End of Semester Revision(s)

I'll keep this short and simple, and add on to it if people have questions.

1. You may submit either one or two final assignments.  The final assignment(s) may be either a revision (which should be the default choice) or an essay on House of Leaves (which you should pick only if you are motivated to do so.
1. The revisions work as follows
1. You may pick any paper you have worked on through the semester, including ones you have already revised.
2. A revision must have at least 2-3 pages of new material, and be at least 5 pages long.
3. A revision should have its argument extended and clarified; the argument should be neither obvious nor trivial.  Many of the best revisions will take some sort of account of counterarguments.
4. You must incorporate at least one academic source into your revisions - usually a journal article or book (although you might only read a chapter or two of the book, of course).
2. If you want to write about House of Leaves, you should...
1. Send me a clear statement of your argument by early Wednesday evening.  If you're having trouble coming up with an argument, but have a general idea, you should get in touch with me ASAP, so I can try to help you out.  Your essay should have a clear (non-trivial, non-obvious) argument, focused on HOL.  Some suggestions for starting point:
1. Listen to Poe's album Haunted and go from there.
2. Research one of the cited texts which I haven't talked about, and start from there.
3. Write on one of the Karen-dominated sections, which I haven't had much to say about.
2. Your final draft should be at least five pages long, and include at least one academic source.
3. Regardless of what you do, there are two deadlines to be aware of.
1. If you want comments, I need to have your finished work by the 25th at 5:00 p.m.  That deadline is firm.
2. If you don't care about comments or feedback, I can accept your work by the 27th at 5:00 p.m.  
3. If you turn in two papers/revisions, rather than one, before the first deadline, I'll probably cut corners on the comments.  Sorry.
4. Should I do one or two revisions/essays?
1. Obviously, you should do what you want.  That being said...
2. If you are making a serious, sustained effort to improve your grade, you should shoot for the best possible work you can on both assignments.
3. However, it is much better to do a good job on one than to do an ok job on two.  Do not treat the second essay as some kind of bonus work.  It will be graded like any other essay.
4. So, if you are trying to move from one letter grade up to another, and are willing to sweat to do it, you might want to write two.  Otherwise, you might be better off with one.
5. Note(s)
1. You may choose to write an essay on Danielewski and an essay on revision.  I am open to being talked into letting you write a double length, double credit essay on Danieleski - but only do that if you really know what you want to do and why.

House of Leaves: Menard vs. Cervante

Mark Z. Danielewski, on the heels of authors like Jorge Borges, wrote a novel that uses references to both actual and fictional authors and works in the labyrinth of footnotes and quoted passages. Using these various authors and their understanding of their own topics of focus Danielewski reveals to the reader the unreliable nature of interpretation in general. He presents this idea by providing two passages in chapter five that deal with the subject of Don Quixote. The first passage is from Cervantes original novel Don Quixote. The other is from a reinterpretations by Pierre Menard called simply Quixote. At first glance these two texts appear to be identical. In fact the passage in both texts are literally letter for letter:

“…la verdad, cuya madre es la historia, émula del tiempo, depósito de las acciones, testigo de lo pasado, ejemplo y aviso de lo presente, advertencia de lo porvenir. “

This passage is the same in both readings yet the footnote on page 42 states that, “this exquisite variation on the passage by the “ingenious layman” is far too dense to unpack here. Suffice is to say Menard’s nuance are so fine they are nearly undetectable, though talk with the Framer and you will immediately see how haunted they are by sorrow, accusation, and sarcasm.” The idea that two things that are written in the exact same way could contain “exquisite variation” is obvious quite confusing to the average reader. In fact it envokes a feeling of rage in Johnny as he spends hours trying to interpret the difference: “How the fuck do you write about “exquisite variation” when both passages are exactly the same?”

A large portion of this novel is about the insubstantial nature of perception. The first instance we encounter this is early on when the narrators are introduced. An unreliable narrator tell the reader that the events being described are supposed to be taken somewhat lightly. This story has not one, but two unreliable narrators. Zampano supposedly watched a documentary about the events that took place in the house, which we know is impossible because he is in fact blind. Then we are further removed from this unreliable narrator through the lens of yet another; Johnny.

Danielewski is trying to portray that the intrinsic meaning of events lies not in the presentation of said events but the mind of the person viewing them. Another section of this novel that deals with this theme is on page 420. This section surrounds the idea of the Delial photograph taken by Will Navidson. The photograph this section is actually refereeing to was taken by photographer Kevin Carter. Carter won the Pulitzer prize for the photograph of a starving Sudanese child, but committed suicide weeks later of the guilt he felt for not helping her. I believe the actual history of the photograph is important because depending on the viewer there are many ways of interpreting Carter’s actions. Was he in the wrong for allowing this girl to starve and snapping a photograph in the mean time, or was there nothing he could do except raise awareness with the image itself. It is important that Danielewski only provides a description of the photograph in this section. By doing so he allows the reader to interpret it for themselves. As every persons mind and past experiences are different so too are every mental image one is bound to construct.

Danielewski includes these two seemingly identical passages to demonstrate how the mindset of the reader effects the words that are written. Borges through Menard states that historical truth is not “what happened but what we believe happened” (Borges 94). Menard and Cervante are two very different writers and therefore the intrinsic meaning behind their words will be very different. It is how their history effects the reader’s interpretation of their words that is important. Johnny is unable to understand this idea because he is unable to understand how one’s own attitude affects their interpretation of the world around them. It is for the same reason that he is unable to understand the nature of the house. Because Menard was writing his text after Cervante and because he was writing it about his original text one can assume his understanding would be different if not fuller. Because Menard lived in a time when Don Quixote had seeped into the social consciousness and had altered it accordingly any writing he may do on the subject will have a different meaning. This is even true when, like in the passages above, the text from both authors are exactly alike.

Danielewski includes these passages to reinforce his point that interpretation is more dependent on the interpreter rather than the presentation of the events being interpreted.

Credibility and Layered Analysis

In House of Leaves, Mark Z. Danielewski writes a novel that centers on its multilayered analytical approach. The base of the story is the fictional film known as the Navidson Accord. Zampano’s review of this film serves as the first level of analysis. Above Zampano’s review is the rambling, strange, and sometimes inappropriate editing remarks from Johnny Truant. Finally, on top of Truant’s analysis is the last comb-over from the “editors”, who point out some of the fictional “sources’ identified by Truant, make notation of some of his footnotes that fail to make any sense. It is in this model that Danielewski uses when he includes commentary about Borges’ writings on Pierre Menard who writes about Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote. By referencing Borges’ work on Menard, Danielewski parallels one of the central themes in House of Leaves, that being interconnectivity between people across different times and stations of life. In addition to connectivity, each of the mentioned pieces relating to Don Quixote presents itself as a commentary on the original work, in the same way Zampano, Truant, and the editors do in House of Leaves.
Both strings of commentary follow a similar pattern, as the early levels of commentary are a bit eccentric. Zampano clearly fits this description for a number of reasons. The first among these reasons is that he is writing an enormous, scholarly analysis on The Navidson Accord, a movie whose existence cannot be substantiated, even after extensive research from Johnny and the editors. Second, he also refers to articles, books and people that do not exist. Zampano’s writing of a film review is also curious in and of itself, as he is blind, which interestingly forms an additional relationship with Jorge Luis Borges. Still, the blindness has a major impact on Zampano’s credibility as a film critic; since the visual aspect of film accounts at least fifty percent of its impact. When this is combined with the idea of writing a study on a nonexistent movie, there seems to be reasonable evidence that Zampano is less than completely reliable in his role as narrator and critic. Johnny takes this unreliability to a new level, as a drug addict and degenerate. In addition to his strange off topic pontifications in the footnotes, Johnny admittedly makes up pieces of information, such as when he mentions Navidson having a broken water heater (Danieleski 16). At the end of that passage, Johnny adds that Navidson actually only had a bad heater, and that he inserted the word “water” because he himself was having trouble with his water heater. Although Johnny admits to tampering with the text in this instance, we have no way of knowing if he meddled at another point and failed to report it. Along with Johnny’s strange revision, he is also saddled with numerous medical problems that he is unable to treat because of his inability to pay of the prescription medication. He loses touch with reality, making his commentary unreliable.
In the same way that Zampano and Johnny offer unreliable narration, so does Pierre Menard. While Zampano and Johnny are unreliable due to some physical and mental handicaps, Menard’s commentary is hindered by his racism. In his review, Menard says that the revision of Quixote is unreliable because “its author was Arabic…the people of that nation are very prone to telling falsehoods”. By showing his racism in such a blatant and unvarnished manner, Menard essentially discredits his critique of the author’s interpretation, as most non-racists close their minds when they hear someone spewing hateful rhetoric.
Another passage that relates to the idea of a layered analysis comes on pages 180 and 181. While Johnny is the only one offering anything that could be labeled as a critique, his mind almost operates like it is in multiple places with strange prioritization. He fights against the forces that compel him to drugs and alcohol, as he pours all of his alcohol down the sink and throws his remaining acid and ecstasy in the trash. In addition, Johnny finally takes the necessary sedatives for his mental disorders. Later in the passage though Johnny reverts to his strange paranoia, saying “perhaps in finding my clearing, I’ll only make myself an easier prey for the real terror that tracks me, waiting beyond the perimeter, past the tall grass” (Danielewski 180). In this passage, Johnny goes from acting responsibly in the form of taking his medicine and disposing of the materials needed to continue his destructive habits, to ranting in his paranoid schizophrenic way about “what’s out there”. Also, on page 181, Johnny only realizes that it is his birthday because of the Fourth of July celebratory fireworks, showing again how his mind is incoherent and scattered, much in the way the commentary in the three pieces is.

Freedom of the reader

The passage on page 42 Danielewski quotes Miguel de Cervantes from his work in Don Quixote. He provides us with two passages that seemingly look to be identical. Dealing to interpretation has been a common theme we, as the readers, have dealt with when reading House of Leaves. Danielewski has allowed for us to realize we cannot always live off the old saying “don’t judge a book by its cover.” On page 42 we see this style again with Danielewski. He does as Borges using two exactly the same passages calling a different meaning.

When I was reading the passage on page 42 I found myself rereading and rereading trying to find a distinction I could put my finger on of the two passages. After the two passages Johnny’s reaction seemed similar to mine. He chose to attack the phrase “exquisite variation,” wondering how two quotes that can be exactly the same and yet be described as a variation. I believe the variation Danielewski is finding is in the interpretation. Finding a variation in what the passages will mean to someone can vary.

In a footnote on page 42 you read, “Suffice it to say Menard’s nuances are so fine they are nearly undetectable, though talk with the Framer and you will immediately see how haunted they are by sorrow, accusation and sarcasm.” Then on page 94 Borges says, after writing the same passages as Danielewski, “Historical truth, for Menard, is not “what happened;” it is what we believe happened.” Are Menard nuances are fine in a way he is simple minded? I found it interesting when Danielewski capitalized the word Framer, as if that is a name. A comparison of Menard and the Framer, from a believable person in Menard, yet a Framer who is described on a level on different ends of the spectrum. Described as being filled with sorrow, accusation and sarcasm. I found a framer in three words is describing mostly all people. Sorrow and sarcasm are interesting to describe an individual, sadness and grief but also irony and mocking. My interpretation of the two identical passages in House of Leaves is similar to the description of the Framer. When searching for a meaning of the two passages, I believe it’s the delivery in which the passage is given.

Following the two passages Johnny gives an interesting reaction that I felt I could relate too. His first attack on “exquisite variation,” he seems angry. The feeling of frustration with finding a distinction between the two seems to come over him. After a quick fight for a meaning, he seems to search for his discrepancy. “I just kept reading both pieces over and over again, trying to detect at least one differing accent or letter, wanting to detect at least one differing accent or letter, getting desperate in that pursuit, only to repeatedly discover perfect similitude, though how can that be, right?” says Johnny in describing his frustrations of differing the two exact passages. Through this entire paragraph like we have seen before in Johnny, the same sentence separated only by commas, is the one sentence. In this quote in particular Johnny seems to have a similar feeling of the description of the Framer. You seem at the beginning anger and frustration than into this quote I felt a sense of sorrow from Johnny. He seems disappointed and grieving that his search for a meaning is merely impossible. Yet he, in the same sentence, changes his train of thought and goes into the other end of the spectrum into sarcasm.

In Johnny’s testimony to the passages from both Miguel de Cervantes and Pierre Menard that both are identical but search for distinction he is frustrated and bothered. In the style of Danielewski he shows Johnny’s feelings in the illustration of run-on sentences. The entire paragraph is one sentence. In this style you find it similar to the time Johnny is on ecstasy. From his reaction the drugs and his loss of control of the situation Danielewski shows his emotions through the use of this style. The entire two pages once he is on the drugs is one sentence. I believe Danielewski is trying to rely the emotions Johnny is feeling through his style and use of commas.

In conclusion finding a meaning of two exactly identical passages being different. As a reader interpretation is up to you, this is the freedom of being a reader. Although sometimes confusing and difficult it is up to the reader to find what it means to them. Ill go back to my original opinion of these two identical passages not to “judge a book by its cover.”

Borges, Cervantes & Danielewski

In House of Leaves, Danielewski begins chapter five talking about how one should “appreciate the importance of space in The Navidson Record” (Danielewski 41). He guides us to an understanding through his analysis of echoes and gives a history of the ancient Greeks’ explanation of the phenomenon. It seems only logical that he would then present us with a footnote about echoes. Although this type of echo Danielewski refers to isn’t the kind you may hear in a cave or a big empty room (such as the house itself), it is a physical echo of written words. The original work of which this footnote stems is from Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote. In this passage from Don Quixote we see Cervantes spend a decent amount of time talking about how all stories should be based on truth, and that no story is worth telling without that essential element: “this is something badly done and poorly thought out, since historians must and ought to be exact, truthful, and absolutely free of passions, for neither interest, fear, rancor, nor affection should make them deviate from the path of the truth, whose mother is history…” (Cervantes handout). Taking into account that Borges’ work is all fiction and the words spoken by Johnny in House of Leaves are mostly lies (as he points out to us on many occasions) I found it ironic that Danielewski chose to pick a passage that was focused on truth and proceed to collaborate it with works that are almost always based on falsehoods and imagination.

The story of Echo according to the ancient Greeks and the specificities that Danielewski has Zampano use definitely can be connected to why Borges’ use of Cervantes is brought up in the footnote. As Zampano is finishing up telling us about Echo’s story he says, “But Echo is an insurgent. Despite the divine constraints imposed upon her, she still manages to subvert the gods’ ruling. After all, her repetitions are far from digital, much closer to analog. Echo colours the words with faint traces of sorrow (The Narcissus myth) or accusation (The Pan myth) never present in the original” (Danielewski 41). Zampano is aware that even though the words heard from Echo may be the same, one can interpret those words differently according to what background story you base them off. This correlates directly to the way Borges describes Menard’s work on Don Quixote. Borges writes, “Historical truth, for Menard, is not “what happened”; it is what we believe happened” (Borges 94). In both cases the authors are telling the readers to interpret what you hear in your own way, and not just to look at the text as someone else tells you to. The authors want to encourage their readers to think for themselves just as they had done, although this message is quite subtle within the given works.

It is in that respect that Johnny falls behind. He writes, “Exactly! How the fuck do you write about “exquisite variation” when both passages are exactly the same?” (Danielewski 42). He fails to do exactly what these writers are aiming for: personal interpretations of what seems to be replicas of one another. Although at first glance, I agree with Johnny in that the way Borges talks about Menard’s variation on Don Quixote is a little farfetched, I can, after some time spent with the texts, begin to understand how a variation of sorts could be seen between the texts of Cervantes and Menard and it all stems from the story of Echo told by Zampano. Just as Echo had managed to evade her fate, however discreetly, Menard was able to obtain a similar feat with his own take on Don Quixote.

Also in the footnote is mentions “Menard’s nuances are so fine they are nearly undetectable, though talk with the Framer and you will immediately see how haunted they are by sorrow, accusation, and sarcasm” (Danielewski 42). This is also a great account that eludes to the use of the story of Echo in which Zampano tells us “Echo colours the words with faint traces of sorrow (The Narcissus myth) or accusation (The Pan myth) never present in the original” (Danielewski 41). This is proof to the reader that no matter how similar a spoken word (in Echo’s case) or a grouping of words in a text are, the interpretation, or lack thereof, entirely dependent on the personal view the reader holds.

Open Thread for House of Leaves, Last Week

The last posting about House of Leaves, finishing most if not all of the remainder of the book. Especially Johnny's mother's letters.

Don Quixote & Perception inside of House of Leaves.

In House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski a brief reference to the story of Don Quixote by Miguel Cervantes can be found on pg 42 of the novel. Ironically, this same section is referenced in the story of Pierre Menard found in Collected Fictions ­by George Borges. Many would wonder why the Don Quixote reference was included in House of Leaves in the first place. On the surface, many would probably describe the novel as primarily a work of fiction about a Californian party boy who slowly slips into insanity after finding the manuscript of a fake novel about a House that shifts and moves on its own. However the inclusion of Don Quixote is significant as it links the two authors. For Borges and Danielewski, ambiguity and double meanings are a mainstay in their stories and novels. Borges was known for writing fictional stories about other fictional stories. Danielewski uses this technique is his novel as well when writing and referencing the Navidson Records. The association between Borges and Danielewski and their use of false stories is an obvious one. But how does the actual story of Miguel de Cervantes in the Borges’ story Pierre Menard take part in the development of House of Leaves? The answer is perception. In Pierre Menard, Author of The Quixote, the section in question is compared to the “similar” one also found in Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote. It is quite obvious that they are identical.

I believe that how one perceives these novel fragments depends on the biases that they have or may pick up while reading the text. These biases may be on race, culture, or any other issue relevant to their time period. In both Borges’ story and the actual text from Don Quixote, there is an underlying theme of race. In Don Quixote, the narrator doubts the translations of an Arabic Author due to his heritage and the opinion that “the people of that nation are very prone to telling falsehoods” (Cervantes). In Pierre Menard, Author of The Quixote, Menard is both exalted and chided for his interpretation of the classic work. His interpretation of Don Quixote is praised when compared to that of the “ingenious layman” Miguel de Cervantes”. (Borges, 95). It is interesting that Cervantes is described as a “layman” in this story. As noted, Cervantes is the original author of Don Quixote, and it is a bit strange that that he is described as someone with no knowledge on a subject he first wrote about. This leads me to believe that his ancestry and the history between the French and Spaniards may have been a cause for doubt. This is similar to the doubt found in Cervantes story involving Arabic people and Spaniards. This may have been due to the conflict that occurred between the two groups during the Reconquista of Spain and Portugal.

To answer the question posed above about how all of this information ties into House of Leaves, we can once again look at the time period that the Johnny is living in, and also try to identify how he could possibly relate to the fragments in a way that would allow him to perceive any subtle differences in the two “similar” texts. The time period or region that Johnny is living in is not at all similar to that of Borges or Cervantes. From the perspective of a 20-something year old, the supposed subtle nuances between the passages are nonexistent. In the footnotes of the Navidson Records, Johnny has even told readers to not to read into things too hard, and instead encouraging readers to interpret ideas and situations as they see fit. Also, Johnny does not have the same ulterior motives and prejudices that Cervantes and the Narrator in Borges’ story hold. Without these biases, Johnny is unable to recognize or understand the “exquisite variation” between these two passages (Danielewski, 42).

This view on perception can be applied to the situation inside the Navidson Record when Will, Reston, and Tom head into the hallway and eventually down the staircase in an attempt to find Holloway and his fellow explorers. The staircase that Holloway and his band of explorers encountered is totally different than the one that Will and Reston encountered on their descent. This may have been due to the perception that each group had about the abyss. Will believed that there was a definite end to the staircase, and was able to complete the descent in less than 30 minutes. Holloway on the other hand, went the hallway with the notion that the hallway and the staircase were never-ending. What he perceived is what he got. The house serves as an interpretation of what the inhabitant thinks, fears, or perceives it to be. Just like in the works of Borges and Cervantes, perception is everything in House of Leaves.

HL: Borges

Danielewski follows previous author, Jorge Luis Borges’ style of creating false texts and then citing them throughout his novel House of Leaves. In one particular instance Danielewski even quotes Borges from his Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote piece. Ever fitting for the place in the novel, this quote allows readers to further process later events that take place in the labyrinth of a house.

Don Quixote’s lax language and ranting appearance project an image of unscholarly text, written by a man whom is merely venting throughout. The one sentence that seems out of place in this banter is the same that Borges then exploits in his Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote. This line (“…truth whose mother is history, the rival of time, prepository of great deeds, witness to the past, example and adviser to the present, and a forewarning to the future”) gives strong emotional aggravation amongst untruths (Cervantes). In context Cervantes speaks of translators who, in their translation, have biases which in turn transfer to the text being translated; he calls this bias untruthful and therefore he is adding the “truth” back in. It is out of place since the language is rich in comparison to his rants where “the fault lies with the dog who was its author” (Cervantes). Borges uses this line not only because of its discord with the rest of the text, but because it directly illustrates his own point of stories receiving biases in the process of translation or reconstructing.

In many of Borges’ works he conjures false texts and then makes commentary about them, or false events and people, such as the story of Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote. No Menard exists, thus no Quixote by him either. However, in using this line of text, with minute changes through different translations, he tells the reader that the line of Cervantes was also conjured, three centuries later, by Menard (“…truth, whose mother is history, rival of time depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s consoler” (Borges 94)). His point is that a man, through impossibility, may create the same words as another.

In House of Leaves, Cervantes and Borges appear in chapter five, the chapter of echoes. Echoes an important part in the house, but used to also contemplate the literal fact of retelling the last few words said. In this, Danielewski footnotes to Cervantes sentence (this time in Spanish) and its echo by Menard in Borges. Through the same sentence that Borges had used, Danielewski traces back even to Cervantes’ meaning. House of Leaves is a novel wrapped in untruths and biases of the footnoting author, which Danielewski wants readers to not only be aware of, but take with a grain of salt—words and reproductions in this novel are just as made up as those that Borges always writes about. However, Danielewski did not comment just any Borges text; he commented that in which comments on another, and text about the impossibility of two men creating the exact same words in the exact same order on two separate occasions. By connecting all the way back to Cervantes work, House of Leaves implies that readers should be wary of the untruths and biases in the text itself and its mentioned texts, and that readers should be acutely aware of the impossibility of the House in House of Leaves.

Even briefly or superficially understanding Danielewski’s trace of Cervantes through Borges illuminates a new mental set when reading House of Leaves. In chapter twenty, when Navidson goes back into the labyrinth of the house, he packs enough food and water for a two week stay, in addition to his photographer gear and other necessities. One thing he packs that seems a bit weird is a book. If Tom had packed it when he was keeping post at the top of the staircase, this makes sense because he is merely waiting. Navidson, however, is exploring. Whenever he isn’t on the move he would sleep. In theory there would be no time to read unless he takes a break, which he doesn’t have time for, nor the expense of batteries to fuel light over the pages. On 465 we realize the book he has taken with him, is also called House of Leaves. There is no footnote, no author, nothing mentioning this book he reads except the title and then progression of him lighting it afire in order to completely read the pages in the absence of a flashlight. This lack of any outside mention is a red flag.

In regards to Cervantes and Borges, knowing that most of what is in the novel House of Leaves is fiction, it is still odd to quote the novel inside of itself. Borges could not have made a commentary of himself writing the same words he had written before because they are his words and it is way more probable that if he had written them once, he could write them again. As is the same for Cervantes in relation to his biases, he cannot call himself out for having biases and then go and unbias his text, it wouldn’t be real any longer. And yet Danielewski’s character reads the book (or rather a book with the same title as the book) he is a major part in. His idea is very similar to both Cervantes and Borges, but having already quoted them, he quotes himself.

This book that Navidson reads, also titled House of Leaves illustrates a key element in the novel, that some things just do not have answers. Danielewski refuses to comment about this book, and Navidson burns it anyway. There are no traces, just like there are no traces of this house or the Navidson Record or any of it. There are no answers simply because there are none. In such a simple problem, readers may search for a complicated answer, and this is the most difficult part. Had there been some comment, some footnote, readers would get wrapped up in the details of it. So simply, there is none. Even though Cervantes and Borges appeared fifteen chapters prior, the mental set still stands to delve into every detail and question every mentioned text. Readers question this House of Leaves novel, and to their dismay are severely disappointed.

If it were not for Cervantes and Borges aforementioned in a previous chapter, there still would be some question as to why Navidson is reading a book with this title. However, because these authors were mentioned, readers should have been fishing deeper for meanings and connections within the novel (ie. noting when Hall is capitalized Beowulf pokes out between the lines of pages 21 and 150). Little things previously noted but now questioned and beyond the realm of reality.

Danielewski, Borges and Cervantes Blog

There appears to be a couple different ways to understand Danielewski’s use of Borges’ use of Cervantes. Pierre Menard, is the author of the Quixote, which is written in the form of a review or literary critical piece about the non-existent Pierre Menard. Borges' review describes Menard's efforts to go beyond a mere translation of Don Quixote by immersing himself so thoroughly in the work as to be able to actually re-create it, line for line. Thus a reader looking at the two texts can be related by the way they are written and the way it can be interpreted. 

Both stories deal with difficulty of creating meaning or perhaps finding or determining meaning. In the case of Quixote the meaning depends on reader-response or context of the work. However any work with meaning is random and not the product of human action and therefore drained of meaning. In the case of Quixote the human action of writing and reading the work affect meaning. Menard’s admirable ambition was to produce a number of pages which coincided—word for word and line for line—with those of Miguel de Cervantes” (91). Even though the words are exactly the same Pierre Menard rewriting Cervantes' Don Quixote as a product of his own creativity. “The Cervantes text and the Menard text are verbally identical, but the second is almost infinitely richer more ambiguous, his decorators will say—but ambiguity is richness” (94). The two passages may be the same, but there lies a more in depth meaning that cannot be seen maybe because the authors are drawing their own conclusions as to why they are different. Maybe their evidence as to why Menard’s passage has more meaning or is it the reader’s own interpretation as to distinguish the difference. Or it could be simply the true under lying meaning is fictional and it can be interpreted any way you read it.

Interpretation is based on the mindset of the reader. The mindset of the readers distinguishes their own perspective on the words that are actually written. As Menard states it “is not what happened; it is what we believe happened” (94). As Mark Danielewski refers to Johnny having trouble understanding the difference in the two passages, reading them over and over again. Johnny can’t even rap his mind around the idea of the two passages having different meanings without “wanting to detect at least one differing accent or letter.” No matter how many times Johnny reads the passage he never notices the overall meaning behind the difference in the two passages. Its what he makes of it as he reads it over and over again. “Menard has perhaps unwitting enriched the slow and rudimentary art of reading by means of a new technique—the technique of deliberate anachronism and fallacious attribution” (95). The art in the difference lies in the way it is red and interpreted. As it will be different for anyone who reads it as they have a different outlook and perspective to the overall meaning and difference.

I selected the footnote on page 423 as my passage. Simply stated it is a description of the walls in the house. Everyone that reads this passage is going to formulate a different idea of what this really looks like. Although the author gives an accurate description of the walls, he leaves room for interpretation. This interpretation what makes the passage different to each reader.  There appear to be many passages that can be directly connected to the house. Each passage is open for interpretation and allows the readers to formulate their own idea to overall meaning. The true meaning cannot be found as described in the passage the “oblique, forever obscure and unwritten. Behold the perfect pantheon of absence” (423). As all three authors Borges, Danielewski, and Cervantes may not have a specific intent to their meaning. They leave it open for the reader to make their own judgments and thoughts to what they believe is the overall meaning. Every time a reader reads the words on the page they are going to appear identical.  The difference that is presented lies in the reader’s mindset and perspective not the written words on the page. 

Daneilewski, Borges, Cervantes

Throughout the book House of Leaves there are some very confusing passages in which Mark Z. Danielewski attempts to draw connections between different authors to his own text. In chapter five of House of Leaves Danielewski presents us with two passages. The first passage is from Cervantes novel Don Quixote and the second is from Pierre Menard’s re-writing called Quixote. When these passages are presented side by side they appear to be identical. In Danielewski’s novel, even Johnny doesn’t understand the differences between these two texts. He sits there for hours looking at the two texts trying “to detect at least one differing accent or letter.” (43)

From Cervantes work we get this passage.

“…la verdad, cuya madre es la historia, emula del tiempo, deposito de las acciones, testigo de lo pasado, ejemplo y aviso de lo presente advertencia de lo por venir.”

And from Pierre Menard’s work Quixote we get this passage.

“…la verdad, cuya madre es la historia, emula del tiempo, deposito de las acciones, testigo de lo pasado, ejemplo y aviso de lo presente advertencia de lo por venir.”

Both passages appear to be identicle on the surface but there must be some underlying meaning behind the fact that Menard insistes that he has changed his and given it an exquisite variation. When I look at these two “different” passages I cannot find a variation that is present. Maybe in context they are different. We never get to see where each of these quotes is coming from. There must be a difference because each of these authors believe that it is different. Or maybe they are the same and the authors are drawing a conclusion that is not actually there. They are simply making it up. Either way there is a reason that Danielewski decides to include this passage in his work House of Leaves.

Is is possible that Danielewki includes these passages to show us that interpretation is based on the mindset of the reader and not simply based on the words that are actually written. Within Borges, Menard says that histoical truth is not “what happened but what we believe happened” (Borges 94). This can be another interpretation of these two passages. Although they are the same, they were written by different people and are thus different. Is it possible that Danielewski is rying to draw us into Johnny’s mind with these two passages. It seems that following these two passages we get a better understanding of Johnny as a person. He cannot wrap his mind around the fact that there can be a difference between these two seemingly identicle passages. He seems to not understand that it is not simply the words that must be different, rather it is the mindset of the reader that makes the two passages different. Johnny has a difficult time trying to find a difference because he is only looking at the words and not undeerstanding that the difference lies within him.

In order to expand on this idea of interpretation I believe that I have found a seccond passage or idea in order to futher explain this connection. On page 420 Danielewski presents the Delial photograph which was taken by Will Navidson. Navidson describes the photgraph vividly but the photograph is never presented to us directly. On the following page there is a blank space with words above it reading “see diagram.” (421) I believe that this is the perfect time to show that differences are presented not openly but rather in the mindset of the reader. If I were to draw a picture of what I believe the photograph looks like, it would be different than other people doing the same thing. Each drawing might be similar because they are of the same idea but there would be differences in each. The vulture would look different or Delial would be skinnier in some drawings and taller in others. There are a wealth of differences that could be made by different people. No two drawings would be exactly the same.

This is the same idea that is present within the two passages from Cervantes and Menard. No matter how many times you read the words on the page, they will be identical. The difference that is present lies within the mindset of the reader not in the written words. This is why I believe that Danielewski decided to include these quotes within his novel.

Danielewski's interpretation of Borges' Cervantes

Danielewski, the author of House of Leaves, disconcerted the readers once again by referencing to Borges’ Cervantes. When reading the page 42 of the House of leaves, it seems like the reference to Borges has nothing to do with the context of the book. However, as I read it again and again, I came to realize that a meaning of house and recurring theme of repression are prersent in the footnote and the repeated passage.

First, the passage represents the house. As we saw in Borges’ Cervantes as well, the main passages are repeated. The first impression when reading this page will probably the same as Johnny’s viewpoint; “How the fuck do you write about “exquisite variation” when both passages are exactly the same?” (Danielewski 42). However, I noticed that this passage shares many similarities with the house in the House of Leaves. The house in the book looks fine on the outside, and no one would think that the house itself is haunted. However, when going inside, everyone experiences different situations and different things hunt characters. When it says, “Menaces’ nuance are so fine they are nearly undetectable… you will see how haunted they are by sorrow, accusation, and sarcasm” (42), the nuance is what the house represents. It is not detectable on the outside, but, when actually going deeper inside, people experience different things from the house. In parallel, as readers read deeper and analyze the passage, they find different interpretation to understand this passage.

Secondly, the passage represents the truth about the house. When interpreted in English, the passage that Danielewski uses in the book says, “… truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present, and the future’s counselor” (Borges 94). The important passage is what Borges says after that passage, which is not quoted in Danielewski’s passage. In Borges’ “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote”, Borges then goes on and says “historical truth, for Menard, is not ‘what happened’ it is what we believed happened” (94). This quote ties back to the truth about the house. Not everyone knows about the house except few people who actually went into the house, including Johnny. People who may not know about the house may think that things that people who experienced the house are crazy and those people believe what they want to believe. Although people may think that characters like Johnny and Karen are lying about the house, Johnny and Karen’s experiences can be the truth and the history according to Borges. Revealing the truth about the house is what Danielewski wanted to exemplify using Borges’ Cervantes.

Lastly, the layering theme of passage represents different layers of meaning of the house and what the house embodies. As we discussed in class, the Don Quixote is fictional story that layers meaning on top of another meaning. In a way, Danielewski used this layering theme by using Borges’ quotes that is repeated twice. By using the layers of same text, he tries to convey that there are multiple layers of meaning about this passage and different interpretation of the house from each character in general.

In addition, the theme of repression in different levels is portrayed in this page overall. First of all, the footnotes quoting Borges in general seems to repress many symbols and meanings that cannot be easily found. Therefore, I think footnotes itself represents different characters in the book that are repressing different subjects in a personal level. For example, Karen represses her relationship, rape, and commitment, and Navidsons represses an image of Dileal and Vietnam. Also after the footnote, Johnny says, “how the fuck do you write about “exquisite variation” when both passages are exactly the same?” (danielewiski 42) then goes on with his story without trying to figure anything out. Johnny’s ignorant behavior goes back to Delial and ignoring and repressing problems that they face globally.

Danielewski, Borges, Cervantes Blog

Danielewski, Borges, and Cervantes are authors linked by a common thread. Their ability to thrive on writing fiction within fiction and sometimes within another fiction may be hard to analyze and grasp, but that is what makes their literature interesting and continuously sucks us in. The connection that Danielewski makes to Borges in House of Leaves and to Don Quixote is significant and relates to the echo of the hallway. The echoes in the hallway are brought to light in other portions of Danielewski’s novel, which always help Johnny revert back to stories that introduce new hardships he’s faced to the reader and allow other characters to do so as well.

Danielweski’s trend throughout his book is to write the fictional story of the House of Leaves, and then give us the fictional story of Johnny and other characters. The multiple pages of insight on echo’s in Chapter 5 and how they have come to mean what they mean is not just a simple tangent, but in fact a reference to Johnny. Johnny can relate the story of the goddess Echo and the sounds in the hallway to his life, which is why I think he gets so wrapped up in the editing and rewriting parts of The Navidson Records.

To allow us to “recognize the significance of space” (41) as readers, we are introduced to the story of the goddess Echo and how he name came to be. Echo has two stories but “In both cases, unfulfilled love results in the total negation of Echo’s body and the near negation of her voice.” (41) Now with only the ability of speech and restriction to only say what is spoken to her, sorrow and accusation fill her voice. Danielewski uses this story of the Goddess Echo to explain what is happening in the hallway and to also incorporate Johnny’s fears.

Being authors of the same caliber with the same sort of love for fiction, Danielewski and Borges can be found, in some parts of their novels, to be similar. Here, Danielewski threads the story of the goddess and her only ability to repeat what others say with sorrow and accusation to Borges’ fictional character Pierre Menard who does the same. Pierre Menard, tries to make Don Quixote an original narrative, something of his own, filled with his own words “haunted [they are] by sorrow, accusation”. (42) The fact that Pierre Menard echoed the words of Cervantes verbatim, but added emotion to the words because of his experiences and what he’s gone through directly mimics that of the goddess Echo, which explains some reasoning for how the hallway works.

We may think, “these tangents seem so unnecessary, why would Danielewski insert them?” I believe it is to provide analysis for Danielewski’s main fictional protagonist, Johnny. We discussed in class the theme of repression for all of the characters in The House of Leaves. Johnny represses most of his childhood for multiple reasons brought out throughout the book found strictly in the footnotes. If it were not for these footnotes on the parallels of Borges’ Pierre Menard and Cervantes Don Quixote to the goddess Echo and the hallway, then we would never discover whom our protagonist and the man compiling all of Zampano’s work is. As Johnny explains his failure to detect the difference is the work of Pierre Menard versus Cervantes, he loses his words and actually can type no longer. This is the first time we see Johnny at a loss of words since many times before we see that he can actually go on tangents for multiple pages at a time and is rarely without something to say.

This challenge to discuss the echo and the comparison of Borges to Cervantes really makes Johnny anxious. We can interpret Johnny’s anxiety with this passage to the fact that he feels “alone in hostile territories” “with no sound way to determine where the hell” he’s going. (43) The echoes, whether written down or actual sounds or words of people, give a sense of direction. Just as when “a pebble falls down a well, it is gratifying to hear the eventual plunk. In the case of a verbal echo, the spoken word acts as the pebble and the subsequent repetition serves as “the plunk”.” (47) Johnny here realizes that his life has been the pebble without an eventual plunk and that he has been falling into darkness just as the echo in the hallway falls into darkness when it fades. This intellectual realization on parallels of the three authors and the echo in The Navidson Records causes him to bring back feelings he’s repressed for so long.

With the fact that the echo brings Johnny’s feelings of repression and despair out and there are parallels to echoes on page 42, we can read the passage on page 101 to 102 quite differently now and relate it to other characters. The knocks in the house after Holloway is lost echo each other with “three quick knocks followed by three slow knocks. Over and over again” (101) The sound of knocks echoing each other is all Navidson needs to enter the house and despite all of those restrictions holding him back, like Karen and his family, he follows the urge to save the men.

Navidson has blatant repressed feelings about Delial and how he never saved the child and only used her as a means for art, which makes him never stops feeling bad for his actions. Here, with the echoing throughout the house, Navidson has reason to enter the hallway and save people. He shows his repressed feelings when he tells Karen, “I waited too long with Delial, I’m not going to do it again.” (102) Those repressed feelings emerge and we can see how powerful the theme of echoes runs throughout Danielewski’s book and characters.

With the theme of echoes and their significance, Borges and Cervantes help to shed light on Johnny’s repression and Danielewski’s fictional style of writing. The relation of the goddess Echo and the echoes of the house, we can see the these continuous sounds seem to bring out the feelings in Danielewski’s characters and force them to do things they wouldn’t normally like Johnny stops writing and Navidson stops listening to Karen. The echo has much significance and power that it ties together the three author’s, Danielewski, Borges and Cervantes, and the characters of The House of Leaves.

House of Leaves

House of Leaves continued to broadcast the societal issues during his era in a mysterious way. Everyone has things in their past that they want to keep repressed. Every character in House of Leaves has their own problems that they choose to ignore. As in today’s society there are problems inside society that are considered taboo. Mark Z. Danielewski decided to include an exert from Don Quixote: “…whose mother is history, the rival of time, repository of great deeds, witness to the past, example and adviser to the present, and forewarning to the future” (Danielewski, 42). I believe that the quote from Don Quixote could mean a number of possibilities of things depending on the topic.

The issue of rape of comes up multiple times in House of Leaves. Rape is a serious issue in society; it’s one of those crimes that are not talked about because many victims don’t want to speak of their trauma. In many cases after one has been raped, it could lead to psychological issues. This refers to Karen’s case of claustrophobia; in Chapter 15 Karen’s older sister Linda spoke of their stepfather raping the two of them and forcing them down into a well (Danielewski, 347). Even though Karen never admits to these accounts after seeing a doctor in a previous study, Celine Berezin, MD believed that it was due to an incident in her adolescent years Danielewski, 59). This problem can describe a lot of women in society.

The quote from Don Quixote “…whose mother is history, the rival of time, repository of great deeds, witness to the past, example and adviser to the present, and forewarning to the future” (Danielewski, 42) could be used to understand the rape issue. Each piece has its own meaning that could pertain to this quote. “Whose mother is history” for me this could mean rape has been around for centuries; things that happened in the past have become history. “The rival of time”, it has been an enemy of society for long periods of time, yet governments want to stop it but people in the world that continue to keep this crime alive. Those who capture and prosecute the rape offenders could possibly define “repository of great deeds”. The victims of rape are “witness to the past” because they went through their traumatic experience, and many want to repress this experience instead of embrace it. The ending phrase “example and adviser to the present” means that rape victims are the example of the crime and should be able to embrace this issue and inform others of the ongoing problem. The last phase “forewarning to the future”, rape victims would know the signs if children or anyone else was getting sexually abused, so they could find ways to prevent the problems.

In class, we talked about how the quote from Don Quixote could be used to understand House of Leaves. I think that the quote is one of those quotes that could be read in multiple ways. Throughout the book, we as readers are told how to read the book to understand it. Many of those times, we are told “take it how you want it”, that’s what I think of this quote. As a reader we are already given the image but our imagination takes it to the next level. Perception is the key to any book you read; I think that the House of Leaves should be no exception. I think that Danielewski chose to write this way because anyone can read through a book, but a book that instructions like a labyrinth makes it interesting.

Self-Actualization and the Unconscious Mind in House of Leaves

On page 42, there is a passage from Don Quixote, another seemingly exact passage from Borges’ Pierre Menard, and commentary about the two passages from Johnny Truant. The two exact passages serve as a way for those who are self-actualized to find the deeper meaning of life. As there are very few of us who will ever achieve such an enlightened state, the passage also serves as a type of ‘wake up call’ for those of us who have not yet achieved this heightened state. For the vast majority who are not self-aware, it helps our unconscious to bring to the forefront exactly what we need to know in order to make us more self-aware.

The term self-actualization comes from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which states that beyond the normal air, water, food, and sex, there are other needs that need to be addressed and taken care of before one would become self-actualized. The hierarchy of needs is pyramid-shaped with four different levels before becoming self-actualized. On the bottom level were physiological needs which are basically the major items needed for life: air, water, food, sleep, etc. Once those needs are met then one would be able to graduate to the second level of safety needs, which is essentially the need to be safe, have a stable life, feelings of protection, and living with structure. Once that is met, one would move on to the third level which is the sense of belonging to some kind of relationship, family, or community. The final level that needs to be met once all the others are met would be esteem in which we look for the respect of others as well as self-respect. Once all of those needs are met then can one be considered as meeting the requirements for self-actualization. Without all levels being addressed, then one cannot be self-actualized. It comes down to even if even one aspect is missing or not 100% complete then that needs to be addressed before moving on. Once a person reaches the self-actualized state, it is a constant state of being that needs to be worked at in order to be able to maintain that structure. If for any reason that one reaches that level and fails at another, then one would not be completely self-actualized. The reason why so many never reach the point of being self-actualized is that their unconscious is protecting them the harsher reality that it knows its conscious form would not be able to take. So although one might truly believe they are self-actualized, they will never be as their unconscious will not allow them to know the harrowing truths that may lie beneath the surface until they are really ready to face those consequences.

One looks at the two passages on page 42 and at first glance, as Johnny realized, they are the exact same passage. But with further examination by looking deeper, “Menard’s nuances are so fine they are nearly undetectable, though talk with Framer and you will immediately see how haunted they are by sorrow, accusation, and sarcasm (pg. 42)”. As a footnote to that statement, Johnny said, “I just kept reading both pieces over and over again, trying to detect at least one differing accent or letter, wanting to detect at least one differing accent or letter, getting almost desperate in that pursuit, only to repeatedly discover perfect similitude, though how can that be, right? if it were perfect it wouldn’t be similar it would be identical, and you know what? I’ve lost this sentence, I can’t even finish it, don’t know how— Here’s the point: the more I focused in on the words the farther I seemed from my room (pg. 42)”.

At first Johnny admits that he sees them as the exact same, but when he looks at the two excerpts, the more scattered he becomes, not even able to complete his train of thought until eventually the more he focuses on the passage, the further away he seems from his room, from his reality, and from his safety net and it is when this occurs that his ‘demon’ comes to him. When he looks at himself in the ‘mirror’ of the duplicate, he comes face to face with his own mental deterioration that is overpowering his life and rationality. He has a small moment of clarity when faced with being taken out of his comfort zone with these passages, but he his unconscious is still protecting his conscious mind from exactly what he is trying to be defended from.

“Bring on the haze. But who am I kidding? I can still see whats happening. My line of defense has not only failed, it failed long ago. Don’t ask me to define the line either or why exactly it’s needed or even what it stands in defense against. I haven’t the foggiest idea (pg. 42)”. So even though he is aware of the situation, he still is not aware of full meaning so therefore he is still in the dark as to the reason for his deterioration. It is not going to be until he realizes exactly what is causing his mental deterioration will he have the chance to change it and move on to the next level towards the ultimate goal of being self-actualized.

Another meaning to look at through Johnny is when the footnote describes the two exact passages as “how haunted they are by sorrow, accusation, and sarcasm”. This can also be applied to Johnny in that he too sees his reflection in these mirrored passages and is very haunted by his visions that aren’t there, sorrow from his mother, accusations about his choices in life, and sarcasm can be seen all throughout his style of writing.

A separate section of the book that these themes could be successfully applied to is Navidson’s interaction and conflict with Delial. Throughout the book, we are presented with the name Delial and the negative impact that it carries for Navidson and Karen without explanation. Did Navidson have an affair with her, was she an old girlfriend, or was she perhaps a love child with another women? It wasn’t until page 368 that the truth is known. Delial is the name that Navidson gives a little girl in a photo that he takes that is dying of hunger. “The print comes from Navy’s personal collection. The same one hanging in their home and one of the first things Navidson placed in their car the night they fled. As the world remembers, the renowned image shows a Sudanese child dying of starvation, too weak to move even though a vulture stalks her from behind. (pg 368).” Why then would Delial be something that Navidson was not keen to discuss? On page 394, it details that “[b]efore the release of The Navidson Record neither friends nor family nor colleagues knew that Delial was the name Navidson had given to the starving Sudanese child. For reasons of his own, he never revealed Delial’s identity to anyone, not even to Karen…Those who have asked [why she meant so much to Navidson] usually received one of several responses: “I forget,” “Someone close to me,” “Allow a man a little mystery” or just a smile.”

So the question again begs to be asked, why would Delial be something that Navidson was not keen to discuss? It wasn’t as if his unconscious mind was protecting him from the truth. He knew what happened. He was trying to build his life up. He had food and shelter, he was safe (before moving into the house), he had enormous accolades from other famous people, but the thing that he lacked was self-esteem. He had survivor’s guilt and was unwilling to face it until forced to by the house. It might not be just any coincidence that Delial was just two letters away from Denial. This denial or Delial comes full front with the last letter that Navidson writes to Karen.

“Now I cant get Delial out of my head. Delial, Delial, Delial—the name I gave to the girl in the photo that won me all the fame and gory [*note that it is gory, not glory as the expression would call for] that’s all she in Karen, just the photo. And now I can’t understand anymore why it meant so much to me to keep to keep her a secret—a penance or something. Inadequate…i miss miss miss but i didn’t miss i got her along with the vulture in the background when the real vulture was the guy with the camera preying on her for his fuck pulitzer prize it doesn’t matter if she was already tem minutes from dying i took threem minutes to snap a photo should have taken 10 minutes taking her somewhere so she wouldnt go away like that no family, no mother no day, no people just a vulture and a fucking photojournalist i wish i were dead right now i wish i were dead that poor little baby this god god awful world im sorry i cant stop thinking of her never have never will cant forget how i ran with her like where was i going to really run i was twelve miles from nowhere i had no one to her to no window to pass her through out of harms way no tom there i was no tom there and then that tiny bag of bones just started to shake and it was over she died right in my hands the hands of the guy who took three minutes two minutes whatever a handful of seconds to photograph her and now she was gone that poor little girl in this god awful world i miss her i miss delial i miss the man who would have saved her who would have done something who would have been tom maybe im looking for all of them i miss you i love u there’s no second ive lived you can’t call your own (Page 391-393)”

The letter that was written is chaotic, rambling, just in one run-on sentence, completely manic. This is the writing of a man who once was on the path to self-actualization, but because of his denial/Delial, he then needs to find what it is that he is denying in himself which is the reason why he went back into the house.

Pages 395-396 describe the unconscious perhaps trying to protect Navidson from the horrors that he has witnessed in just a short while and thus use Delial as a tool in order to work through that grief, “The BFJ Criteria posits that Delial’s prominence in Navidson’s last letter is a repressive mechanism enabling him to at least on a symbolic level deal with his nearly inexpressible loss, after all in a very short amount of time Navidson had seen the rape of physics. He had watched one man murder another and then pull the trigger on himself. He had stood helplessly by as his own brother was crushed and consumed. And finally he had watched his lifelong companion flee to her mother and probably another lover, taking with her his children and bits of his sanity. It is not by accident that all these elements appear like ghosts in his letter. …Navidson is tying up loose ends and the reason, or so The BFJ Criteria claims, can be detected in the way he treats the Sudanese girl still haunting his past: “It is no coincidence that as Navidson begins to dwell on Delial he mentions his brother three times: ‘I had no one to pass her to. There was no window to pass her through out of harms way. There was no Tom there. I was no Tom there. Tom, maybe he’s the one I’m looking for.’ It is a harrowing admission full of sorrow and defeat—‘I was no Tom there’—seeing his brother as the life-saving (and line-saving) hero he himself was not (pg. 395-396)”.

In conclusion, there are items in this world that might have no meaning or no difference at first glance, but as the reader or the viewer take a closer look at the passage or image then another world opens up. But this world is not an imaginary world, it is an introspective world to help us become better people, live better lives, and to become more aware individuals.