In Chapter V of House of Leaves, strong emphasis is
placed on echoes and the inherent meaning of recurrence, which is a fitting
location to juxtapose the style of the novel against the relations found within
Jorge Borges' short story "Pierre Menard, Author of the
Quixote". Danielewski is interested
in the reappearance of echoes, particularly when the arrival is an imperfect or
shifted version of the original. The
inclusion of the Greek Echo myth reveals that echoes can evolve to tell
different or more meaningful versions of the same story, and in this sense
Zampano’s The Navidson Record can be
viewed as a type of echo or reverberation of Jorge Luis Borges work.
The construction of the
two texts are very similar in their delivery, containing the fictional characters
of Menard and Zampano, who are both involved in creating their own form of
literary critic/documentary review. Literary
parallelisms can be made between each of these works, as well as characters within
the stories being driven by Danielewski and Borges. The manner in which Borges’ work analyzes and
treats Menard as a “real” author, is similar to the way Danielewski has created
the image of Zampano. Interestingly
enough, another small connection lies in Zampano’s blindness, which was
progressively developed by Jorge Luis Borges later in his adult life.
The Greek story
pertaining to the mountain nymph Echo is brought up early in chapter V to invoke
the mythological ties that the meaning of the word Echo can carry in a literary
context. Zampano exposes two versions of
Echo’s tale, the first ending in her body disappearing until only her voice
remained, and the latter ending in her destruction by a jealous lover except
for the essence of her voice. Either way,
despite divine intervention her spirit can overcome the pressures of sorrow and
accusation to carry out a more meaningful version of a known story (41-42). This functionality which is played
out by the character of an echo is perceived differently than the definition or
notation previously associated with the term echo; a reflection that exists
only as a fading repetition of sound. This elucidation of background regarding
an echoes functionality helps segue the reader’s mindset to better understand
Zampano’s fascination with Menard’s replication of Quixote.
Zampano analyzes the two
versions of Don Quixote by Pierre Menard and Miguel de Cevantes together, and
views Menard’s version as an echo, with what he describes as an “exquisite
variation”. Johnny’s exclamation in footnote
50 on the impossibility of Menard’s “exquisite variation” fails to take into
account the temporal and societal differences between Pierre Menard and
Cervantes. Danielewski wants to stress or
at least bring light to, using Zampano, that we are not to views Menard’s work
as merely identical words to Don Quixote, even though Menard’s excerpt of
Quixote is exactly that. Rather, the
take away here is to evaluate and accept that they produce different meaning
under differing circumstances.
Danielewski brings further light to Zampano’s quote regaling Mernard’s
use of Don Quixote as an exquisite variation in this scenario by exposing the power
that this variation has lies within the difference that authorship plays in the
delivery and meaning of the work. In comparison, somehow more meaning is pulled
out of Menards’ work which is supposedly viewed as a critic of Don Quixote, but
with the knowledgeable foresight of history after Cervantes time of the 1600’s.
Borges discusses the true
goal of Menard by stating, “Those who have insinuated the Menard devoted his
life to writing a contemporary Quixote besmirch
his illustrious memory. Pierre Menard
did not want to compose another Quixote,
which is surely easy enough- he wanted to compose the Quixote….His goal was never a mechanical transcription of the
original” (Borges 92). Borges creates a
character which does not only set out to write Don Quixote, but also embody the
essence of Quixote in order to become the actual character.
The placement of the
story and echo created by Pierre Menard is used as a tool by Danielewski to aid
the ever-changing environment that novel is immersed within. He wishes to challenge the reader’s
understanding of the novel and meaning which various characters bring to the table. What would be lost without Johnny Truant’s
re-addition of Zampano’s removed content?
In the same way it can feel insurmountable to extract meaning Mernard’s rendition
of Quixote, one may experience the same feeling of helplessness from trying to interpret
House of Leaves through any singular
means of analysis.
The first three paragraphs don’t really do much of anything - they show your general awareness of some of the relevant problems in the text, I guess, but what you have to say is totally obscure at this point. The real content of your essay - your analysis of the text, your exposition of your viewpoint, as opposed to the summarization of material we all know if we’ve read it - is compacted into a few sentences. This seems critical: "Danielewski wants to stress or at least bring light to, using Zampano, that we are not to views Menard’s work as merely identical words to Don Quixote, even though Menard’s excerpt of Quixote is exactly that. Rather, the take away here is to evaluate and accept that they produce different meaning under differing circumstances.”
ReplyDeleteBut you don’t do the important and interesting work of exploring what the different meanings are under different circumstances. In other words, you’re summarizing, rather abstractly, Danielewski’s apparent purpose, but you don’t say anything about how it plays out, whether it works, etc. For instance, how does this help us understand particular echoes between different levels of the text?