It seems like Danielewski has been very deliberate about everything he uses in the text, which makes me wonder about all the sex. I’m thinking back to when Professor Sample discussed an interview with the author. Danielewski said that nobody could think of anything about the text that he hadn’t already thought of. So clearly, he is aware of most of the elements in his text and has used these elements intentionally. This whole mindset seems the opposite of postmodern, but I digress. Back to the point – if everything is so deliberate, then what is Danielewski’s intention with all the vivid sex scenes?
I don’t think that he is doing it just to be vulgar and off-putting, however a case could be made for that. Most of the book, starting from “this is not for you,” seems meant to stop the reader from getting through to the end. With all the lengthy footnotes, references to appendices, and switches in narration, it seems obvious that he has intentionally made this book a difficult read. So I think an argument could be made that the detailed sex scenes are just another way to hinder the reader’s progress. But the harder he makes it, the more I want to get to the end. I wonder if he anticipated this reaction in his readers (I’m sure that he would claim he did), but I digress again.
Anyway, although that argument could be made about the sex scenes, I plan to suggest something slightly different. The French refer to the refractory period after orgasm as “La petite mort,” which means “the little death.” This phrase is meant describe fatigue, spiritual release, melancholy, and other symptoms that result after orgasm. But it gets even weirder. A study published in the European Journal of Neuroscience found that this is actually a fairly accurate term: “To some degree, the present results seem to be in accordance with this notion, because female orgasm is associated with decreased blood flow in the orbitofrontal cortex, a part of the brain that is crucial for behavioural control.”
Keeping this in mind, what can we make of all the sex and, more specifically, after-sex experiences in the text? Well, to start with, I might argue that “the little death” represents a loss of self that happens during sex, which results in meloncholy. Death is the greatest representation of losing one’s self. If we approach the sex scenes in these terms, it becomes easy to see why Johnny gradually becomes more depressed and, well, lost. Just like the labrinth, the vivid sex scenes seem to work as yet another metaphor for losing one’s self.
I like the points you make here, but I think it’s important to remember another context of sex as well. Orgasms aside, sex is often considered life. On one hand it is procreation–key word creation–so in that end I think it can also represent life. There are also many–mainly outside of the religious realm–who would say it is a very spiritual thing and can often help people achieve a certain semblance of peace/mediation/etc.! However, I think the type of sex Johnny partakes is not doing him any good and per your assessment is aiding in his own destruction. Cheers,
Jared
Yes, the sex. The sex. Every time I read House of Leaves I wonder about it. I think you’re right not to dismiss the graphic sex scenes as just another way to make the book “not for you” — i.e. unreadable and unfinishable.
I think the sex scenes by themselves aren’t as crucial to consider as what happens right before and right after them. Notice how many of Truant’s sexual recountings trail off, or even more jarring, break off suddenly to another topic. How are the scenes framed? At what point do they begin and end? How does Truant’s tone in the scenes shift in relation to what immediately comes before or follows, both in his own footnotes and in Zampanò’s text?