a Christian take on House?

[mlhill]

hey all . . been lurking here for a while (since i finished House) and signed up mainly to see if anyone has any thoughts on House from a specifically Christian perspective . . my thoughts are laid out in a little more detail in an article I wrote (pasting the text below, since i can’t add a link) . . and i'd love any comments on that, but basically my personal take is that House presents (brilliantly and uniquely) a godless worldview--no objectivity, no concrete meaning to life, etc.--and doesn't really offer much in the way of how to respond to that worldview . . . from my pov, this is a good jumping-off-point for a faith like Christianity to offer an alternative, like Kierkegaard style . . (don't forget, the father of existentialism was also a Christian) . .

anyway, anyone interested in this potential discussion, thanks!


(below is the aforementioned review . . from a site called hollywoodjesus)


In the spirit of this book, an experimental “review” (with no further explanation other than what’s next and this strong personal opinion: that this book must be read as a beginning to something, rather than an end): what follows is two different sets of thoughts about House, both by me about a week or so apart, one posted to goodreads when I first finished the book, one posted on a site called storypraxis in response to the prompt “never get out of this maze” . . .


wow . . quite a thing . . as complicated as he makes the book (on purpose) it’s clear what you’re left with: the world is confusing and dark and bleak and there is no true meaning and God is dead etc. etc. . . . and even when he tries to hold on to something hopeful at the end, that last chapter nails it shut: we’re like children playing at halloween . . but what actually means something is that deserted road, as he says . . kind of a depressing book, really, but nonetheless very impressive . . and the thing is: i agree 100 percent with everything he says . . given his worldview, his analysis is spot-on . . of course, i’d say–esp. given how obviously *sad* he is about said analysis–one’s reaction should be to *question the worldview in question* . . if we’re going to deconstruct everything, how bout deconstructing that? . . for me, this book is like a really good example of the end of postmodernism/relativism/atheism/etc. . . it shouldn’t make us say, “oh, okay then, i guess that’s it” and suffer (as he says) on . . it should instead make us move to that post-postmodern necessity: hope/faith in the midst of the labyrinth . . and i don’t mean just doing it as a coping mechanism, but i mean really seeking and embracing something *real* that is hopeful/meaningful, and by this i mean God of course . . .


///


this guy i know just recently finished reading a book called House of Leaves by a guy i don’t know by the name of Mark Z. Danielewski and it was quite a thing let me tell you.


the book is basically about another guy i don’t know–can’t know, as he’s not real, but only a character in this book that a guy i know just finished reading–who finds a maze inside his house in which he eventually becomes lost for a period, perhaps never to get out.


but, spoiler alert, he actually does get out eventually, though how this exactly happens is as up-for-grabs as everything else in this book i’m referring to, which was recently finished by a guy i know, written by a guy i don’t know, about another guy i can’t know, nor can you, unless you happened to be another character from the book in question, which would be ca-razy.


anyway, the book isn’t *just* about this whole business of the maze . . . it isn’t just this enthralling pseudo-horror-suspense tale, this kafkaesque thingy, this portentous happening . . . it’s also a kind-of, you know, unpacking of academia, postmodernism, slash, (de)constructionism, slash, epistemology slash derrida slash derring-do slash wittgensteineanisms and it’s kind of, really, if you really want to know about this book a guy i know just finished reading, mainly about how there’s <s>no god and no meaning</s>, but that you, spoiler alert, should go on anyhow, and with passion, which means suffering, Mark Z. tells the guy who read the book, and now you, through me, through the guy.


it also does lots of artsy things–this book, i mean–like streamofconsciousnesswritinglikethis, like using concrete poetry when you’d expect prose, and different colored text to denote different things, and copious footnotes sometimes referring to nothing, like imaginary books and people places things and so on, which can be disorienting, but is generally impressive, and does (admittedly) add to the whole experience being attempted, dovetailing with the whole <s>no-god-no-meaning</s> thing


really though . . . when it comes to this guy reading a book about a guy involving a guy who does, in fact, get out of the maze . . . and when it comes to the whole
<s>no
god
no
meaning</s>
thing


i’m just not so sure.


and the guy who just recently finished the book by the guy isn’t so sure, nor were the characters, who really, actually, sure seemed to care, first of all, as did Mark Z., i think (through the guy), because otherwise, hey, <s>“why so serious?”</s> if it’s all just a house of leaves?

[John B.]

milhill,

Thanks for this post. I think you're onto something via mentioning Kierkegaard, whose thought and faith (to the extent that I understand what I've read of him) begin precisely with that sense of staring into the metaphysical abyss.

I would politely take issue, though--or, rather, tweak just a bit--your suggestion that the novel's theme (or "The Navidson Record"'s theme) is "no god no meaning." As I and others have said in various ways and in various places in this forum, surely one of the points of those exhaustive lists in Chapter IX is, by showing us what the house does not resemble or contain and, yet, there it is, the only void that remains is our capacity to make rational sense of this physically-impossible-yet-nevertheless-present structure. The only word left to describe such a thing is "God,", no? That is Navidson's word, and though he may mean it in a different sense than you, his sense nevertheless incorporates, I think, the House's (and God's) inexplicable-yet-present is-ness.

So, no: Navidson may not find God or even hope by his tale's end, but think of how the book of Jonah ends: literally, with a question that Jonah must ponder. We do not know his answer to that question--or, for that matter, whether Jonah ever comes up with an answer. Thus, God poses it to us as well. And as Thomas Merton famously said, "The question is the answer."

Maybe "The Navidson Record" is a really long allegorizing of "I am what I am."

In case you haven't seen it, you might also enjoy having a look at the Hey Zeus (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3655) thread.

[heartbreak]

Interesting post John.

It reminds me of something I was thinking of in regards to our conversation about Ed and Johnny questioning the reader's existence.

Did the Editors and Johnny ever question our existence or did we do so only because we didn't understand the complex relationship between VEM and the other writings it appears in?

Does God actually pose the question or do we pose it for God? Do we ask the question due to our lack of understanding of the abyss we ponder?

[John B.]

Interesting post John.

It reminds me of something I was thinking of in regards to our conversation about Ed and Johnny questioning the reader's existence.

Did the Editors and Johnny ever question our existence or did we do so only because we didn't understand the complex relationship between VEM and the other writings it appears in?

Does God actually pose the question or do we pose it for God? Do we ask the question due to our lack of understanding of the abyss we ponder?

In case anyone's interested, here's where that conversation occurs (http://www.houseofleaves.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6235).

In the Book of Jonah, it's God who poses the question I was referring to. But I take your point, though: God has to pose it to Jonah in the first place because Jonah doesn't understand why God chooses to spare the lives of the Ninevites, people who are avowed enemies of the Hebrews, God's chosen people. So, it's Jonah's incomprehension--his question--that prompts God's question.

[heartbreak]

Thanks for posting the link to the thread John, I should have done that.

What I was trying to get across is that where does Jonah hear the voice of God? Is it inside his head? Is it out loud? If God speaks to him within his head, is it truly God speaking to him or is it his own perception of the situation raising these questions?

Just as it was our perception that Ed and Johnny could have been questioning the reader's existence, but did they ever actually have such a question or was it our own perception/our unknowing of VEM that raised the question within us?

[John B.]

What I was trying to get across is that where does Jonah hear the voice of God? Is it inside his head? Is it out loud? If God speaks to him within his head, is it truly God speaking to him or is it his own perception of the situation raising these questions?

Jonah, ch. 4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah+4&version=NIV). God speaks in many different ways in the Bible; whether in Jonah's head or out loud, though, the text makes pretty clear that they are having a conversation.

And I misspoke a while ago: Jonah clearly had not wanted the Ninevites to be spared God's wrath, which is why he went to the ocean in the first place (and was swallowed by the whale): 4:1 says he had known God, being merciful, would spare the Ninevites if they repented of their evil. What Jonah can't comprehend is why God now chooses to spare Jonah's life, given that he had so blatantly disobeyed God.


Just as it was our perception that Ed and Johnny could have been questioning the reader's existence, but did they ever actually have such a question or was it our own perception/our unknowing of VEM that raised the question within us?

Here (speaking for myself), the question gets raised within me. We have knowledge of all the personages in all these books (no matter their relationship to each other), but it doesn't follow that they have knowledge of us.

[mlhill]

hey . . thanks for the thoughtful responses and links . . i'm so glad to not have immediate flaming happening here . . i can tell you, as someone who has brought up "the God issue" in other forums, in other contexts, those trolls can be quick and merciless . . whether this indicates hope for the internet, the world at large, or just fans of this book, idk, but it's nice . .

that being said, i do like what's been brought up re: interactions between readers/characters/authors . . i actually kind of played around with that in the article i pasted in (a guy who knows a guy, etc.) . . and while i agree that these kinds of ambiguities are interesting/important, i do want to note a distinction between "just theorizing" and what i consider to be the live, very practical, obviously relevant, and potentially simple (at least in the asking) question of God's existence and what follows from how we answer that question for issues of meaning, like House makes central . . .

i agree that the house can be seen as analogous to God and vice versa and that the book, at least implicitly, invites seeking (Jonah's hanging question, etc.) . . it *can* in other words lead to a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" in the face of angst/the abyss/etc. . . that's what i'm sort of positing as what could (and, i think, should) be the start of a Christian take or response or approach or use of House . . but i guess i'm still pretty confident that the book itself doesn't indicate this move . . actually, i feel like it hits that moment of despair and then just kind of sits there and ends with it . . that deserted road, those "playing kids," that rootless tree, just suspended in space . . you know what i'm talking about . .

and so, theorizing aside, i still think the simple issue is: what is the response to this presentation of House's of the world as rootless, necessarily subjective, objectively meaningless, etc., etc., and how/when/does God become involved actually, practically, beyond just theory/myth/metaphor/etc., but as a possible (respectfully) real "fix" for what seems to be an obviously undesirable actual situation otherwise? . . .

[John B.]

mlhill,

I think it's true of this forum that, though not not all of us are adherents of a religion (or even agnostic, for that matter), we can a) recognize intellectually-legitimate questions regarding this novel that are b) asked in a serious way. So, no flaming here.

I agree with you that, from a Christian perspective, TNR isn't the most life-affirming text out there. But I think that's one reason why your mentioning Kierkegaard in your first post seemed (and seems) so relevant. The first thing I thought of was (full disclosure) the only Kierkegaard I've read in full, Fear and Trembling, which begins with multiple readings of the Abraham and Isaac ("eye sack") story. Let's just say that some of those readings would not get preached on from many Sunday-morning pulpits that I can imagine. And a point about my mentioning Jonah earlier is that, sure, God's question to Jonah is rhetorical, but it's not necessarily a given that Jonah (or the people of Israel, the first audience for all stories of prophecy in the Old Testament) will answer as they are "supposed" to answer. My point is that, though there's no obvious rainbow at the end of TNR, maybe what's going on here is something like what I read yesterday is the usual understanding of the Talmud: that the world to come will be like this one, only a little different--that little difference, though, being all the difference. Perhaps in Navy's closer bond to Karen and his children we have something like that difference. Sure: there's literal darkness; but the Navidsons do, after all, survive a House that was well along the way to consuming them figuratively and, towards the end, literally.

I'll have to think on this a little (really, a lot) further, but I'll toss it out here: There's a whole lot of "Bible" in TNR, but as I quickly run through TNR in my mind, it's much more OT than NT--in other word, its engagement is through a Jewish than a Christian filter. Off the top of my head (and I hope someone will correct me on this), I can't think of a single directly NT reference in it; they're all from the OT. Remembering that (assuming it's true) is important for thinking about those references; reading them through a Jewish lens will create subtle but crucial differences as compared to reading them through a Christian lens.

A quick illustration: a couple of years ago via my blog, I met a rabbi, to whom one day I apologized for not having posted in a while. He said there was no need to apologize; I said I know, it was "that whole Original Sin thing" that led me to feel guilty. He said, "Oh. Well, I wouldn't know anything about that."

[heartbreak]

The only possible NT reference that I can think of at the moment is Hey Zeus.

[John B.]

The only possible NT reference that I can think of at the moment is Hey Zeus.

That little pun right there is a good (if reductive) example of the distinction between the Christian and Jewish perspectives on the OT. I'm speaking specifically of the Christian impulse to read the OT typologically--that is, to see events in the OT as prefigurements of the NT or, alternately, to be fulfilled or in some way mitigated by Jesus. If not for at least a cultural knowledge of the Christian lens (plus a little knowledge of Spanish pronunciation), "Hey Zeus" wouldn't even be a pun, much less a humorous one. Without that knowledge, though, "Zeus" would be read as he in fact was read by early Christians: as a pagan equivalent of Yahweh.

But if these are the lengths to which we have to go to find a NT reference in TNR, that seems pretty significant.

(Edited to correct an error.)

[heartbreak]

Zeus, Father of Gods.
Hey Zeus, son of God.
Reminds me of names like Richardson, son of Richard.

Hey Zeus is not the only time that Jesus comes up in HoL. There are a handful of instances where characters take his name in vain and on page 121, Z uses a quote from John Chapter 14:

In my Father's <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font> are
many rooms: if it were not
so, I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you ...

[mlhill]

the story about the rabbi is funny and insightful, but i guess (ignoring obvious terminological differences, etc. . . stuff like "original sin") i'd tend to see OT and NT views of the world as essentially similar . . more specifically--and this is my perspective as a christian, of course--i'd tend to see the NT as "jewish" in the first place , or as the natural conclusion/fulfillment/etc. of the OT . . you mention a christian "impulse" to see the two texts as related in this way, but i'd submit that even a cursory reading of the NT indicates that no impulse is needed--it presents itself this way pretty clearly and philosophically/historically makes sense that way regardless . . .

the real important thing, to me, is that both christian and jewish perspectives, even understood (as you may be doing) as essentially different, are both (at least) obviously theistic and obviously concerned with redemption or setting-wrong-things-right or God's eventual triumph, etc. . . and this is precisely the thing that House seems to explicitly deny or exclude (the rootless tree), thereby *implicitly* leaving a "door open" for the return of that meaning-giving, context-giving, root-giving God . . .

i still think all this intertextualizing and wondering about how House sees the OT vs. the NT, etc., is (humbly and respectfully and hopefully) missing the point .. in the largest sense, it *just doesn't matter* how House sees the Bible, sees God, issues related to God, and so on . . these issues matter anyway and their relevance, the question of God's existence, how we respond, the effects, etc., are only underlined by how they're treated in novels like this . . .

to bottom line it at the risk of redundancy/reductionism: if one possible reading of House is that it presents a godless and meaningless world, what do we think about that possible reality? . . what does that do re: consideration of the possibility of God and that meaning/context/objectivity/etc. may be found in God?

[John B.]

Zeus, Father of Gods.
Hey Zeus, son of God.
Reminds me of names like Richardson, son of Richard.

Hey Zeus is not the only time that Jesus comes up in HoL. There are a handful of instances where characters take his name in vain and on page 121, Z uses a quote from John Chapter 14:

In my Father's <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> are
many rooms: if it were not
so, I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you ...


Good catch, hb.

Some context: John 14 occurs in the Upper Room where the Last Supper occurs; Jesus is trying to reassure the disciples that his coming death will not be the end, that he will be returning. On p. 121 of HoL, meanwhile, Z refers us to Navy's letter to Karen (pp. 389-393), sections of which read like ironic paraphrases of John 14 (this will deserve some close attention from us in this thread).

Also of interest here is that which precedes the letter, the discussion of the Bister-Frieden-Josephson Criteria (this begins on p. 386), which is, as I understand the paraphrasing here, a reading of TNR that's analogous to a basic Christian understanding of the Bible (the episode with Delial is analogous to Christians' reading Adam and Eve's disobedience as Original Sin; Navy's returning to the <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> is his seeking to redeem himself (here, the parallels with the Christian understanding of the meaning of Jesus get a bit confused: Is Navy analogous to Jesus, or to humankind?). Finally, via the BFJ Criteria is the Latin phrase Noli me tangere--the resurrected Jesus' words to Mary Magdalene by the tomb (John 20:17) . . . or some of them.

So: I see I was a bit off in my saying there's little to no NT texture to TNR--in the BFJ Criteria and in Z.'s noting the echoes from John 14, at least, you can't get more Christian-centric than that.

[mlhill]

mlhill,
My point is that, though there's no obvious rainbow at the end of TNR, maybe what's going on here is something like what I read yesterday is the usual understanding of the Talmud: that the world to come will be like this one, only a little different--that little difference, though, being all the difference. Perhaps in Navy's closer bond to Karen and his children we have something like that difference. Sure: there's literal darkness; but the Navidsons do, after all, survive a House that was well along the way to consuming them figuratively and, towards the end, literally.


one more thing re: the above .. i guess i'm not fully sure i'm following the thread that leads from Kierkegaard to Jonah to the ending of House . . Kierkegaard's main contribution to this conversation, and the reason i brought him up, has to do with his view that a "leap of faith" is what is required in a life that presents itself as angst/abyss (exactly what i think House represents) . . .

as far as how you're reading the end of House, i know you're trying to "be positive" :), but forget about this discussion and honestly say that you think that ending is positive . . . i think, if House does present any kind of redemption/meaning/light at the end, it's nevertheless couched in the author's insistence that life *really*--beyond our myths, facades, or whatever else we use to try to cope and understand (like comprehension of the house it attempted)--is suffering, that even our bonds to family are fleeting, that we're like children playing halloween (i think religion itself, which Danielewski knows is a possible "escape," is possibly directly in mind here) . . . and, to me, the coup de grace is that rootless tree i keep coming back to . . being the "last words" in the book, maybe i'm giving it too much credence, but it's a powerful picture that i think perfectly sums up what the book's going for . . . again, my point is: i agree that life and the world can *appear* that way, but i wonder if there aren't roots to be found in God and (to bring up an issue that i raised in my original article and which i think you're echoing) i wonder whether our natural/intuitive reactions to that rootless tree aren't a clue to its veracity anyway . . .

[John B.]

the real important thing, to me, is that both christian and jewish perspectives, even understood (as you may be doing) as essentially different, are both (at least) obviously theistic and obviously concerned with redemption or setting-wrong-things-right or God's eventual triumph, etc. . . and this is precisely the thing that <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> seems to explicitly deny or exclude (the rootless tree), thereby *implicitly* leaving a "door open" for the return of that meaning-giving, context-giving, root-giving God . . .

i still think all this intertextualizing and wondering about how <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> sees the OT vs. the NT, etc., is (humbly and respectfully and hopefully) missing the point .. in the largest sense, it *just doesn't matter* how <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> sees the Bible, sees God, issues related to God, and so on . . these issues matter anyway and their relevance, the question of God's existence, how we respond, the effects, etc., are only underlined by how they're treated in novels like this . . .

to bottom line it at the risk of redundancy/reductionism: if one possible reading of <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> is that it presents a godless and meaningless world, what do we think about that possible reality? . . what does that do re: consideration of the possibility of God and that meaning/context/objectivity/etc. may be found in God?

You and I were posting at the same time, mlhill; my previous post, I think, responds in part to yours, though.

Here's a further reply, though: Religion (of whatever sort) is not the world, but a reading of and response to that world--just as atheism is. There's no direct empirical evidence for God's existence (or non-existence, for that matter); the claim that God exists is an interpretation of what believers see in the world. Writing my previous post helped clarify for me (yet again) something that is important to be clear about with regard to TNR: There is the film itself, and there is what people say about it. The film itself, editing aside, seems a straightforward documentary about the events in the House; clearly, though, there is in Navy and in some of those offering readings of the film an impulse to understand TNR in various supernatural terms, one version of those terms being Judeo-Christian tradition. Granted, it doesn't appear that TNR (either the film or the accompanying commentary) comes firmly down on the side of saying that God is in His Heaven and all is right with the world. I don't see how that fact prevents us from understanding either in those terms, though--certainly, there's evidence in the texts themselves that some people seek to understand all this (or some of it) in hopeful (Christian-speaking) terms. Consider the physical world: the world in and of itself does not tell us that it is God's handiwork. To make that claim is to impose a reading on it.

To my mind, TNR is, if not jump-up-and-down joyful, it is affirming of Mystery, of the unknown and the suspicion that some of the unknown will always remain unknowable. To accept and embrace that is always a first step toward finding God.

[mlhill]

ok good . . agreed to all of the above . . if we both arrive at the point where we say the world is mysterious and that accepting that may begin a journey to understanding it, then i think we're good . . this is my issue with House and why i think seeing it as a beginning rather than an end is important . . i fear that some may get to the end, take that reading as gospel, and be done . . i think it better serves us as invitation than answer . .

whether anyone here wants to actually pursue that agreed-upon journey, then . . .

[heartbreak]

To my mind, TNR is, if not jump-up-and-down joyful, it is affirming of Mystery, of the unknown and the suspicion that some of the unknown will always remain unknowable. To accept and embrace that is always a first step toward finding God.


... the world is mysterious and that accepting that may begin a journey to understanding it ...

Tying in with both of you are some thoughts I have been having lately and some stuff I thought about awhile ago.

The <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font></font> is god.
The <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font></font> is the abyss.
God is the abyss.
The abyss is what is unknown.
God is what is unknown.

But what is unknown? Is something that is unknown currently always going to be unknown? When something goes from being unknown to known does God change? What if one person knows something and the other person doesn't? Is God, than, just a personal set of the unknown?

In order to come to an understanding of anything one must first realize they do not understand it, otherwise there would be no reason to attempt understanding.

If one realizes they do not understand something, should they not bother trying because of the possibility that it is unknowable?

I would also like to recall something I said in another post.


We categorize and measure everything not out of fear of the unknown, the abyss, but because we can, because by doing so helps us to survive. Spelunkers do not explore caves because they fear what is inside of them, they explore because they can, because they want to know. That is why they peer into the cave, that is why we peer into the abyss. The abyss is without knowable dimensions. It is either large or small or somewhere in between relative to the scope of human knowledge. If existence is finite then the abyss is always shrinking as we learn more and more. If existence is infinite, then so is the abyss. It's size will neither grow nor shrink, it will always be infinite.

There are things in <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font> of Leaves that are known, thus the entire thing can not represent the unknown, so only part of it represents the abyss. To that I ask, what part is unknowable?

[Splendorr]

One of the things that Danielewski tries to do, mlhill, is deliberately confound many of the usual positive/negative connotations of words like darkness, roots, fear, cat, inside/outside, etc. The Christian perspective, in my extensive personal experience, tends to come down pretty firmly on what words mean and what they denote. MZD seems to be suggesting that words are doing and can do a lot more than just what they "mean." That may be outside the scope of this conversation, but I don't think so.

Your perception of God as "root-giving" is particularly interesting to me.

By trying to bottom-line it, you're warping the book in a way that it really can't be; it's too complicated for that. In the same way (not that I'm directly comparing these two books) that you can't really "bottom-line" the Bible by saying, "It's about God's love." Or anything else. Because it's also about the history of an ethnic/religious group, their laws, etc.; and it's about the histories of individuals and their stories; it contains prophecy, murder, incest, food, whales, confusion, doubt, poetry, love...

Any "bottom-lining" is, I respectfully submit, simplification of any text in favor of a particular interpretation, rather than an accurate summation of that text. Which can make discussion a lot more complicated, but ultimately more rewording.

I mean, rewarding!

A little more time exploring these forums, I think, will reveal many, many other "bottom-lines" that other people have found (and then usually discarded), which indicates that <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font></font> of Leaves is a book of sufficient complexity that it often acts as a Rorschach test. What the reader says about the book may reveal more about the reader than the book.

It's pretty clear that you have an interest in the Question of God, of where "meaning" comes from, and such related topics. Therefore, these are the questions you have about the book, because <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font></font> of Leaves gives you plenty of inroads along that line of inquiry. The very fact that you want "a Christian take" rather than (or perhaps in addition to) "your own take" on the book... that could be a really interesting thing to look at.

When I first read the book at 16, all of my revelations were text-oriented, about what can be done with a book, etc. In that case, my interpretation of the book was one of complete and unabashed lightness and hope, because it opened up an entirely new world of writing and reading to me. Since then there have been many other ways I've approached the book, many other questions and subjects and so on. As I have changed, so to has my approach to this and everything else changed.

So, bear that in mind when you use words like "subjectivity" and "objectivity," because (and this really is totally fine!) we are subjective creatures who impose our perspectives on the things we behold. As John said above, religion isn't the World, it's just one way of looking at the world.

Which is one of the big Things in <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font></font> of Leaves itself: how does each person respond to the <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font></font>?

All of that said, I'm totally down with this discussion; everything that's been raised so far is pretty interesting.

Yggdrasil isn't a rootless tree.
"It stands ten thousand feet high
But doesn't reach the ground. Still it stands.
Its roots must hold the sky.

O"

Which is very different indeed.

Here's a thread about roots elsewhere in the book. http://www.houseofleaves.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4242

Oh, and I completely agree with you that <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font></font> of Leaves is allways a beginning. Have you taken a look at any of Danielewski's other works yet? They continue this conversation in crucial ways.

And speaking of Mystery and spiritual perspectives, I've been thinking a good deal about Jelaluddin Rumi, Fana and Baqa, and what he might have to say about these books. That would be another thread, though.

[mlhill]

One of the things that Danielewski tries to do, mlhill, is deliberately confound many of the usual positive/negative connotations of words like darkness, roots, fear, cat, inside/outside, etc. The Christian perspective, in my extensive personal experience, tends to come down pretty firmly on what words mean and what they denote. MZD seems to be suggesting that words are doing and can do a lot more than just what they "mean." That may be outside the scope of this conversation, but I don't think so.

Your perception of God as "root-giving" is particularly interesting to me.
why?

By trying to bottom-line it, you're warping the book in a way that it really can't be; it's too complicated for that. In the same way (not that I'm directly comparing these two books) that you can't really "bottom-line" the Bible by saying, "It's about God's love." Or anything else. Because it's also about the history of an ethnic/religious group, their laws, etc.; and it's about the histories of individuals and their stories; it contains prophecy, murder, incest, food, whales, confusion, doubt, poetry, love...

Any "bottom-lining" is, I respectfully submit, simplification of any text in favor of a particular interpretation, rather than an accurate summation of that text. Which can make discussion a lot more complicated, but ultimately more rewording.

I mean, rewarding!
agreed to the above--things are affected by context and perspective and bottom-lining is difficult, etc. . . remember that i apologized for possibly being reductive but also that i wasn't trying to bottom-line the book itself, but this particular discussion about it . . i'm afraid that, if we're not careful, we'll get lost in that maze, end up missing the forest for the trees, pick your metaphor . . . also remember, it is exactly this "it's all contextual, perspectival, relative, etc." view that i think House presents, leading to the outcome i've described: no God, meaning, and so on . . . this is the view i'm trying to question and complicate here, because though i agree that it's accurate re: the way we experience the world and life, i don't think it's therefore the place to stop . . . Navidson's instinct to understand the House is spot-on because *there is a way to understand it* . . there simply *must* be . . and our drive to do so is an indicator of this - -



A little more time exploring these forums, I think, will reveal many, many other "bottom-lines" that other people have found (and then usually discarded), which indicates that House of Leaves is a book of sufficient complexity that it often acts as a Rorschach test. What the reader says about the book may reveal more about the reader than the book.

It's pretty clear that you have an interest in the Question of God, of where "meaning" comes from, and such related topics. Therefore, these are the questions you have about the book, because House of Leaves gives you plenty of inroads along that line of inquiry. The very fact that you want "a Christian take" rather than (or perhaps in addition to) "your own take" on the book... that could be a really interesting thing to look at.

When I first read the book at 16, all of my revelations were text-oriented, about what can be done with a book, etc. In that case, my interpretation of the book was one of complete and unabashed lightness and hope, because it opened up an entirely new world of writing and reading to me. Since then there have been many other ways I've approached the book, many other questions and subjects and so on. As I have changed, so to has my approach to this and everything else changed.

So, bear that in mind when you use words like "subjectivity" and "objectivity," because (and this really is totally fine!) we are subjective creatures who impose our perspectives on the things we behold. As John said above, religion isn't the World, it's just one way of looking at the world.

Which is one of the big Things in House of Leaves itself: how does each person respond to the House?
agreed again: we interpret House according to who we are, etc. . . how could we do otherwise? . . and, i'd say, i strive to match "my own take" with a "christian take," me being a christian and wanting my perspective to most accurately mirror that (for various not-necessarily-related reasons) . . not sure if that's "interesting," just someone trying to fully be what they believe they are fully to be . . .

what i'd say to you here is, echoing what i said above, on what seems to be your reading (of the book, probably (more importantly) more), the end result of no-objective-meaning is inescapable . . but this reading too is a view that i assume you hold to be "true" or "accurate" or something like that, right? . . if yes, then we move to where i've been suggesting: how do we react to that, does God become involved, etc. . . if no, then why hold or espouse it at all? . . again, it's what i was asking at the end of the original article i pasted: if Danielewski *really* believes and accepts the view that he seems to believe/accept based on House, then why doesn't he seem, i don't know, *happy* about it? . . . and if he isn't happy, why not consider alternatives?


All of that said, I'm totally down with this discussion; everything that's been raised so far is pretty interesting.

Yggdrasil isn't a rootless tree.
"It stands ten thousand feet high
But doesn't reach the ground. Still it stands.
Its roots must hold the sky.

O"

Which is very different indeed.
yeah, this seems like picking at a particular tree (hehe) again, instead of the forest . . we can play with words here, but i think it's clear that if there's no "ground," there aren't "roots" in the sense that i'm thinking of here (and i think Danielewski is clearly thinking of) . . besides, i still think House pretty obviously puts out the perspective i've been referring to . . and though the groundless tree (is that better? :) ) is a perfect metaphor for it, it's still there and still needs to be dealt with . .

[mlhill]

"It stands ten thousand feet high
But doesn't reach the ground. Still it stands.
Its roots must hold the sky.

O"

actually, now that you quote directly from the book, i think "groundless tree" *is* better than rootless . . as you say, there are roots (just not roots doing what they normally do) . . but more importantly, now that i'm thinking about it, there *is* ground . . maybe MDZ would even agree that there *is* ground--objectivity, capital-T-truth, capital-M-meaning, etc.--just that we, being situated on/in the tree, can't really get to it, since it isn't "rooted" there . . . now, of course, i might quibble and say that i think there is a way to get to that ground (surprise), but still: it's instructive that there is a ground there, even in the book, it's just not gotten to . . . hmm - -

one more thing, keeping with this tree stuff that i think is intriguing and works well re: understanding the "big picture" of House . . . since what we're really talking about here is the question of objective/subjective truth, whether there *is* objectivity, how one arrives there, etc., i've often thought about the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?" riddle in terms of this issue and in terms of God . . (not that i'm the first) . . my thinking on this always is that re: the tree, yes it makes a sound even w/o an observer, because God is the ever-present all-knowing observer of all . . and this--full-circling it--is why God is vital for objectivity, roots/and/or/ground, meaning, etc., like we've been talking about . . .

anyway, sorry to keep posting so much here . . seeing the quote here was helpful though - -

[Splendorr]

mlhill, please don't apologize for posting! These forums need more activity, in my opinion, and I'm glad you're part of it.

We're pretty clearly having a little difficulty based on some of these "root" terms: Truth, Meaning, "Groundedness," etc. And please allow me to make clear that, as contradictory and possibly combative as I will inevitably sound, I'm approaching you and this discussion as respectfully as I can, and that, were we talking in person, you might be pleasantly surprised at how kindly I'm saying things that could otherwise sound mean.

However, difference of usage is exactly and necessarily an element at work, here, and using words differently does not, in this context, put us at odds.

First question: if the sky is part of the world (which it is, right?), then what difference does it make regarding "groundedness" if the roots of this so-apparently-important tree-image "hold the ground" or if they "hold the sky?"

That's kind of a weird question to pose, and I don't have an immediate answer for it, either.

You have so far placed a strong emphasis on groundedness (in the sense of "stable footing," or "give (something abstract) a firm theoretical or practical basis," right?)

(Though let us recall, briefly, HoL p. 585, the obituary for Donnie __________, presumably Johnny's father. He was a "local pilot," flew planes for most of his life, but was "grounded" by the FAA because of a cardiac infarction he didn't even know had happened. Because of that "grounding," he was working for a trucking company, and then someone else fell asleep at the wheel and Donnie was killed. What MZD is constantly indicating, and what I'm trying diligently to reinforce, is that words often have multiple meanings, and that more often than not, more are relevant or applicable than the one you think you're using. Try to take this into account, though, and your capacity for communication swells and grows.)

and also on capitalized Truth, Meaning, Objectivity — and then you have said that, yes, a tree falling makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it, but God is there, and he is someone, the "ever-present, all-knowing observer of all" — an emphasis you place because you seem to want there to be something concrete beyond yourself, beyond humanity and the world and our limited perceptions and understanding*— something or someone whose eternality justifies everything else. Because, as you have suggested, without those concrete, objective, incontrovertible ideas — if those don't exist — then the next available perspective is necessarily one of meaninglessness, instability, worthlessness, and therefore pointlessness.

Am I misinterpreting you? Please let me know if I am.

Given that position, if <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font> of Leaves seems to offer up that meaninglessness as the universal condition, then that's, to you, a bogus conclusion.

This is really one of the classic discussions, re: God as you've portrayed Him.

Though we have to be careful around that topic!

You want God as groundedness, and you want groundedness because... why? These are deeper questions than what <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font> of Leaves is "about," but pertinent.

You want Truth, some objective, pre- and super-human Meaning... why?

And when I ask those questions, I'm not pre-supposing that you're wrong to want them. I just want to investigate the questions, because there's the possibility that some of your base assumptions are prejudicing you against what the book might be.

Here's one way to look at it: if God provides Meaning for your life, and then it turns out there's no God (at least in the form you've defined)(and presuming, of course, that this is even a relevant question), then you're left with... the same Nothing you were afraid God's absence indicated. Except that the Nothing is, of course, the Everything we've allways had.

Maybe this isn't even a question for you, maybe for you God is a foregone conclusion — but in that case, why are you so vigorously engaging the discussion?

And there's the question I put to myself almost ten years ago, as I became increasingly frustrated with and desperate to find the unfindable, unimpeachable Proof of God: "How much of my life do I want to dedicate to this same unprovable Proof?" The answer for me was, "No more."

Weirdly, I started to like God a lot more when I didn't care if He was real or not. That God is a lot more resistant to definition than most religious adherents would like to believe. Though maybe that's not the right way to put it, or a diversion from the topic. Humans are fluid, changing creatures, so is the entire world, and so therefore is our language, and so it seems to me would be any kind of divinity. What I'm really interested in right now are words' specific and unspecified meanings, and what that does to our conception of ourselves and the world. And from one perspective, what looks like idle wordplay can actually be deeply important to broadening and better-informing your sense of all things. Though maybe that's not interesting to you, and in that case I'd understand!

I'm going out on several limbs here, writing to you conversationally and off the cuff, which I hope is useful but I'm almost certainly leaving gaps or gaffs that could perhaps be tidied. I remain open to discussion, and am not proclaiming anything as writ.

...

Also, consider this: you're referring to Navidson's looking down that darkening road as "the end" of the book. But that's page 528 of 709. And all that stuff that comes "after" is definitely not irrelevant.

Nor is what's happening now irrelevant. You're continuing to investigate the book, as I am, and so as far as you and I are concerned, the book hasn't "ended" yet. You have perhaps closed it, but you haven't even begun to finish it.

Note also that last image, of the road. Where does MZD's "Only Revolutions" take place? On a road. And it's my (now-repeated) assertion, though I've yet to sufficiently prove it to some of the denizens of this forum due to my own limitations of time and attention (though I will eventually), that <font color=#0C5FF0><font color=#0C5FF0>House</font></font> of Leaves isn't the whole picture. Isn't even a whole book. Or a whole text, if that distinction matters to you. Adding Only Revolutions doesn't complete it, but it changes a lot of things (that were already different to begin with). I know that cryptic talk doesn't do anybody any good, but I don't know how else to discuss it.

I can't help but feel that what I'm writing at this moment isn't anywhere near as helpful as I'd like it to be, and for that I apologize. I've been moving into a new house, my job is getting busier, and I don't have my full focus and attention intact, but I still want to talk about these things. Hm.

...

Edited addendum:

The reason I make the distinction between "as a Christian" and "as yourself" is, as we've kind of been talking about on The Familiar forum (or as I said there), any time you try to draw a line around what the world is, what your life is, you're arbitrarily limiting it and will inevitably be constricted. A "Christian viewpoint" is a necessarily limited viewpoint, because to stick within the accepted bounds of Christianity, even in all its interpretations, means limiting what it's okay to discuss. Therein lies your difficulty here: you want to read the book as a Christian, but House of Leaves isn't a "Christian" book. It's a lot bigger than that. So to adhere to the bounds or bonds of the Christian viewpoint, you're never going to get a full or even partially satisfactory sense of the whole.

It's one viewpoint among many, and valuable in that regard. But what I really want to know is: why limit yourself in that way? Why does that seem like a good idea?

And, again, maybe that's bigger than the scope of what we're doing here.

All the best to you, and thanks for enduring me.

[Splendorr]

Two more things, as I'm reviewing your above posts:

I disagree that there must be a way of understanding the House, in the way we normally think of understanding.

And, the other basic assumption that I want to challenge is the idea of an "end result." That things can be reduced to one summary endpoint. I don't think that very many things in this world can be, and these books certainly can't be reduced that way.

The desire to reduce and summarize is "natural," but that doesn't mean it can actually be done.

Jacques Derrida talks at length about this, but any summary of a book is necessarily not the book itself, because a book is the temporal experience of a reader reading a book, not just the lump of paper sitting on my desk, nor even my memory of that book and the inevitable attempts to boil it down to an easily-discussed jacket quote. These are ways of describing a text, but they should never be confused for taking the place of the text.

Which is to say that, to decide this book "concludes" with hopelessness, meaninglessness, purposelessness, etc., is to disregard everything that has come before, which is full of hope, meaning, purpose, et al, and/or the search for same.

Does that make sense/matter at all?

[mlhill]

ok . .got most of the way through a quite long response to you, splendorr, and then realized that it totally was going to detract from what i've been trying to do for several posts: simplify this discussion . . . so, you'll have to take my word for it--since we can both be assured that internet forum discussion isn't new to either of us--that an effective line-by-line response to you is possible, but also that it would only complicate things more, where i'm really only trying to say two things . .

so, to quote myself from a previous post, here's what i'm about here:

"if one possible reading of House is that it presents a godless and meaningless world, what do we think about that possible reality? . . what does that do re: consideration of the possibility of God and that meaning/context/objectivity/etc. may be found in God?"

one related thing more that must be mentioned . . you ask why do i confine myself to a christian take? . . this is "limiting" etc. . . first, just to be clear, *you* have a perspective that's just as limiting, if not as easily (or openly) named . . . we all necessarily do . . even the perspective that "everything is perspectival, so there's no objective truth" (which i'm saying House presents, and apparently you) makes an objective truth claim and is thereby limited . . you have your beliefs too, make no mistake . . so it comes down to: what are the outcomes of differing beliefs, which will serve us best, which beliefs are true? . . this is, of course, exactly where the jumping-off-point of something like House can lead . .

and, not to go on much more (see, take two is already getting long! :)), i "limit" myself to the christian view because i believe it's true . . and i believe it's true for *many* reasons, some of which i'm willing to discuss here as soon as ppl agree that we've gotten to that point (which requires response to my quote above) . . . and, btw, on this view of mine, House *is* a christian book . . just like every other book, every other thing, viewed rightly . . maybe this seems limiting to you, but i've found it freeing . . (not a "foregone conclusion," but definitely something to be "vigorously engaged" in . . :) thanks, friend!

[Splendorr]

Then our work here is, for the moment, done.

Well-stated, that if the world is a Christian world, then therefore all things within are equally Christian. Insert any other viewpoint-name, and the result's the same.

Remember that a question shapes the answer!

I maintain that there's a bigger, less-limiting-if-still-inherently-limited approach, and that simplification is precisely the anti-point, but that's for me to crow and you to flesh out. And temporary simplification may be quite useful, indeed, to grapple one opponent before taking on another.

I step aside and gesture onward, back on track for the discussion that was ongoing. I like you, mlhill, and I look forward to your continued presence here.

[mlhill]

well, if no response is to be made to the original two points, then i concur . . and i internet-like you too :)

*i* maintain: given your/MZD's view (which i agree with, remember), we should then be asking which "viewpoint-name" to insert . . . and i maintain: simplification *is* the point, and saying the opposite is just to simplify it in another direction--complicating things, after all, can be "just" a form of grappling too . . . flesh away, young man - - (btw, respectfully: 1 Cor. 1:18-31 . . and maybe read Ecclesiastes (again, probably :))) . .

[BoneCo]

I shall respond directly to your original question mlhill.

You seem to be positing the three following things:
1) <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> of Leaves presents a meaningless view of the world - one which contains a void of some sort, such as lack of objectivity.
2) That this void is somehow fundamentally disagreeable.
3) That this void can be filled by God. (or better, "Can this void be filled by God?")

I didn't read the same world view from HoL but we can take point 1 and 2 as a given for the purposes of discussion. So, in the reading that HoL presents a meaningless view of the world, and in the circumstance that we're seeking something to fill that void, I address point 3.

For myself, what this means/does in terms of a god depends very much upon how you're defining god. Please don't interpret this as obtuseness on my part. I think it would be very easy to argue a case for a "god of the gaps" that is really defined as what fills the void.

To be direct though, no, the <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> did not present itself to me as a jumping off point for belief in a Christian God with associated mythos and morals. Naturally this is the case, since my position when I encountered the <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> was not a Christian one. I think it is just as natural that you see the opportunity for God.

I'm very interested in the notion you present about God being a basis for objectivity, could you elaborate? Consider me a student and explain God as a root for meaning and objectivity, or how you personally find it through God, if you will*.


As an aside, I do not agree with the reading that the <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> presents a lack of objectivity. My failure to comprehend the <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> does not rob it of purpose. The reading with which I most align my thoughts on the <font color=#0C5FF0>House</font> is contained in the book itself...


Love is at the centre of all this.

*I'd like to enforce that I am being genuine here since I realise many who do not prescribe to religion are demeaning towards it. I have a real interest in the possibility of a god[s] and more so in people's perceptions of said god[s], though honestly I find it unlikely I will ever be religious. This is not close mindedness, it is the result [so far] of a great deal of thought.

[Splendorr]

( I'm totally down with the Cited Corinthians' overturning of expectations; one thing I've always thought in that regard is that the process must be ongoing, and so like the Sneetches and thar stars, those whose weakness has been made into strength must therefore eventually be made weak again, and so on.

And what foolishness I'm capable of! I have been the Tower of Learning, and then summarily struck down by lightning; I have been the Fool wandering, and thrived as much under that auspice as any other. I've been strong, and therefore been shamed; and in shame, found strength. if that's the cycle, I've been through it multiple times and come out somewhere else. Because in shame I've also found more shame, and strength in strength. Hm!

Ecclesiastes and I have spent time together. Much could be said. I come down every time in favor of sununder newnesses.

While we're Biblifying, both 1st Kings 6-7 and Ezekiel 41 have some things to say about measuring the dimensions of your halls. :wink: )

[mlhill]

splendorr: sneetches? . . wow, i had to look that one up . . :) . . as far as the Corinthians passage, it just seemed apropos given its first-century relation to sophism, etc., and what we were talking about re:simplicity/complexity - - like ecclesiastes (which i knew you'd know), take it for what it's worth to you

boneco: thanks for the honest and clear post . . yes, you've pretty much nailed what i'm saying re: those three things . . although i'd add that i've also presented what i think is some decent reasoning for #1 (which, again, i'm only saying is one reasonable take on the book), and some "circumstantial evidence" for #2 (that even the author seems unhappy with #1, that people generally have "natural" or "intuitive" reactions to #1 that seem telling, etc.) . . . but since you're granting 1 and 2, let's do 3 as you say . .

for me, i'd say it's easiest to see how God offers objectivity/truth/meaning via pictures like a few that have already come up here . . . (leaving out other interpretations and just using it as a metaphor for this instance) if that tree is groundless, there's nothing to keep it from floating into space, no way to say which is up and down, and so on . . however, if the roots are in the ground, the tree no longer moves, its relationship to all else is secure, people know "where they stand," etc. . . . or the tree falling in the forest question . . if no one (not even God) is there to hear the sound, then there's no authority, no possibility of really knowing the truth . . but as soon as one person (let alone one who is possibly all-knowing, all-wise, etc.) is there to observe the tree, truth becomes possible . .

in our world, truth and meaning and morality (and i'd even say things like aesthetics) follow this same kind of trajectory . . what really happened here? .. one says this, one says that, but God can say what *really* happened . . someone says stealing is wrong, someone else says it's not, who's to decide? . . again, God settles it . . . what's meaningful/important/relevant? . . opinions multiply, but if there were one final "opinion" to "match" to . . . (of course, the issues surrounding *how* to know what God says, how to follow, etc. is a whole other thing, but we're here just trying to determine what would follow, philosophically, from His existence re: truth/meaning/etc.)

your mentioning "god of the gaps" is instructive here too . . this is normally brought up in scientific context, where i agree it can be an issue, but i'd put the kinds of things we're discussing beyond that context . . science can tell us many things about many things, but categorically will never be able to speak to certain things like meaning/purpose/morality in the sense we're talking about here . . and i'd also say that God in the sense i understand Him--which is your basic theistic sense--is already pretty clearly defined and isn't being defined *just* to fill this void we're describing . . rather, it's just more possible evidence of His existence, given who God is claimed to be, that if He did exist, He would fill this void we're agreeing we feel for objectivity/meaning/truth/and so on . .

i note here at the end that, though you (or i) may not understand "the house" (in the largest sense), we nevertheless find (at least seek to find) "purpose" in it . . . and i find it fascinating that (though i don't think the quote comes up to the weight of textual evidence that i see as supportive of #1 above) you mentioned the "love is at the centre" line as your main reading . . as i know you've heard, the Bible says "God is love," and i note again that same kind of metaphor: a centre that holds, orients, grounds, roots, justifies, summarizes, finalizes, bottom-lines (so many ways to say it have been thrown around here already! :)) everything else . . boy, we want it bad, don't we? . . why so, unless there's something to it? . .

thanks for your post and sincerity . . seriously, this forum gets a *huge* civility bonus compared with the rest of the internet, which has *always* been, in my experience, much less patient and nice with the annoying religious guy (who hopes he's being more helpful than annoying)

[Splendorr]

A brief addition: a quote from Johnny Truant, p. 516:


"There is something stronger here. Beyond my imagination. It terrifies me. But what is it? And why has it retained me? Wasn't darkness nothingness? Wasn't that Navidson's discovery? Wasn't it Zampano's? Or have I misconstrued it all? Missed the obvious, something still undiscovered waiting there deep within me, outside of me, powerful and extremely patient, unafraid to remain, even though it is and always has been free."

Potentially interpretable as God-related. Also darkness not necessarily being nothingness, about what waits there, and how Navidson's apparent conclusion on page 528 isn't necessarily to be construed as the "ending." The "end of Johnny's story," or his visible contributions to the narrative, and therefore another apparent endpoint, are the pages leading up to p. 521. Which could be said to vividly point toward something else, something Johnny's missing or can't see, maybe God, maybe another book... and then that story about the baby. Which, on the surface, seems to take the concept of miracles or hope for divine intervention and just... disavow them. Unless saving the life of a child isn't as miraculous as a mother caring for her child until she understands that's not what the child needs, and then exercising mercy and compassion by letting him go. Which she does, with a kiss and a tender sentence.

Is God about overt interference and miracles, or is God about the strength to carry a child and then to be able to let it go, if that's what it needs?

Oh, right. Brief, I said!

[mlhill]

hey guys . . this thread has been dead for a while, but i came across something in a book i'm reading that seemed apropos to all the discussion about trees and grounds and roots, God and science, objectivity/subjectivity, the abyss of the House and how it might be "dealt with," etc. . . it comes from what (so far) is an excellent book on the topic of theology and evolution (which i'm interested in) called *Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life* by John Haught . .

this from page 91:

". . . it is clear that for many people today Darwin's science is especially abysmal; like every other abyss, it strangely continues to attract even while it repels. Is this perhaps because God awaits us there? Tillich [Paul Tillich, the theologian, who Haught discusses in this section], at least, would want us to ponder this possibility. God is both the abyss and the ground of being. The divine depth is ambiguous: beneath the abyss there is always more solid ground. So the initially shocking encounter with Darwin's view of life could lead to an adventurous exposure not only to the abyss but also to the ground of being, to God."

i was especially taken with the idea that God is both abyss and ground . . didn't someone say something like that here already? . .anyway, thought is was interesting and relevant . .

[L'ore]

I really think that you make a great point. It could be said that Navidson is the Christ of this book, undergoing his crucifixion (both of soul and body) willfully, into his Hell (as in the Apostle's Creed "mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad ínferos") and was spiritually consumed, only to rise again. Truant is the Minotaur, and unreliable narrator, casting his own hope for oblivion against Navidson. It is the Passion through the Devil's eyes.