I think I will follow Susan Sontag’s line of reasoning from here on out and likewise denounce the interpretation of works of art as, “to interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world – in order to set up a shadow world of ‘meanings'” (208). It seems as if it would be a lot less work this way, but that is a weary attempt at complaining without being whiny.
The ideas of the literary critics that Graff cites in his essay (I thought about listing them in a footnote, but then decided that it would be annoying for everyone involved. I’d be the girl who was trying way too hard), seem to have the general opinion that one of the things that distances post-modern literature from that of the modern period, is the frustration of meaning and symbols in literary text. Moving from symbolism and representation of reality and truth that characterized works fo the modern is a shift to frustrate the search for those things. It is a compliment to the last literary criticism we read concerning the “anti-detective” story, as both are the author’s attempts to confound expectation.
These ideas, I think can be easily related to House of Leaves. Maybe the tricks with the structure and the embedded puzzles are attempts to confront the search for meaning and symbolism. Sure, they kind of come off as annoying and are a little bit like yelling, “Look at me. Look at what I can do!” But just like the academic footnotes and the idea of possibilities being exhausted in ways to approach the novel, they help it to escape “meaning” something. Maybe it allows it to be strange and different simply for that and nothing more (which I doubt).
Another real quick jump from analysis to the novel – everything we’ve read in the last week only makes me thing that the ending won’t be an ending at all. It will be a stop.