I decided to compose my blog post this week after having read the introduction to Danielewski’s House of Leaves and before continuing through the rest of the book:
So what are we to make of Danielewski’s introduction? I’m not exactly sure, but neither is Mr. Johnny Truant.
First, we have what appears to be a frame narrative of sorts (or perhaps this is merely an introduction; I don’t know if the book returns to the point of view of Johnny Truant). Nevertheless, we have a narrator addressing the writing that follows him.
So what does this supposed framing establish? Very little…
I’m kidding of course…or am I? If one thing is for certain of the words of Truant, it is that nothing is for certain (or real for that matter?)…
Now, surely we have all encountered the frame narrative used in it’s classical form one time or another: William Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, One Thousand and One Nights, or Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Perhaps what all these frames have in common is their establishment of incentive for the reader. What do I mean? In each of these examples, the reader is given a reason to enter through the frame and into the heart of the text: Chaucer’s prologue establishes the pilgrimage, its travelers/storytellers, and a reason to read through their various stories: to find out who gets the free dinner! In One Thousand and One Nights, the reader is encouraged to find out if Scheherazade’s storytelling can save the day!
But in the introduction to House of Leaves, the reader is left to question: Does any of this matter? Why should we read on if The Navidson Record is fake? But in rebuttle, Johnny Truant asks the reader: should it matter if it doesn’t matter?
“See, the irony is it makes no difference that the documentary at the heart of this book is fiction. Zampano knew from the get go that what’s real or isn’t real doesn’t matter here. The consequences are the same.” (Danielewski xx)
Johnny Truant, Zampano (and more generally Danielewski) are calling into question the relevancy of reality, of Truth:
“They say truth stands the test of time. I can think of no greater comfort than knowing this document failed such a test.” (xix)
As readers, we buy into the ‘reality’ of a story. Heart of Darkness is a piece of fiction; its frame narrative is a piece of fiction that ‘sets up’ another piece of fiction…and yet we accept the ‘reality’ of the characters. At times, we sympathize with Marlow, but we also criticize his actions. We are confused, fascinated, and appalled by Kurtz. We root for the cannibals…(just me? okay). We do all of these things as if Marlow, Kurtz, and the cannibals were actually ‘real’.
Through this introduction, Danielewski questions the simulation that is art, and our role in this simulation as readers. Should I continue through the rest of House of Leaves? Should I continue to read what I know is ‘fake’? Of course, because the “consequences are the same.” The difference between Heart of Darkness and House of Leaves? The latter is self-aware of its role as fiction, as simulation. This is not to say that Joseph Conrad and his readers (or any author/reader for that matter) are unable to distinguish between their lives and the literature they read; but rather, it’s writers like Danielewski and Luigi Pirandello, or directors like Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, and Robert Altman who are willing to play with these conventions and incorporate these self-reflexive elements.