What about…
Page 119: “Nothing there provides a reason to linger. In part because not one object, let alone fixture or other manner of finish work has ever been discovered there.”
Shouldn’t that say “finished”?
Page 145, Footnote 189: “A sperm twixt another form of similar unity, and look there’s an echo at haand.” There’s no way he meant haand. It’s “at hand.”
Page 146: “when he highlights Barthe’s observation…” His name is Barthes. Possessive would make it “Barthes’.”
Page 162: “It looks like its impossible to leave a lasting trace here” Should be “it’s.”
Page 320: “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.” Who is the “me” here? There are no quotes and no footnote to indicate that it’s from an interview. Maybe I missed something though…
Anyway, I’d be interested to see how Danielewski can justify these errors as intentional…
That’s it for now. :) I didn’t actually set out to find these errors; I just marked the pages as I was reading.
I’ll let you know if I find others.
Have a great spring break!
Now this is what I call a close reading! Good work. Next we’d have to check the different editions and reprints of House of Leaves and determine which of these errors recur regardless of the version of the novel.
I’m trying to create a sort of categorization of errors, which runs the gamut from surely intentional errors (e.g. pieces/pisces) that occur in every edition of the text to errors that are one-off, like the apparent typesetting error I pointed out in class.