When approaching a text as markedly enigmatic as House of Leaves, I am reminded of a climatic moment from “A Christmas Story.” To set scene, we find Ralphie racing into his parents home, package in hand. After weeks of fastidiously checking the mail, it (finally!) arrives. The Orphan Annie Secret Society Decoder Pin. Ralphie, rapt with anticipation at the prospect of decoding his first Orphan Annie secret message, scurries up the stairs of his parents’ home to lock himself away in the bathroom. He will need complete solace to complete the serious task at hand.
It could be said that reading House of Leaves requires a similar form of dedicated concentration and blind enthusiasm. 79 pages into the book there’s no telling what the message will be or if the efforts will be worthwhile. The dual texts intersect at (seemingly) random times, interrupting each other with hiccups, rants, and footnotes. The two narratives differ in tone, the former a confessional, the latter a journalistic/scholarly voice. In conjunction with the introduction, the layering of the two voices manages to both undermine and augment the authenticity of the story. The fact and fiction are used interchangeably, ad nauseum. Danielewski invents various citations, placing them alongside of actual documents. At one point in the text he quotes from Borges’ “Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote.” To this he appends another citation, citing Menard as if he were an actual person [he is not]. He then compares the real quotation with the faux one in an effort to support Zampanò’s echo theory. How are we to read this occurrence?[1] Is the reader to suspend belief throughout, marry fact and fiction and trust that the author will provide the tools necessary to digest the text? Or is the reader to look to points such as these and use them as evidence to dismiss/ignore the echo theory? Or does the author assume that the reader won’t recognize the inconsistency or, if he does, won’t place any importance on it? At this point in the text, there’s no way to know what the right answer is, instead we must pick a path and move forward. If we are wrong, we can only hope that the desire to understand the text fully will compel us to revisit it. As Borges notes, “Besides, rereading, not reading, is what counts.”[2]
But will we reread? Given where we are at page 79, we must admit the potential necessity. Are the narratives compelling enough to revisit concomitantly or will we find ourselves skimming through passages looking for breadcrumbs? Will we end up scouring the internet in attempt to circumnavigate a tiresome task? Or will we find the drive to master the text, embracing it fully, perhaps even creating our own footnotes and appendices? Or, like Ralphie, will all our efforts be repaid by a simple: “Be Sure To Drink Your Ovaltine”?