracks eventually. I can use any help I can get. I think it is a very important part of experiencing House of Leaves to its fullest extent.

                                           - Currently Anon

Three Theories of Why

There is some at length discussion in the book as to why Navidson went back into the house after surviving the semi-sucessful rescue atempt. I recall three overall theories based on interpretation of notes and videos Navidson made, and some that include his dreams. We should mention this somewhere, right? I will get my copy and form a longer post later.

Here are the “three schools of thought” (385) on why Navidson returned to the House on Ash Tree Lane: I. The Kellog-Antwerk Claim: Says that Navidson went back to the house because of his possessiveness. He felt that he possessed the house and was also possessed by the idea of returning to it for Exploration #5. He was so caught up in this idea that he lost all sense of reason. Navidson’s preoccupation with his ownership of the house is debatable. II. Bister-Friedan-Jospehson Criteria: This hypothesis instead focuses on Will Navidson’s guilt and grief over the traumatic events he has experienced, including Delial, the dying Sudanese girl in his famous photograph, and the death of his brother Tom. This claim reaches this conclusion by analyzing Will’s last letter to Karen, where he finally reveals to Karen who Delial is. The BFJ criteria asserts that Delial is the symbol in the letter for all of his hurt. Navidson desires to return to the darkness of the house because he believes that it will bring him relief. This relief will come by his being destroyed by the house. III. Haven-Slocum Theory: The final theory. It analyzes three dreams that Navidson had before returning to the house. Only two dreams are revealed to us; the pages are missing where the third dream should be. These dreams lead him to conduct Exploration #5 because he thinks reentering the house will “put his confusions and troubles to rest” (402). This theory also makes two charts labeled “Post Exposure Effects Rating” (396). These rate in numerical order the level of anxiety people had before and after Navidson reentered the house for Exploration #5.

Hope this helps! Feel free to make any changes or corrections, or add info I'm missing.

A Few Changes/Questions

In the first paragraph it says "[...] arranged in strange ways, often to create a claustrophobic effect or to otherwise mirror the events in the story." I get mroe of an agorophobic feel from all the empty space on the page. I'm going to change this. If anyone disagrees, change it back, and just give me a brief reason (one sentence is enough).

I added two "essays by Borges which exemplify Borges' use of fictional authors/works.

And isn't "Must it be" actually a correct translaton of "Muss es sein?" I thought part of the point was this was the pun between the two phrases. The other part, which I don't think should be left out is the fact that this comes directly after the dedication: "This book is not for you." I would add that in, but I'm no writer and I'm nto sure how to add it in there without it seeming very out of place. If someone adds it, I'd be much obliged.

Footnote Sources

I'm rereading for a second time, and I can't believe I didn't catch this the first time, but in Footnote 236, pp. 251 in the 2-Color edition, there's an attribution to a "Nam Eurtton", which backward is "Nottrue Man". I think I may have noticed this one because it's so obvious, but maybe some of the other sources are worth investigating for anagrams, reversals, and so on.

"House" in the article

I've de-wikified all but one instance of "house" in the article. Just because "house" always appears in blue in the book, I don't think it needs to appear in blue in this article. However, if you must make it blue throughout the article, please please please at least use <font color="blue">house</font> to do so, rather than needlessly creating wikilinks for "house." Chuck 15:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "house" does not always appear in blue in the book. For example, in my Remastered Full-Color Edition, it appears in red the struck passage on page 114. I think this is a mistake, not deliberate. 192.153.161.2 01:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Stephen Trentalange

Wouldn't it get confusing if every instance of 'house' was blue in the article? Because blue is the color of hyperlinks on the ol' interweb, and people might try to click them but find out they

Or maybe this is what Danielewski wanted? ;) Chris Berry 05:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally, I think it would be awfully cute if house was in blue throughout the article. In fact, I wish wikipedians had a better sense of humour, so the article could have a disclaimer at the top: "The correct title of this article is House of Leaves. The word house is black due to technical restrictions." ;)

I agree, and I have a hard time having this on my watch list. I always want to put all the instances of "house" in blue. Not just on this site, but in everything. (I also try to edit other's statements in real life conversations. I use to remind myself that this isn't wikipedia, but that didn't work; Now, I tell myself it's a talk page, and they are entitled to their opinion. Talk pages don't have to be NPOV).

Also, I prefer Uncyclopedia's tag stating "The correct title of this article is House of Leaves. The word house is black because computers are trying to take over the world!"-- ¢² Connor K.   01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The "The correct title of this article is House of Leaves. The word house is black due to technical restrictions." is actually not a bad inclusion, I think. Making every instance blue is clearly not encyclopedic, but I do think that the information regarding it in the title is worthwhile. --mordicai. 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Making every instance of the word house blue is not encyclopedic, of course. But if we're admitting that the title of the book is House of Leaves, it's reasonable that every occurence of the title of the book should have the word in blue. --Ian Maxwell 05:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) pretty clearly states that the policy isn't to do that at all. In fact, there is some debate (over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)) about whether color counts as a technical restriction. I encourage you to weigh in there. --mordicai. 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to convince myself I'm not trying to be funny but isn't making every instance of the word house blue meta-encyclopedic? I suppose it would also mean that the entry for repeated should repeat each word. A metacyclopedia would be very interesting...

--anonymous 16:47 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.25.206 (talk)

I went ahead & added the {{wrongtitle|title=Correct title}} template, as per WP: Naming Conventions. --mordicai. 16:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OT: What's the link to the Uncyclopedia article? I can't find it on the site. Alanlastufka 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just refering to their template over all, I don't know if they have an actual article on House Of Leaves. Although i could make one mad funny one!-- ¢² Connor K.   21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Two discrepancies in article

1. The caption for the picture says the book's cover is 1/2 inch smaller than the book, contrasting with the 1/4 inch difference seen in the house. The "Format" section says the book's cover is 1/4 inch smaller than the book, matching the house.

2. The first sentence of the "Colors" section says that "House" appears in grey in non-colored editions of the book. The end of the section says all words are black in the non-colored edition.

Can anyone clear these up? Chuck 16:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

it seems not all editions of the book possess this feature; in the edition which i own, the cover is the same size as the pages. --Kaini 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

in fact, the page references in this article become pretty meaningless when the different editions are taken into account. i'm going to replace them with chapter references instead, and create a new section on the different editions. --Kaini 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the different editions had the same page count and text placement, except for the appendices. Wyatt Riot 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks, i'll check that out. --Kaini 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

good stuff, you're right. that makes quoting considerably easier. --Kaini 20:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alleged "full color" edition

In support of the statement "The inside of the cover mentions a full-color 'first edition' version including braille. This edition was fictional for a long time, but Random House has said recently that they will publish it in the fall," (to which I had added the "cite needed" tag), Dancter cites [3]. However, despite the fact that the linked page calls it the "Remastered, Full-Color Edition," I believe it's the same blue edition that's already known. Consider:

• You can add the item to a shopping cart now and it reports that delivery is in 2-3 days. Not likely for a book that will be published "in the fall."
• The ISBN is the same as the paperback available from other sites
• The description reads "Now, for the first time, this astonishing novel is made available in book form, complete with the original colored words, vertical footnotes, and newly added second and third appendices." (emphasis mine). The second and third appendices have always appeared in the print version of the book; this sounds like the same description of the print book that has always been used since it's been published.

Anyone have any evidence that a true full-color edition is going to be published? Chuck 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just bought a copy of the most recent edition, and it contains all the above text. It's the "normal" bluetext edition. Scix 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, aside from the same confusing information about a true full-color edition (thanks for the confirmation, Scix), there was a quick blurb in the Pantheon Books Fall 2006 catalog about a special edition of House of Leaves, in which there is an exclusive Only Revolutions preview message. That could mean anything, but it does potentially hint at a new edition. Dancter 10:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Remastered Full-Color Editions ARE out in some stores. One person on the forum has confirmed seeing them in a Barnes and Nobles. I myself, just purchased a Full-Color at a Barnes and Noble. There is an "Only Revolutions, Coming September '06" sticker on it, and the inside front and back flaps have the pause symbol on them. The front one specifically has a green colored pause, and the back has a yellow colored pause. Cell84 18:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation! Does it have all the features of the alleged "first edition", or do we have to adjust the article text in any way? Dancter 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "first edition". However, I can say that all of the struck out passages, words "house" and "minotaur" are colored, and the one struck line in Chapter XXI is purple-ish. The only non-colored "house" in the book is still the mysterious thank you section to Random House at the very end of the book. Color plates are there, and so is braille (Although it doesn't stick out.) Strangely enough, I believe in the 2-color Blue edition, it said "Braille and color plates" under the "Full-Color Edition" box. However, in this edition, it says "Xxxxxxx and color plates" under the "Full-Color Edition" box. Cell84 1:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering I own a copy of the remastered full-colour edition, it's safe to say you are quite full of it. 124.169.110.180 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Offset blue text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Leaves#Colors

...the word house is colored blue (grey for non-color editions of the book and light grey for red editions)...and is, in many places in the book, offset from the rest of the text in different directions at different times.

I read the footnoted source for this section, and I couldn't find any reference to offset blue text. (I didn't look too hard, though, so maybe it was somewhere else in the thread.)

My point is, I think the effect of "house" being offset from the rest of the text is due not to an intentional effort to convey further meaning in the book, but due to the process by which it was printed. For each page of the book, they print one color at a time, and they can't align it perfectly. The same effect occurs in newspapers -- if you look at the edges of a green shape, there will be a yellow "halo" on one side and a blue halo on the other side.

This is all speculation, of course -- Danielewski could have wanted the text offset, but someone with a black-and-white or red edition of the book can easily verify or disprove my suspicion. If house is offset even in gray, the ofsetting would seem intentional and the mention deserves to stay. If the gray "house" is not offset, it proves that the ofsetting is just a printing effect (since gray is printed at the same time as black) and someone (you!) should remove it.

It is offset in the grey edition (got a copy here) Paul E Nolan 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least in the UK paperback edition, the entire text appears in black and white. Unfortunately this is the only edition available here - I'd love to read a full-colour copy. However, the word House still has to be distinct from the rest of the text, so appears in grey and is slightly offset from the rest of the text. This applies to all variations of house as well (e.g. Haus and Maison etc.) As well as this on page 708 the word still appears in grey and offset, though in America it appears the printers neglected to accentuate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.242.80 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Geographical Information

I removed the real addresses, including Google Maps photos. Reasons: 1. House of Leaves is fiction, not even based on a true story, so real-life addresses are irrelevant. 2. I'm pretty sure it's against Wikipedia policy to publish these addresses unless there's some reason; if not, there should be, because it seems to stray into privacy/stalking issues. (Not that I'm saying the editor is stalking people, just that I doubt these families would want their addresses posted in connection to this creepy fictional house.) 3. Written in a non-encyclopedic fashion. 4. Most importantly, original research. Ideas? Wyatt Riot 00:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the geography section should be kept out, per reasons 1-3. As for reason 4, I don't know, but it's probably going to be an uphill battle getting users to abide by WP:NOR when it comes to Danielewski's novels. Original research describes a significant portion of this article. I'm not saying I don't find all the analysis useful, but it's not compliant with Wikipedia policy, with no secondary sources cited. You can already see the Only Revolutions article moving in the same direction. I'm a little hesitant to push the issue, fearing the wrath of all the fans who've spent so much time developing the article. I notice that Silence expressed similar concerns a while back, but nothing came of it. Dancter 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'll be the one to bear that wrath.  :) I'll be working on the article more when I've got the time. Wyatt Riot 23:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've pared it down considerably, but at 41k, it's still longer than it should be, per Wikipedia:Article size. Wyatt Riot 12:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanded Influences.

I have substantially expanded the "Influences" section by noting all of the similarities between House of Leaves and many of H.P. Lovecraft's works. In doing so I cleaned up the Influences section a bit to accomodate all the new information. Borges now has his own sub-heading, as does Lovecraft; the snippet about The Third Policeman is now filed under the "Other Influences" sub-heading. If you add to the Influences section further, please add a new sub-heading or file your contribution under "Other Influences" as appropriate. SpaceDrake

Do you have a source for your edit, or is this original research? Unless some references are added, I'll remove it per WP:NOR. Wyatt Riot 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I included Wikipedia links to (most) of the Lovecraft stories I cited. If that is insufficient I can indeed cite the actual stories as source. SpaceDrake 7:00EST, 20 September 2006 (How does one do UTC times anyhow?)

The problem is, Wikipedia isn't a place to write what you think, but what others think and have documented elsewhere. If you can find reliable sources which draw connections between HoL and the Cthulhu Mythos, so be it. But unless it's documented elsewhere, however, it's really not appropriate for Wikipedia. I added a welcome message to your User page with plenty of information about Wikipedia policy. Wyatt Riot 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As for signing with UTC, remember to log in, and follow all edits on Talk pages with ~~~~. More info at WP:SIG. Wyatt Riot 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

SpaceDrake, if a reliable source shows a connection between HoL and Cthulhu, please cite that source. If this material is just your own opinion, I do apologize, but it has no place on Wikipedia. Wyatt Riot 02:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides The Garden of Forking Paths, HoL bears a striking resemblance to House of Asterion by Borges. Should this be added? Knapp 7:29 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I have found many similarities between HoL and a book by William Hope Hodgson called The House on the Borderland. I just finished reading the novel and they seem oddly similar in some respects such as the house not being what it seems and antagonists which strike me as very much like the minotaur. I don't know if this is an influence in any way on HoL, but since Hodgson without any doubt influenced HP Lovecraft, I think it should have some looking into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saquarry (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is that some editor keeps insisting that James Joyce, Jorge Luis Borges and Flann O'Brien produced books similar to House of Leaves in one regard or other. This is fundementally incorrect.

House of Leaves used elements from these exceptionally famous, exceptionally important writer's works. The proper statement is that "HoL mimics the style of" or "HoL incorporates elements from" or "HoL derives certain elements from."

As well as using repeated allusions to the works of those authors- such as the footnote discussing the Borges story Pierre Menard- Author of Don Quixote- as if that story were real.

Hell that's where the faux academic footnotes come from in the first place. Borges laid out the entire framework for the Zampano/Navidson Story decades ago.

Even if you don't consider the derivative, you shouldn't make it sound like it came first, or that it is more important than substantially more important texts.

The Egoist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.244.70 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My Revisions

It appears that at least one editor is upset with my recent revisions to this article. Please, if you wish to discuss it, do it here, not in a blog attacking me. Thank you. Wyatt Riot 09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to attack you nor am I personally upset by your revisions. In fact I have not read them in full. However, I do have to question your comment that Wikipedia is not a place to write what you think but what others think and have documented elsewhere. Isn't an encylopedia supposed to publish facts? Just because someone outside of Wikipedia has documented something does not mean it is reliable, unopinionated, or factual. I do not know much about Wikipedia, correct me if I am wrong.

Actually, Wikipedia policy stresses verifiability, not truth. If every website out there says the world is flat and no reputable and verifiable resource says otherwise, then we can't include facts about the world being round, per WP:RS. If there's sufficient published opinion that the world is round, it can be included, but only as opinion, not fact. From what I've seen, requirements for references of opinion (versus fact) are slightly less strict, but citations must still be included. An example: facts would require references to scientific organizations and such, but one could safely add an opinion from a major activist group, but it would have to be noted that this group disagrees with the facts.

Kind of a strange policy, but my guess is that this has a lot to do with legalities. Wikipedia should always have a recourse of "we didn't make this up...it's documented over there". But, again, that's just my guess. Wyatt Riot 23:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to reference the legal system to see why verifiability is so important. The Internet has lower barriers to entry than academic publishing does, but is too young to have established a culture of self-criticism adequate to ensuring accuracy. (Moreover, Wikipedia, by design, has lower barriers to entry than nearly any other site.) Perhaps at some time in the future, reliable original research can be accomplished by heterogeneous groups of untrained, self-selected people working at different times and places. We aren't there yet.69.255.193.125 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that my blog post was at times potentially inflammatory. I would like to explain and expound on what was written. I've worked in the reference department at a university library for 3 years and counting, particularly in the research section, so I'd like to think that I know a bit about proper documentation and acceptable research. Since HoL is such a new book, very few reliable (i.e. peer reviewed) criticisms are currently available to draw information from, leaving Wiki-editors with little else to do but offer original research and/or interpretations about the book. I am not entirely convinced that HoL is ready for the kind of “research” that Wikipedia policy requires. Too little has been written about the book to date to even know what is good or bad amongst scholarly articles, let alone the original research of anyone with enough time and interest to undertake the task. Not enough exists for comparison among reliable sources to limit the article to just that. I understand that there needs to be some measures of control and some bases for adding and removing posts, but I don’t think that there is enough out there yet on HoL to enforce those measures. The recent enforcement has been somewhat arbitrary, as a great deal of the article - parts that have been on the site for extended periods of time - are comparable to some of the content that has recently been removed. Based on these recent deletions and the Wikipedia policy criteria that nas been noted, here are things that should also be deleted: theories on font color should be cited or taken out; speculation regarding "the idea of trees" evolving into the Yggdrasil themes of the book should be cited or deleted; The section "The term "Redwood" is used here to refer to an elusive being who stalks Zampanò's subconscience. Zampanò's linking of the cats' disappearance with Redwood could be a connection to the disappearances that occurred in the house and the elusive being which seems to haunt the halls." needs to be cited or deleted as speculation; the second paragraph under the section "typographical and spelling errors" says that a point has been "widely debated," and fails to cite scholarly or even any outside verification of this debate; almost the entire section entitled "the minotaur" is speculation without any sort of citations to back any of the assumptions made; and lastly, the second paragraph under "other influences" is entirely speculative and also lacks any citation to prove that it is anything more than original research, thus categorizing itself as a string of unverifiable claims. I may have missed some sections, but that's the list I've been able to come up with after a quick skim through the article.

You're absolutely correct that there isn't much criticism out there; but if we're going to adhere to Wikipedia policy (and I think we should), then we'll just have to put up with a relatively short entry, at least until that criticism starts showing up in journals and such. Until then, I think most editors (including me) would overlook very minor original research, such as "House of Leaves is thematically similar to Some Other Book". (That being said, any editor would be fully justified in removing such a statement, however.) Anything beyond that, though, really needs to be backed up with citations.

As far as the rest of the article still containing original research, I agree as well. My edits may have seemed contradictory, but I'll try to explain/justify them here: I myself just picked up the book a few weeks ago, and so I started reading through the article shortly before all of the newest original research material got added. That was easiest to weed through as it was being added, so it probably did seem like I was objecting to new material but could care less about what's here. I can assure that this isn't the case, and I fully intend to clean up what's here when I have the time. (We can use the help, too, so feel free to dive right in!)

I'll leave a welcome message on your Talk page with some handy links to policy and other helpful information. If you have any questions or more comments, don't hesitate to leave them here or on my own Talk page. Wyatt Riot 06:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for original research edits

I have it on good authority, that as an assignment for a course on 21st century fiction, taught in the Fall 2006 semester at a university whose name I don't feel the need to mention at this time, students were required to contribute at least one edit to this article. This may help to explain part of the recent growth in edits that require revision for this topic.Verdatum 03:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. By any chance, if he hasn't already, would the instructor be willing to modify that requirement? I am entertaining the idea of an MZD Wikia (which we could add a link to in this article), in which the most of the material that was rejected according to Wikipedia policy would be fair game, with as much detail as desired. There could even be pages dedicated specifically to certain aspects, such as characters, themes, etc. Class requirements aside, this might be good idea, anyway. It would allow the Wikipedia article to be brought in line, while retaining the previous work for those who are looking for that sort of stuff. Is there any support for such an undertaking? Dancter 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would whole-heartedly support the MZD Wikia. By the way, I sent an email to the professor of that class a few days ago, explaining what's going on here, general Wikipedia policy, and why the original research is not acceptable content. Wyatt Riot 10:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good that you say this, please send yourself over to Wikia, and pipe in on the proposed wikis [4] page. I have requested the wikia, but they said "It wouldn't generate enough interest." Apparently whoever sent me this email about the proposal has never read either of these books. --Travlr23 05:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC).

Was this through e-mail correspondence? I'm not finding any such comments on the site. Anyway, I'll drop a comment or two in a bit. Dancter 06:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I seconded your proposal at Wikia. It seems like a great place, especially for those who wish to add material outside the scope of Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sold on the sidebar advertisements, but I suppose they have to find funding somehow! Wyatt Riot 06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this? As I'm rereading the novel, I'm taking a lot of notes that are, unfortunately, just not acceptable here, although I think they'd be great for Wikia. Wyatt Riot 00:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

the proposal remains open afaik [5] (although there's a note elsewher on the page that says the application was rejected - if this is the case, it should be removed from the proposed wikis page); i for one would also be willing to add to this wiki, as there's a lot of stuff in the novel that is too detailed to go into on the wiki page here (that's already 33kb in size) --Kaini 02:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the original research is gone. What's left is very minimal, though of course any editor could be justified in removing it per WP:NOR and WP:REF. Personally, I think the minimal stuff is fine, about as harmful as a trivia section, and only serves to provide a jumping-off point for further research. The entry as a whole is now less than 32k per Wikipedia:Article size. Wyatt Riot 05:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its ridiculous that you, self-proclaimed moderator, delete things on the basis of wikipedia policy and proceed to leave other pieces of original research on the site. If you are going to moderate an article, either do it right or don't do it at all. It is completely unfair to attack an article with bias. User:Shooter122

First, I am not a moderator, nor have I ever claimed to be a moderator. Second, I don't believe it's possible to remove every single fragment of original research, especially in an entry which is primarily based on a novel: should we remove everything that doesn't have a specific reference, like the author of the novel or the publication year? It's all about grey areas, what one finds objectionable, tolerable, or desireable in an entry. Third, I have no obligation to remove anything that I don't want to remove: that's why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you find the material objectionable, please remove it yourself. I also added a welcome message on your User page with links to Wikipedia policy. Wyatt Riot 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The author and publication year does have a specific reference... It's called the book (copyright page). As much as I hate to see this article get cut, I understand it is original research...-- ¢² Connor K.   15:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible autobiographical aspects

In the liner notes for Haunted it mentioned that she and her brother discovered cassette tapes of there dad speaking, some of with she sampled and used in the album. Also on the old Poe website I think it further explained it saying that she and Mark found these tapes and used them as inspiration. Now there father was a film maker. Is it possible that much of the dynamic of the Navision household is inspired by there real life (with Ann being Daisy and Mark being Chad). I wish I could quote from the old site but it has been overhauled (because she is finally making more new music, yah) so I can't. Does any one else have a way to confirm any of this.

Definitely possible, but I've personally seen no reliable sources showing an autobiographical connection. You're welcome to look and add what you find, however.

I'll add a welcome message to your use page with some more info about Wikipedia. Wyatt Riot 07:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The story itself cannot be "autobiographical" because it is all way to symbolic. It does have autobiographical aspects, but what doesn't? I know what on poe's site you are talking about (I've been a Poe fan since she came out. I have all CDs with her on them, and even a videogame). There is no way to confirm it. It was a very vague statement on the site. Also, if you notice, Ann can be Daisy, and Mark can be Chad, but Mark can also be Navy. The character Johnny identifies with pretty much all the characters.-- ¢² Connor K.   15:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Companion

Does a band who use the book in their song qualify as a "companion work". The whalestoe letters are written by the author and included in the book. Haunted is mentioned on the back of hte book as "listen to the house", and the back of "haunted" mentions house of leaves. The other bands are not "companion" works. We need a different heading.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I just put in a miscellanea section, which I think covers these non-official companion works and also allows for growth. Wyatt Riot 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks much better!-- ¢² Connor K.   23:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

characters section

this section of the artice needs some work. it has a section on tom, but not will (surely a more important character?), and omits some other important characters like holloway roberts and karen. i'll add to this section soon, but i thought i'd flag it here in case any other editors would also like to have a bash at it. --Kaini 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

i have added sections on will and karen (a start); but they definitely still need work. additionally i've tried to sort characters into separate narratives (although it could be argued that they aren't). --Kaini 05:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

There seem to be a lot of spoilers right through this article, not just in the plot section. Stuff like a character "running desperately from an unseen enemy," Holloway's death, Navidson's return to the house, as well as less major elements...the whole character section could be tagged as it stands. I'd be in favour of aiming the article at people who haven't read the book, which would mean removing a lot of specifics in terms of formatting etc and making the character section less detailed. I'm having difficulty figuring out exactly what kind of distance we need from the book though, so I'd like to know where everyone else stands before I go choppin'. -- Colm O'Brien 04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

spoilers are acceptable as per this guideline as long as a warning is made explicit in advance using this template (with this one used to signify the end of potential spoilers). however i agree that the template could perhaps be extended to include other sections of the article bar 'plot' (because the characters section is somewhat made meaningless without including some bits of the plot, by definition). --Kaini 04:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation

I took out "has been translated into German", as it has not been published in any germanspeaking country.

Should the fact that it has been translated really be in the 'Pop culture' section? It seems to be more publication info than anything else.--Romulus 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I just put it up at the top of the page, but that's only because I'm short on time at the moment. If anybody wants to put it somewhere more appropriate, by all means do so!  :) Wyatt Riot 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unanswered Question

On the bottom of the page containing the letter to Johnny about his mother's death, there are two numbers listed: #669-951381-6634646-94 and #162-111231-1614161-23. I was wondering if anyone knew what they refer to? This is page 643 in the full color edition. nekonobaka 19 December, 2006

Something else to look into

I have the remastered full color edition, and on the cover of the novel, a sticker for Only Revolutions is displayed. If you're unfamiliar, the symbol is two paralell lines in a circle that goes from green, to purple, to gold (which, correct me if I'm wrong, are the colors of that novel). On the front inside cover, the symbol is displayed with a green circle around it, and on the back cover it is with a yellow circle.

 -The two paralell lines are also seen on page 582 as part of a 'Ground-Air Emergency Code' (The first page of Collagas) it means "Require medical supplies" 24.20.21.215 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Category

I would suggest placing House of Leaves in a category for books with unorthodox typography along with other books sharing similar characteristics. What do you think?

--Evisc 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

my initial thought would be name some others first so it's not a useless/tiny category, there's zillions of those. off the top of my head i can think of Jacques Derrida, Danielewski's Only Revolutions, Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas, and maybe a few Dylan Thomas poems - but i reckon nominating a few articles here would be better than just creating the cat initially. --Kaini 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry if I'm getting ahead of myself here (gotta write it or I'll forget it) but the hardback version of The Never-ending Story might qualify, as it is printed in two colours (red and green) - one for 'reality' and one for Fantasia. 86.144.77.246 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The earliest one I can thing of is Clarissa by Samuel Richardson. --mordicai. 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps...?

Maybe there should be a passage on what is supposed to happen to someone after they read the Navidson Record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.176.201.161 (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

If you can base such a passage on a verifiable and reliable source, then go ahead and add it. Wyatt Riot 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

I added spoiler tags in two areas where appropriate. Not things I wanted to (I'm not finished with the book yet). Ugh, this is the worst kind of book to accidently learn the ending to. --Scorpios 14:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Small note

N.b. Kieron Gillen was NOT a designer on Thief Deadly Shadows - he merely wrote an article about it. He's a games journalist and writer, not a developer (though he's been involved in some Mod design. Removed reference to him from piece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.234.4.10 (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Right, his name should be removed if it is false information. But is it true that the game scenario was based on House of Leaves? Pomte 10:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

either way, the link to his blog in the article is presently malformed and produces a php error. Kaini 13:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-reverted edits by DavidShankBone and notified him on his Talk page. His response, on my Talk page was as follows.

"Hey Scorpio - it was a hasty revert and thus my mistake. Thanks for the message, though. And thanks for your contributions. Dave --DavidShankBone 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)"

Problem seems resolved. --Scorpios 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no PHP error now. In thecradle.pdf on page 141, the end of the interview:

PCGamer/Kieron Gillen: "...what fictional influences shaped The Cradle?"

Designer Jordan Thomas: "Among the films that helped inspire it were Jacob’s Ladder, Session 9, and The Devil’s Backbone. Books included From Hell, House of Leaves, and The Shining."

Notable enough for inclusion? Pomte 05:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say so. --Scorpios 07:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree --DavidShankBone 08:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, passes WP:V --Kaini 10:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag(s)

I know that spoiler tags have their own ongoing drama, but I removed the ones from here. Why? Well, because frankly, they littered about the article with no rhyme or reason. I could see some theoretical value to one appearing at the very begining & going till the end of the article, but the arbitrary inclusion of them just made the article messy. Almost any in-depth discourse on the book is going to be a "spoiler," & acting at though only bits & pieces are doesn't help anyone, says me. --mordicai. 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider #Spoiler tags 2 sections above, which called this section a harsh spoiler. Although they add clutter they are very helpful to those merely interested/currently reading the book, though I'm not sure which sections particularly deserve spoiler tags. –Pomte 08:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not a "no spoiler tags" hardliner, but I don't think indiscriminate use of the tag improves an article. This book, in particular, is hard to come up with even a rule of thumb for the tag-- the whole article is practically one big spoiler. Kind of an all or nothing situation. I'd say put a tag at the top, disclaiming everything below it. --mordicai. 19:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kaini 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed for right below "Plot summary", with no closing tag. –Pomte 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done & done. Much nicer than a periodic splattering of them, promotions all around! --mordicai. 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary (The Navidson Record)

Since there are actualy two Navidson Records (Navidson's and Zampano's), shouldn't there be two seperate sub summaries: one focusing on Navidson's experiences in the house and another focusing on Zampano's reactions, comments, and opions written (or struck out) in the Record (although most of them are not explicitly stated)?--Romulus 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and I would agree if this were anything except for House of Leaves. As it is, the only real information we have about the film is the criticism section (and of course there's also the possibility that there isn't even a film version at all, just Zampano being nuts). I just don't think it's possible to separate the two, but that's my own opinion. I'd be interested to see some examples of what you mean, however. Wyatt Riot 00:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

whilst i agree with romulus, i don't think it's doable without making the article incredibly long, and too in-depth for a wiki article. it would also probably present an original research problem. it's a shame that the MZD wiki on wikia didn't take off... incidentally, i've moved wax hook and that other chap to minor characters. can't see their character descriptions growing too much beyond what's there already. --Kaini 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you guys, it owuld make it too long if we went into Zampano's character that much. I do think that we should at least mention that the title refers to two things, though. And as for the issue of Zampano making up the video, I was under the impression that Johnny had made up some, if not all of Zampano's work and that Lude was an alternate personality... but that's not only too indepth but an oppinion and a story for another time.--Romulus 20:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning the film and Zampano's notes would be fine. Feel free!  :)

I hadn't heard about Lude being an alternate personality before, though. This really makes me wish that there were more critical responses out there, or that the Wikia project had taken off so we'd be more free to add speculative information. Oh, well. Wyatt Riot 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in the Characters section

In the Characters section, it is noted that Truant is "..primary editor of The Navidson Record". This is, for some reason, a common misunderstanding. Truant never saw the Navidson Record let alone edited it. Instead, Truant edited he House of Leaves by Zampanò, which differs alot from The Navidson Record. House of Leaves is a book written by Zampanò, and the subject was the Navidson Record(which is a film by Will Navidson). Correct me if I am wrong. Aijuan Gradlini 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See the table of contents, what Zampanò wrote about The Navidson Record was also called The Navidson Record. As far as I remember, the book House of Leaves only appeared as the book Navidson read at the end, the pages of which he had to burn for light. –Pomte 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC, the title page (of the full-color version, at least) states

Mark Z. Danielewski's House of Leaves by Zampanò with notes by Johnny Truant

So that implies that Zampanò wrote something called House of Leaves. Or do I not remember correctly?--Ycz6 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You remember correctly, checked from one copy at hand. Only, it was "..introduction and notes.." instead of only notes. Aijuan Gradlini 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Title

Whatever anyone outside of the 'Pedia might say, for our purposes, the blue coloration is NOT part of the title. FACT. 81.104.175.145 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

i presume you're referencing the following, anonymous, because i can't see anything else in that policy that is applicable;

Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears...

firstly, i can't see anything in that policy that contradicts the existing state of the article with the coloured text. secondly, the author has mentioned more than once (references in the article) that the blue-coloured text should be considered part of the title. it references several things, the most verifiable being the blue-screen special effects technique used in modern movies (in other words, the labyrinth reflects whatever is projected onto it). if the author has identified the usage of coloured text as being pivotal to the interpretation of the novel (as opposed to 'just decoration'), who are we to argue? we have been over this issue several times already regarding this article. --Kaini 02:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

addendum: if you look at the previous discussion regarding this, i agree that changing every instance of house is excessive, a single mention at the start of the article will suffice. --Kaini 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are reading the letter rather than the spirit of the Manual of Style. Quite simply, we apply standard rules of English-language typography, and render titles as plain text - not in the font, size, style, orientation and colour that the author prefers. That means we use plain text of whatever font, size, colour and weight is normally used, with italics for the title, and bolded at first mention. If you can find anything in the MoS that suggests we should randomly colorize given letters or words, fine, but there isn't anything in there. The colour is simply for decoration, to make the title stand out. 81.104.175.145 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

the crux of this is essentially the fact that house of leaves is a post-modern novel that is heavily indebted to the work of Jacques Derrida et al, and the question at hand is whether or not the use of colour in the title is necessary to the interpretation of the novel. the author has stated that it is, so my belief is that the wiki article should reference this. if the author did not intend standard rules of english typography to apply (and this is apparent elsewhere in the book, if you read the article, or better yet the book), and considered this as important to the interpretation of the novel, then i don't believe we should enforce them either on wikipedia. danielewski has a history of using unusual typography as a plot element (see also: Only Revolutions). however i'm happy to give the article and this discussion a while so a consensus can be established. --Kaini 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"if the author did not intend standard rules of english typography to apply ... then i don't believe we should enforce them either on wikipedia.". This statement is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. One of the key aspects of the Manual of Style is "we do things our way". A good embodiment of this is in WP:MOSTM, where it forbids the use of stylized typography. The reason we do not put "house" in blue is the same reason we do not put "Burger King" in all-caps, "Microsoft" in all caps, and "Toys R Us" with the reversed R. Simply put, Wikipedia does not care and could not care less about the wishes of the people behind the names. With a few sensible exceptions, all the names and titles we use are rendered in exactly the same way. Consensus clearly exists for not rendering the word house in blue, which is a quirk in typography (yes, the novel is full of them, but in no way does that mean we must repeat them). Go to WP:MOS if you seek to change this well-established consensus. 81.104.175.145 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

okay, i've just read the entire manual of style, and i see absolutely nothing in there regarding this, anonymous. i'm reverting the article; please provide me with a quote from the manual of style regarding this issue if you want to maintain a credible argument. --Kaini 17:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you provide a quote from from anywhere in the manual of style that says that blue text as a title is allowed. Go on. Anywhere. 81.104.175.145 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit war over the colour of templates, let alone article titles. This really isn't a big deal for both fans and casual readers. The cover image in the infobox clearly shows "House" in blue, and it's mentioned extensively in House of Leaves#Colors. Point 3 of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#General rules applies here. –Pomte 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to weigh in on the issue: once upon a time at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Colors I tried to start up a discussion on the topic. It would seem to this humble editor that per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) the first inclusion of the term should be in blue, but not thereafter. There in fact was an older version that included colors under technical restrictions, but no longer. mordicai. 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW that was in NCTR for around a three months - it appears to have been added with no supporting consensus, while the existing consensus supported its removal. We are talking about colours here, rather than capitals. I can support opening an article with text in a different case or in super/subscript, but I can't support extending that to font and colour. 81.104.175.145 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

this is not an issue that i'm going to lose sleep over, and i remember the previous discussion that mordicai mentions. my own opinion is that the notability of the colour blue pivots around the fact that it is pretty essential to the interpretation of the plot - it relates to hyperlinks, bluescreen, which if i'm gonna get all literary analysis, an excellent metaphor for the labyrinth itself, which is whatever is projected onto it

the blue text is not just a literary effect, but something that is very central to the understanding of the novel. --Kaini 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the color is so significant for interpretation. If hyperlinks and bluescreen are not mentioned in the book at all, and I may be wrong about this after consulting the index, then how is a reader supposed to confidently postulate those symbols? Understanding the novel does not require reading hints from MZD. He did not say anything definitive as implied here and so it's still left to the reader to decide. You can make beautiful metaphors about the labyrinth etc, but even if you don't, I don't think your analysis of the book is severely compromised. Fans including myself colorize House often when typing the title, which is a nice meme to follow, and when we do it, we are treating the color as part of the title; at the same time, other people can type House and you can tell exactly what they mean. Seeing "House of Leaves" probably conjures an image of "House of Leaves" in a lot of people's minds, and I bet it has more to do with trademark/logo reasons than interpretative/analytic reasons. –Pomte 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it has more to do with trademark & logo, whichis why I've brought up Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), which states to avoid such a thing. It isn't really that I think the argument should be here, but rather over there; color adds a dimension of recognition that I think has merit...only enough merit to be included once, at the begining. Like Kaini said, nothing worth losing sleep over, but it is my opinion that House enhances the article. --mordicai. 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've opened the topic up at Manual of Style (titles) & would like to encourage you folks to weigh in there on the general topic. --mordicai. 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

In section 3.7 the article describes a First-page insert, which i presume is the hardcover edition's cover. that note in the center does appear later on pg.552, which is contrary to what section 3.7 says. or is that "insert" something else --NeverLogic 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in "In popular culture"

It is wrong, that the Band Einstürzende Neubauten made the song "Zampano" in reference to the chracter in the book. The song title is a reference to a movie carachter in Fellini's "La strada". IN German a "Zampano" is someboda who controls a large system and has got a lot of influence. I think the paragraph should be deleted. Th1702th1702

Delial

There seems to be no information on this, so here's my two cents:

One of the secrets that creates the labyrinth in the house is Navidson's refusal to reveal to Karen who "Delial" is. It is the name of the little girl who is starving and flanked by a vulture in the photograph for which Navidson won the Pulitzer. Danielewski references the story of Kevin Carter, a photographer who traveled to Sudan as part of the "Bang Bang Club" of young photographers. Carter won a Pulitzer in 1994 for a picture of a starving African girl on the edge of her life while a vulture looked on in the background. Carter committed suicide shortly after winning the prize.

Check out the NPR story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5241442

67.173.247.241 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)David

Ninety-Seven

I have linked the first reference to the number 97 to the Wikipedia page: 97 (number). With the importance of the number 97 in this book, it should be noted that 97 is the 25th prime number and last before 100. Another observation worth considering is of the year 1978 for the following reasons: 8 + 1 = 9, 8 - 1 = 7, and 97 is contained within the digits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbynum (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the internal link. The connection to prime numbers is tenuous at best and is original research without a reference. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In the book. Page 97 is checked.its the only page with this marking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netskink (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture

I removed the entire "In popular culture" section as being unencyclopedic, though that change was reverted by User:Kaini. As it stands, the section is just a list of random, unrelated facts. I'm not opposed to a paragraph or two explaining or outlining any actual impact that the novel has had on "popular culture," but just listing bands that may or may not have songs that refer to the novel isn't really what an encyclopedia is for.

And the presence of such sections in other articles isn't really an argument for its inclusion in this article. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 17:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the section should stay, but be worked into prose somehow. Any volunteers or other opinions? Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly with you, but I don't think the section in its current manifestation will really lend itself to prose in the first place. I mean, I think just about anyone could take the list and run it together in sentence form; that's relatively easy. My complaint with it is that even as prose, it's still just going to be a list of random, trivial facts. The prose section I'm envisioning would need to find some reliable sources that indicate that this novel has had an actual, measurable impact on popular culture. If people went around remarking about how we're all living in a "House of Leaves" or if Zampanò had become synonymous with something, that would be notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Esrever ^(klaT) 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

it definitely needs sourcing and references and probably trimming, but there's nothing unencyclopaedic about an "in popular culture" section --Kaini (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But there is something unencyclopedic about an indiscriminate list of random factoids. That's what I'm objecting to. Esrever ^(klaT) 04:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you an idiot? It is not "random factoids". They are references in popular culture. They are obscure because of the way House of Leaves is constructed. Had you even knew what you were talking about, or had read it, you would understand why the references in popular culture don't make sense to those (like yourself) who have not read the book. It's going back in. 124.169.110.180 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Pale Fire?

No mention of Pale Fire as an influence? (I'd add it myself, but I don't have a cite.) Staecker (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Languages

The "Muss es sein?" figures heavily in Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being, but I only know that directly. Anyone who can find a reference should include that information.Luminousball (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not an "Academic Satire"

I've been in an edit war over the inclusion of the part that reads "House of Leaves has been described as a "satire of academic criticism."[3]"

Everyone who has read the book knows that this is a completely misleading and false representation of what the book is about. Likewise, the quote is falsely taken out of context. In the review in question, Steven Poole says this:

"The main text of House of Leaves is written by an old man, Zampanò, who became obsessed with the film on its limited public release. As well as a long exegesis of the film's narrative, Zampanò conducts a thorough synthesis of the mountain of scholarly and critical material that has grown up around the film, making use of published interviews with the surviving protagonists and carefully considering feminist, post-structuralist, Freudian, Jungian, deconstructionist and purely cinéaste-aesthetic readings of The Navidson Record. Danielewski thus weaves around his brutally efficient and genuinely chilling story a delightful and often very funny satire of academic criticism."

I understand why someone who hasn't read the book would think that by referring to the "main text," it would mean that the book as a whole would be the "funny satire of academic criticism" but not only has Poole been misquoted but its an unnecessary and untrue addition to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.106.232 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read the book many times—it's my favorite novel—and I believe the quoted section is entirely accurate. Furthermore, I do not believe we are misquoting Steven Poole in any way. After all, the reference is a review of the novel itself, not the individual parts that make up the whole. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Wyatt here. I think Danielewski's intention was that his book is as open to interpretation as the book-within-the-book. --Kaini (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To suggest that calling it or including the opinion that its a "funny satire of academic criticism" isn't selling it short and a misleading representation of the body of the book as a whole, I can't actually believe that it's your favorite book. Perhaps we can edit it to include another reviewer's take on the book? I think that would take away from the weight of that singular statement and further the point you two are making about it being widely open to interpretation. 136.242.110.238 (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Jon (unregistered user)

as an inclusionist, i don't think including any referenced opinion detracts from the book. the important thing is that it's WP:RS. to suggest otherwise contradicts WP:V at best, and is vandalism at worst. --Kaini (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. If a reputable review calls it a cleverly-disguised cookbook, I'd say we should probably include that. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As a whole, though, it actually is a satire of academic criticism. It seems to flow rhythmically, and one tends to forget the certain points that would make this book's conception a mystery: How exactly can Zampanò see his own film? And for that matter, how is he able to complete a detailed analysis of the phenomenon, when most of it appears to be a visual work? If one were to look at the roots of Zampanò's intentions, how did he plan to document (visually) a family he could not see, and then academically record the events? Despite the fact that it should be nearly impossible for him to understand much of what he is doing, he still is able to produce well written accounts of the events that took place in the house. 24.233.128.66 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The objection stands, even if I don't personally agree that it's selling the book short somehow. (Is there some reason it can't be a horror novel and a satire of criticism at the same time?) The quote clearly says that it is talking about one specific layer, Zampano's "The Navidson Record", as a satire of literary criticism woven around the story of the house. While we can easily say that the entire novel "House of Leaves" is a satire, claiming that Poole said so in the above quote is a lie. Unless there's even more context in which Poole goes on to say that the entire thing is a satire, in which case we should quote that bit instead. 67.110.213.167 (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pg. 320

I wondered if anybody else had noticed this. At the top of the page, the first paragraph it goes "Regrettably, Tom fails to stop at a sip. A few hours later he has finished off the whole fifth as well as half a bottle of wine. He might have spent all night drinking had exhaustion not caught up with me." Mistake? On purpose? If so, what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.141.245 (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I definitely noticed it and thought oh crap Zampano is Tom! and then Tom died. But I am unaware of any source we could cite for meaning, or even a source on whether or not the mistake was intentional. This would be something for that wikia that apparently never happened. 67.110.213.167 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Someone removed this sentence from the lead three years ago:

While some have attempted to describe the book as a horror story, most readers as well as the author would define the book as a love story if forced to add such a label.

I have restored it, since this clause (which had been left in the lead) makes no sense without it:

Danielewski expands on this point in an interview:

—Frungi (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)