No Period, and Page 433

[OriginalIdea]

I didn't find an appropriately relevant place to post the first one, but on page 386, there's no period after the word house where it ends the last full paragraph on the page.

On page 433 (and a search for this page yielded only French posts, so I'm putting it here :P) creates an odd pattern. At first I thought it resembled Yggdrasil, because of the text at the bottom, where it seems to branch off into three sections,
but looking at it as I write this, (I had just come across one of fearful_syzygy's thread (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3187)s looking for possible discussion of the missing period) I thought of Pelafina's letter.

??

[Merouda]

…on page 386, there's no period after the word house where it ends the last full paragraph on the page

Yes. Do you have any thoughts as to why the full stop is missing?


… page 433 … creates an odd pattern. At first I thought it resembled Yggdrasil, because of the text at the bottom, where it seems to branch off into three sections, but looking at it as I write this, (I had just come across one of fearful_syzygy's thread (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3187)s looking for possible discussion of the missing period) I thought of Pelafina's letter

While I notice some resemblance to Pelafina’s letter of September 19th 1988, with the text being mainly centered on the page, I see the format of page 433 more as perhaps a visual representation of what is going on in the text at that point in time.

For instance, when Navidson photographs the flares, the horizontal and vertical space between “photographs” “the twelve” and “flares” comes across to me as something of a representation of the timed exposure. I can almost hear the click of the camera on reading each of the three words, as if the photographs are being taken as I read.

It appears to me that the words “Navidson or the three flares are moving” might form the streak of the flares that is mentioned in reference to the third image. The word “moving” is presented vertically, which, in the context of the layout and content of the text, gives me the impression of movement.

Could the layout of the words at the bottom of the page form an image of the tripod on which Navidson's camera is fixed?

[OriginalIdea]

You know what, that makes a lot more sense. I had just finished a couple of other posts where I was much more thorough and must have been tired to not notice the bottom/tripod. hehe Illustrating things the way MZD does, it's interesting to see an occassion where he has (successfully, it would seem) illustrated the movement of the flares. Especially since, represented two-dimensionally, they would be moving up the page and the text moves down it.

With page 386, I noticed it as I was reading the first time, because I'm accustomed to Stephen King doing that in such a way that I have also come to do in writing, leaving out punctuation to link a flashback or something:
"All she could think about was her father. That day
David kneeled in front of her, a look on his face that told of something she didn't want to imagine." (It's kind of dark, but so's the story I took it from.)
But I don't see the two connected in quite that fashion. The best thing I could come up with was that the sentence says precicely this:
"His twin brother died there along with two others whom he had personally welcomed into the house"
Perhaps an illustration of the lack of closure at the loss?

[Merouda]

I had been wondering whether footnote 358 on page 385 might be relevant to the case of the missing full stop. It mentions that “while bits and pieces of these readings still circulate, they have yet to appear anywhere in their entirety”, although I think it’s probably bit of a stretch to relate this to an absent punctuation mark. Perhaps something else is missing? Maybe another clause to the sentence, or another line or so to the paragraph? I can’t, however, see any indication that the sentence and paragraph aren’t complete, apart from the lack of full stop.

I much prefer your idea that the missing full stop could be illustrative of lack of closure. That makes more sense to me. Thank you.

[OriginalIdea]

Actually, you raise a good point. This 'lack of a full stop' occurs within one of the three theories. They haven't, yet, been published in their entirety, maybe there is something missing.

Something else I just thought of: The unfinished sentence is one where it is being pointed out the people that died due to Navidson's own invitation. We've already got a number of examples of Johnny Truant altering the text. Page 552 has a note (in Johnny's font) where he mensions changing the text to include the deaths of the two children. Perhaps page 386 is the result of Johnny actually changing the text and then deleting the change, somehow. A change that the Editors, then, do not catch.

[MoleculaRR]

This reminds me of a story I think I saw on Reading Rainbow one time (so it may or may not be an actual Chinese folktale). There's a kid (I think it's set in China, but I could be wrong) who either is magical or has a magical paintbrush. He's a really good painter, and when he finishes painting whatever he has painted comes to life. He doesn't want people to know about his power so, he always paints things with something missing.

One day, he paints a crane, but leaves out the eye. Somebody startles him and he accidentally drops a blob of ink where the eye should be. The crane comes to life and everyone finds out about his ability. I don't remember what happens after that.

I couldn't find the actual name of the story, or anyone else's version on the web, so that'll have to do for now (unless anyone else knows what I'm talking about). There is, of course, a large, mysterious period on pg. 709 which could be a belated attempt to fill in the gap. Plus, there seems to be a lot of accidental ink throughout.

It's probably not an intentional tie-in, but it's an interesting story anyway.

[OriginalIdea]

No, no. I like that. To use that story as an analogy is to say that House of Leaves is intentionally incomplete; if it were, the answer would be given away [too easily].

I had kind of seen some symbolism on page 709, a filled circle at the top, a hollow one at the bottom. "doesn't reach the ground ... Its roots must hold the sky."
Now if the dot at the top is a period, you could say that it is the last punctuation mark, but Yggdrasil comes after that. That even after everything you consider, Yggdrasil is still the bottom line.

[Stencil]

I didn't find an appropriately relevant place to post the first one, but on page 386, there's no period after the word house where it ends the last full paragraph on the page.

This (http://houseofleaves.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1837) could possibly be of some use.

[OriginalIdea]

Nice. Thanks. I'm going to have to read through that. I do have something else to add to this (was listening to Exploration Z again), but I'd like to read through that thread, first.

[fearful_syzygy]

There is a full stop (period) after house on p. 386 in the UK Edition. So the simple answer is that it's a typo in the US (Blue) Edition (MoleculaRR, can you verify that it's missing in the red edition as well?). But then since when are there any simple answers? This is, after all, not the only incongruity between the B&W and colour editions. I suppose you could argue that they simply forgot to print the tick on p. 97 in the former...

[pwhite]

I have the red edition from the later print run, and the period is there. So yes, definitely a typo.

[Merouda]

Thank you for mentioning that, f_s and pwhite.

I hadn't thought to take a look at my black and white Dutch edition. It doesn't normally help much. Had I looked, I would have noticed that there is, indeed, a full stop in the appropriate place.

[OriginalIdea]

Oh, boooo.

And I was about to comment on the interesting reference in TNR during Exploration A:
Still, no matter how far Navidson proceeds down this particular passageway, his light never comes close to touching the punctuation point promised by the converging perspective lines, ...Oh, well. It was almost interesting.

[MoleculaRR]

Yeah, I guess I should have looked sooner. My Red's got the period. Wait, actually, so does my Blue (though I think it's the later Blue printing). Both of the period's look odd, though, like they were added in later by hand.

Anyway, I don't necessarily think that because the printings are different that the first one is a typo. Even if it is, it's still worthing talking about.

[OriginalIdea]

I don't know why, but I only just remembered this:

Was talking with—I believe—fatwoul some time ago about things missing, house in black, etc.; and it was said that these were, indeed, mistakes corrected in later editions.

Mine is 13th, bought ordered in late '04, and still has the black house on p. 708. Did I just get a fluke of a reprinting, or are some of these actually supposed to be this way?

[MoleculaRR]

Did I just get a fluke of a reprinting, or are some of these actually supposed to be this way?

What would be the difference? Shouldn't someone also "correct" Johnny's little lies or Pelafina's <strike>pronunciation</strike> punctuation (oops)?

The point is just that this book's apparent errata are what make it what it is to a great extent. That's one of my favorite things about it. So whether typos are intentional or not, your interpretation of the text in the form that you received it is perfectly valid.

[OriginalIdea]

(There's one big spoiler thing in the end, but it's hidden. Other than that, there are little details that don't mean anything until you know their context.)

Point taken.

But the inconsistencies within editions is liable to drive me nuts.

As far as things that should be corrected in terms of Johnny's lies or... Pelafina's what? No. Those are parts of the story. But things that would seem to have been fixed—that I still have in my copy—would now seem to have been confirmed as error (in so much as later editions have 'fixed' these errors). This makes me have a whole different set of questions.

Different example: the misspelling of Pelafina's last name in the letter the Director wrote to Johnny. If there hadn't been a [sic] right next to that error; then in a later edition the spelling error was gone. Then in yet another edition it had returned.

I'd suppose, in this instance (the real one/s), it might have been something that someone other than MZD thought needed to be fixed, then MZD saw what had been done and had the book reprinted with those errors back in place.

Or MZD may have changed it, then changed it back on his own—perhaps to point it out a little less obviously than 'kye' on p. 61.

The inside of the house is, after all, black in its true form. Perhaps it is the very last instance of the word in the end of the book that is black is the same sort of thing he's done to us in the rest of the book. We've gotten used to some strange detail, then there's something completely different—like the window Navidson eventually finds and climbs through; after all those unlocked doors and open doorways.

[MoleculaRR]

Different example: the misspelling of Pelafina's last name in the letter the Director wrote to Johnny. If there hadn't been a [sic] right next to that error; then in a later edition the spelling error was gone. Then in yet another edition it had returned.

Just to be clear, you're imagining a hypothetical, right? Both my copy's have [sic]'s.

Basically I think the way to address this is not to wonder about MZD's intention. The fact that his control over the text is in question (that is, there are at least two possible ways of explaing the origin of the error) is "the point" as far as I'm concerned.

The problem with putting too much stock in authorial intention is that it's always limiting. From our point of view as interpretors, we could never know enough about MZD to explain everything in the novel. He himself couldn't either. From his point of view, what if he did decide to tell us what he meant by everything? Imagine he makes a public announcement saying that we're all wrong, House of Leaves is really about ___________ . That would mean either that we're all too dumb to get it or MZD is too poor an author to get his point across. Since I suspect neither conclusion is true, I think it's best not to figure out what he meant or whether certain errors are intentional or not. The fact that discrepancies exist, and that these discrepancies may activate multiple re-interpretations, indicates the power of this text to undermine the sense in which an author (any author) is a distinct, ineffable entity wholly other from me.

All I'm saying is don't let the inconsistencies drive you nuts.

[MoleculaRR]

By the way, you mention you have the 13th printing (you said edition earlier, but surely you mean printing?) How exactly does one determine which printing one has?

The only difference I can see between my two copies is different numbers below <strike>First Edition</strike> on the back of the title page. I assume there's a system, but I can't figure it out. Google isn't helping.

[OriginalIdea]

All I'm saying is don't let the inconsistencies drive you nuts.See, now, if you'd started with this one, I'd have understood you a lot quicker. ;)

But I see your point.

And: Yes. The [sic] error I was talking about was meant as a hypothetical.

[OriginalIdea]

By the way, you mention you have the 13th printing (you said edition earlier, but surely you mean printing?) How exactly does one determine which printing one has?

The only difference I can see between my two copies is different numbers below <strike>First Edition</strike> on the back of the title page. I assume there's a system, but I can't figure it out. Google isn't helping.
Yeah, I did mean the printing. On the page with all the copyright information et cetera, there's a series of numbers counting down. (I actually learned about this after I started coming to the forum.)

The numbers in my book are:

20 19 18 17 16 15 14

If I'm not mistaken it means I have the 13th printing. As I was told, the numbers in the first printing of the 2nd edition appeared thus:

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

I'd seen these numbers all the time and never knew what they meant.

[MoleculaRR]

So mine say:

(Red) - 3 5 7 9 B 8 6 4 2 1

and

(Blue) - 9 8 7 6

What does that mean? In yours it looks like you just subtract one from the last number, but that doesn't make sense for my red one.

[John B.]

The lowest number SHOWING indicates the printing you have of that edition.

[OriginalIdea]

Here. (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8785&highlight=#8785)

[MoleculaRR]

Here. (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8785&highlight=#8785)

Yeah, I found that after posting, but it doesn't quite clear things up for me. It looks like I have a 6th printing (blue), and a 1st printing (red) but if I understand correctly, then it appears that the blue and red sequences are numbered separately. Typically, a publisher would only separately identify different editions. Also, what's with the B? I've read a few explanations of these numbering systems, and none mention numbers + letters, though most said something like, "Every publisher does things differently."

[OriginalIdea]

Yeah, that whole 'B' thing is something I'm leaving to someone who might already know. I looked it up a bit, too, and couldn't find anything.

[MoleculaRR]

I decided to just take a shot at asking someone at Pantheon if they could clear this up, so I sent an e-mail to their publicity contact, and received the following, kind reply:

Yes, the "blue" edition with the "9 8 7 6" means it's a sixth printing of what the author refers to as the "2nd edition," (i.e., our Pantheon edition).

The number line 3 5 7 9 B 8 6 4 2 1 on the "red" edition means it's the 11th
printing of our Pantheon edition. We didn't differentiate between the "blue"
and the "red" editions in determining the number of printings. There was only
one printing of the "red" edition in paperback, which was the 11th printing
of our Pantheon book.

So this doesn't explain the B exactly, but it clears up a great deal about the printings. I was honestly surprised to get this reply at all, so I will bake a cake for this anonymous individual if I ever meet him/her.

This reminds me that I want to start one of those "keep adding to the first post" threads where I chart out the printings and editions with their various discrepancies and oddities. Maybe I'll start that tomorrow. . .

[zakalwe]

Go for it MoleculaRR, I'd certainly be interested in a definitive print history of the text.

[zakalwe]

Just...one...more...pointless...post

Ah! Echoes!

[MoleculaRR]

Just...one...more...pointless...post

Ah! Echoes!

Yeah, I just got me one of those extra light bulbs, too. I guess that means we're "married" in forum lingo. :roll:

[fearful_syzygy]

Ah! Echoes!
The blushing bride, eh?

I'm slightly disappointed your last 1/4" post wasn't on the subject of skinning cats, though, to be honest... :roll:

[zakalwe]

I guess that means we're "married" in forum lingo

I couldn't ask for a more articulate, thoughtful spouse. I'll leave you to claim "husband" or "wife". Do we divorce and remarry if we reach 1000 at different times? In which case, who gets to keep the House? :D


I'm slightly disappointed your last 1/4" post wasn't on the subject of skinning cats, though, to be honest...

Soon, my precious, soon. (I lost the thread...)

EDIT- if you sort members by number of posts (descending), you will discover that a "vonderbra" is sandwiched between us. Is it yours? (Also i am right next to FallingQuarters, which is unnerving...)

[OriginalIdea]

So this doesn't explain the B exactly, but it clears up a great deal about the printings.Wait, B in Hex, is 11 in Dec. I don't know why that wasn't more obvious to any of us.

EDIT: As no one has commented on this, yet: Maybe I'm the only one who didn't recognize that right away.

[HeadlessSamurai]

Backing things up a bit, and not talking about printing numbers or editions or such.....
About the missing period on p. 386... Everyone seems to agree this was an "actual" typo, but there is another instance of this. On p. 362, ironically at the end of the Stephen King quote, he says "I'd like to see this house"

Don't have any ideas what it's about, or if there even is a reason for it, but I thought I'd point it out. I looked a bit, and found places where house ends a sentence/paragraph, and has a period, so it's not a universal thing (if it were, I'm sure everyone would have noticed it by now). Perhaps it is a clue to something else (another coded message thingy)? The idea posted earlier about King's use of non-punctuated sentences to lead into flashbacks may offer some clue, or maybe not ending the sentences is merely a symbol for the in limitlessness of the house

[fearful_syzygy]

On p. 362, ironically at the end of the Stephen King quote, he says "I'd like to see this House"
And on the previous page, at the end of Wozniak's quote, there is no full stop either. In the blue edition that is.
In the B/W edition there's a full stop after both of those houses.

[OriginalIdea]

For Pete's sake; why didn't I find those examples months ago when I was actually looking for more examples of a missing full stop?

I suppose it would have driven me nuts then, but now I'm used to this sort of thing.

Perhaps there's something to be found in cross-referencing some of the specifics surrounding each of these instances. My first idea is that there's some kind of hint that might have something to do with those things 'set in the future' we're also looking for.

[sutrix]

My stupid sutrix two cents: what if those missing periods are part of some morse code?

Nah, I'm only kidding.

Random guess, though: Johnny screws his punctuations up quite often, doesn't he? So what if these missing periods are more signs supporting the single author theory?