CROSS POSTED ON GOODREADS
(Formatting not working, contains spoilers)

House of Leaves has been sitting on my shelf, only periodically peaked into, for no less than six years. I was considerably younger when I bought the book, which makes me thankful that I didn't pick up the book until I had nearly finished my English degree. However, that does not mean that my thoughts and feelings about the book appropriately converge into a tidy analysis or review. Instead, here I leave my thoughts and discombobulated analyses. Consequently these thoughts remain scattered. But perhaps it was always meant to be that way, a true product of the jumble that is House of Leaves.

Perhaps I should begin with what primarily discouraged me from continuing any reading that I had previously started: Johnny Truant. I had purchased House of Leaves purely for the exploration of Will Navidson’s house. Of course, it was off-putting for me to go from intellectual and horrific descriptions of the Navidson house to the constant sex life of Johnny Truant. Although I don’t agree or necessarily appreciate Mr. Truant’s vivid descriptions, I constantly was looking for the why? Why did these scenes exist? Why did Johnny as a character exist? And from that I came to two conclusions, each of which I will elaborate on. 1) House of Leaves tricks you and 2) The story was always about Johnny.

It seems obvious, really, that the book would try to trick you. You don’t stick your hand out in front of a venomous snake and ask “Is it going to bite me?” Instead you ask “When is it going to bite me?” The answer to that is that it will bite you as soon as you fall for the unique form of the book. It is not necessarily the struck out words, the endless footnotes, the blue houses, or the monstrosity that is pages 119 through 145 that offer the most interesting and minute details. Rather, it is the most mundane parts of the book, the stuff hidden in a corner that seems so unimportant that your eyes glaze over it. Or perhaps that is me, mistakenly reading too much into it. Either way, I find it interesting enough to mention these thoughts here. And, really, it is these thoughts and details that encouraged me to keep reading. First is the remark on page 151 regarding Johnny’s state following the publication of The Navidson Record. Hailey writes in to the editors following the release of the first edition. She ends her comment by saying

This comment is not elaborated upon or answered by the editors. It is not obvious - it hides in the footnotes, although I do suspect that people caught on to this one. We know that Johnny Truant disappears following this release of The Navidson Record. We find later on that Johnny had gone to search for the house on Ash Tree Lane, but only some few hundred pages later.

The second fragment that I picked up on, for one reason or another, were the Birds of Paradise. In both cases, the Birds of Paradise were actually quite inconsequential, although Birds of Paradise were mentioned twice in the novel by two different characters. The first mention of Birds of Paradise was by Johnny, who includes them in a made-up story.

The second instance of Birds of Paradise was mentioned by Tom, who in dealing with the trauma and the fear produced by the impossibility and endlessness of his loneliness in the house decided to tell jokes. One of which ended as such:

The question is, why were Birds of Paradise mentioned twice in the book by separate characters? What, exactly, is the importance of that? My conclusion, which I will elaborate upon eventually, is Johnny is connected to the characters in The Navidson Record. Furthering upon this connection is perhaps the fact that Birds of Paradise were referenced by both characters incorrectly. While birds of paradise are actually a family of about 45 different birds, the capitalization of Birds of Paradise suggests that both characters are actually referring to the plant - although they seem unaware - despite the fact that both stories use the phrase to suggest that they are talking about birds. I don’t believe that Johnny made it far enough into The Navidson Record to inadvertently remember Tom’s joke. Rather, perhaps Tom’s mention of the Birds of Paradise was reversely a reflection - an echo, if you will (pages 41-50) - of Johnny’s own story.

Digressing, I instead would like to again focus on the bigger picture. Although I discredited the importance of the form of House of Leaves, I would like to now reaffirm that the most obvious symbols do in fact mean something. Perhaps this even answers the question: what is the house? Throughout the book, one of the most obvious oddities of the text is the insistence of the word “house” being colored blue. I thought nothing much of it, until The Haven-Slocum Theory enlightened readers about the possible reason for Navidson’s return through an examination of three dreams (although only two are accounted for in our version of the novel.) Dream one is what struck me (beginning on page 398) involving a purgatory of sorts that involves both the will to dive and the worthiness of life. In short, if one is worthy of being saved following their dive, they are rescued by a blue light. Perhaps the blue highlighting of “house” throughout the novel suggests that the house on Ash Tree Lane is actually purgatory. Only those willing to dive into the unknown are able to be saved, although those outside are able to wait for as long as they please if they decide not to dive. Holloway, although he took the dive, was unable to be saved. He ended up taking his own life, succumbing to the darkness. Tom, on the other hand, often mentioned as more gentle and caring, alternatively was saved. Although most characters assumed that Tom was dead, there was of course was the impossibility of confirmation. Additionally inconclusive to my own thoughts would be the idea that he was saved, although it hurts not to ponder whether the house existed as its own purgatory.

Finally I arrive once again at Johnny Truant. And, to begin, we must always start at the beginning. The dedication.

Is this simply a jab by Mark Z. Danielsewski as commentary on the intellectual and creative authority over his own work? Or does it suggest something more entwined? I believe that this book is not for you or for me for the same reason that nobody has succumbed to the intense depths that Johnny Truant did. Because this book is not for you or me. This book is for Johnny Truant.

The story of the house on Ash Tree Lane is actually inconsequential to the real story that unfolds during this novel, which is the descent of Johnny Truant into madness. The Navidson Record is not a separate entity, but instead an explanation to everyone of the tugging and the trauma that Johnny endures. Johnny is Navidson. Johnny is Karen. Johnny is Tom, and Daisy, and Chad, and everybody in The Navidson Record. His fascination with the fragmented pieces of Zampanó’s life work is the same desperate need that Navidson experienced in his home. Johnny’s addiction to sex, drugs, alcohol, and dependence on Thumper were embodied by Karen and her dependence on Navidson. Johnny’s scarred arms were briefly reflected in the scratches and scarring on Daisy’s arms. Johnny’s hardheadedness and temperamental attitude were part of Chad (this one is easy to see, as Johnny sees it himself and comments upon it.) That is why both Johnny and Tom make the same mistake in assuming that a Bird of Paradise is a bird instead of a plant - Tom and every other character in The Navidson Record were echoes of the spiraling of Johnny Truant into madness.

There are so many more unbaked thoughts about this book swirling in my head. Who was Zampanó after all? And what does the ending for the Navidson family suggest for Johnny Truant? Who is Lude and who is Thumper? And even through that, we must also ask if Johnny is a reliable narrator. He’s been known to lie about many of his stories - who is to say that he didn’t lie about this one?

I originally gave this book four stars because of how it sometimes feels like you have to really slog through the material. (I do feel guilty about this, considering that that seems to be the point of the long, drawn out “narrative.”) But years later, I still think about this book, and I don't think that, for me, it could be less than five stars anymore. House of Leaves is more than a book — it’s an experience. I sometimes find my mind wandering to the halls of the house on Ash Tree Lane. This book isn’t for everyone, but I definitely suggest it to those who are willing to put in the mental lifting required for a meaningful read-through.