Zampano's Floor

[wicketsnatcher]

I finished reading HoL this weekend, and went back and re-read a little bit of the begining information that I missed. Anyhow, I was left with one particular question.

Were the long scratches found in Zampano's floor after he died ever explained in the book, or at the very least were there any hints or infered information concerning this that I may have simply missed?

I'd appreciate anyone's help.

[in1ear&outyourmother]

The same types of marks found on zampano's floor were also found on the walls in Navidson's house.

[Dana]

To me, the markings on Zampano's floor suggest the presence of a minotaur. Whether this creature was created by Zampano and Navy or whether it previously existed and hunted them down I have no idea. But perhaps it became so tangible to old man Z that it manifested in his apartment and made the scratches. Otherwise, no ideas.

--Dana

[shever]

my take is that this was left by the creature zampanó had become...

[Jaikob]

I had gotten the feeling that Zampano himself left them...But it also seemed like whatever did it could have been what creeped up on Johnny in the tattoo shop.

[delirium]

I think the claw marks are representative of Zampano's obsession (the Navidson Record), which combined with his isolation and loneliness (Pelafina is no more at this point) manifests itself in the claw marks.

After all, Johnny tells us the Cops have no reason to suspect foul play, as Old Man Z seems to have died peacefully. But from what we know of Zampano, I don't think a peaceful death was ever an option.

[Scorpion]

What it brought to mind for me was the bit in Se7en where the writing behind the fridge is discovered because of scratches on the floor (caused by the fridge being moved)...

So, what was moved in (or removed from ?) Zampano's place ?

[wicketsnatcher]

You see, I didn't think that Zampano himself made the marks or lacked "the ability to die a peaceful death". It didn't seem that Zampano broke down in any hostile or violent fashion when dealing with information on the House. His daily walk outside and visitors were signs of how he was different than Johnny (who simply cut himself off from as much as society as possible). I also see the fact that cats walked along with him outside as another sign because usually, in literature, animals are the one creatures that see the "inner person".

I like the idea that it was simply his manifestation of the Minotaur (which would explain why he crossed out the passages on the Minotaur), much like the thing that "snuck up" on Johnny in the tattoo shop (although Johnny's wasn't a defined being).
---
"You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue."

[delirium]

That's a fair point Wicketsnatcher, but I am inclined to think that Zampano's last days were far more traumatic. This is because I think Zampano's relationship with the Navidson Record was far more than that of scholarly interest. I think Zampano was terrified of the contents of the Record (or perhaps some element of the Record).

Witness Zampano's apartment and the defensive measures taken to preserve it's integrity. Also the disappearances and gruesome deaths (decapitation etc) of the '80 or so' cats which had previously walked with Zampano.

I strongly suspect that Zampano was guilty of a horrible crime at an earlier stage in his life, and that his lonely death was by no means peaceful.

[Francis Glances]

What is a grue?

[delirium]

It is a perjorative term applied to persons who develop an infantile obsession with pieces of fiction which feature tattooists (Johnny), Norse mythology (Ygdrassil) and hostage rescue scenarios in a post cold-war international environment (see Chap XI).

[wicketsnatcher]

Wow... here I was just thinking I was clever and making a funny Zork reference.

That is, of course, if Delerium was defining what a "grue" is. I always thought it was just an inky black monster that you couldn't see that ate you if you didn't turn on a light soon enough.

(For any reading this with small vocabularies, like me, if you attempt to look up 'perjorative' in a dictionary and do not find it, I think it was suppose to be 'pejorative')

[Francis Glances]

Infantile obsession?

Is that . . . ?

No, couldn't be.

That would be gruesome.

hey!

[benzelbub]

maybe johnny made up the claw marks, too...perhaps (but probably not)they somehow represent the "claw" marks left on his neck when P tried to strangle him, didn't he mention marks on his neck?
----
your sword is glowing with a faint blue glow

[JaesinBlacke]

The only thing I could think of was when Holloway had just killed himself, a claw appears on the Hi 8 and takes him away, then the image goes to black. I can't remember any other specific references to the claw in HoL, and I don't remember any other scratches anywhere. But wait, didn't Johnny have scratches on him after he fell from the ink closet in the Tattoo shop? I'm not sure, but I think he did. (???)
Hope that helps--it seems that the claw IS a theme, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wicketsnatcher:
I finished reading HoL this weekend, and went back and re-read a little bit of the begining information that I missed. Anyhow, I was left with one particular question.

Were the long scratches found in Zampano's floor after he died ever explained in the book, or at the very least were there any hints or infered information concerning this that I may have simply missed?

I'd appreciate anyone's help.

---

[Francis Glances]

As I remember it, the 'claw' that wipes out Holloway wasn't a claw as such, it was a shadow that Zampano describes as slashing through the frame.

[Claudia Wilson]

The picture that lives in my mind of this particular event is: huge claws reach out from the wall and grab Holloway... Like in a digitally drawn horror movie [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] So not only a shadow. But that's only the way I remember it, I can't check it now 'cause I haven't got my copy anymore.

[Christessa]

"...perhaps it became so tangible to old man Z that it manifested in his apartment and made the scratches."

I think you're on to something, Diana, and I agree with Dilirium is saying, too. I'm leaning more toward the theory that Z acted it out himself, in his madness, secondary to the loneliness and the instability of his own inner hallway/maze/darkness. I also have a sneaking suspicion that Z, JT and P may have multiple personalities and schizophrenia (as I'm sure you know, they are not the same disorder). The claw marks on Z's floor and JT's skin could have been self inflicted without them being consciously aware (because one of the other personalities did it).

As for the schizophrenia part, Z/JT/P, to me, are obviously very intelligent and share psychiatric issues. Note the symptomology of this disorder:

schizo·phre·nia
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin (which JT is practically fluent...sorry - couldn't resist!)
Date: 1912
1 : a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as in hallucinations and delusions), and conduct; called also dementia praecox.

(my first reply, btw...I love this board!)

[delirium]

I totally agree with you Christessa - check out the posts to the 'intentionality' topic which was active a couple of weeks ago, within which we knocked around the idea that Pelafina is schizo, and how the House is analagous to schizophrenia.

[James Cole]

Ok, I believe the claw marks can mean many things here is what I saw: Zampano's past haunting him (the past that he had to write down in the allegorical form of his little house story); the minotaur, his creation breaking the binds of the story he is making up and comining into reality to kill him. When there is little difference between truth and fiction and you can't get a grasp on what is unreliablely told through all thes different levels of narration (lets call Navidson's story reality A, Zampano's B, Johhny's C, the Editors' D and Mark's E. Each person has cotrol over the all the realitys below them and there is some movement between all of them), it would become incredibly easy for an entity from reality A to come up and visit people in realities B and C. It seems to do just this and take different forms to the people.

Basically there is solid evidence found in one place of the book that reality A is real which is then disputed/contradictede in another part of the book. There seems to be a free flow between everything and at some level everything that is happening is true. But in the end it all resides in the imagination of Mark. So while you are asked to figure out what is true and what isn't, you also know that it is all fiction to begin with.

All of this just is demonstrating the subjectivity of truth.

[James Cole]

Now as I read the "P/J/Z conversation" thread, and the connections between Zampano and Johhny I never made, I see that the lower realities could have some sorta control over the higher ones. I think Dana suggested in this tread that Zampano created Johnny. While there is evidence for this, there is also evidence that P created everything, johnny created everything, the editors created everything and we definitly know that Mark created everything. So again, things are too abstracted to say what is real and what isn't.

[James Cole]

I keep wanting to add more after I post

I just need to say that just because nothing can be proven to be real about all of these worlds, doesn't mean that the interaction between them all isn't interesting and worth looking at. You can get various meanings -- that all revolve around the theme of parent-child relationships and loss (if not others) -- by looking at the ways in which all the worlds interact with one another. You just have to realize the unreal yet real aspects of each of them and then stop worrying about what actually happened and just look at all the movement between everything.

[ManiKatt]

Perhaps everyone forgets that at least my perception of reality (and I suspect everyone elses to) is not focused like any movie I normally see. When I remember a story I remember it in incomplete framented bits pasted together by their relevvance in my perception to the story. My memories are organized more like the Navidson record and I do know that there are things I don't remember, most people have things they don't remember. It's kind of an ongoing mystery trying to find the missing peices of ones own life. And they stare at you at the smal end of the vorte4x your always trying to focus on. At some point you have to realize that ratios are not constant and that you see things every day you thought weree impossible but most people just don't pay attention to them. Once you start paying attention to things you start noticing a lot of new things and sometimes they are frightening for you to understand and that fear is what keeps you from expanding.
And that this is how a few minds process life or better yet how Mark has processed his life and his mothers life and his fathers life. What over-exagerations or under-exagerations he creates to dictate how he feels about his life. The point is to put something beyond pure reason into writing, that is what makes it art. When we aren't afraid to mix reason with sensuality and love and the soul when all of those things can be part of the words and the words can be bended to fit such a purpose.
Ii don't know if i got off the subject. Tell me if I'm not making sense.

[delirium]

James Cole - gotta disagree with you chief. I think we are all aware there are layers of overlapping narrative, some of which do not sit well with the others. Yes these layers correct/revise/alter other layers (EG Johnny altering Zampano's text). But that's not too say that those layers compromise one another to the point where each has equal validity.

[James Cole]

fuck that

prove one wrong, and I can prove the same one right.

you people are looking at the wrong things.

MZD is fucking with his reader's minds. he wants us to believe there is one real narrative while each one disproves the other. As most post-modernists do, he wants everyone to spend hours looking at every word of his text to find the one true answer as to what is real and what isn't while there isn't.

Don't disreguard my posts that easily just because you have fallen into the post-modernist's trap. I liked the book -- don't get me wrong -- but the best way to get to the heart of the book is by ignoring the timeline, real author or any cliche of a "normal" story structure. Look at the themes. This board will spend hours looking for the true narrator and ignore what the author was really trying to say. You hit upon it now and then and I have noticed more about this book thanks to this web-site, but most of you are on the wrong track to figuring this book out.

Truth is subjective in the post-moderist view and he or she will play with the reader's mind till they have spent days of thought thinking about their book. Again there is some good stry telling behind this, but it still follows the post-modern train of thought.
I don't like being condesended like that. I got past the whose who and looked for the prevailing themes.

Wow, I didn't think I would identify with the "meanhippie" guy, but you are holding close to you're ideals that this book is sacred, innovative and has one truth to it. And I actually liked the book. Not the best book ever, bit a good read for what it was.

"That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

[James Cole]

And don't call me cheif!

[delirium]

Relax dude, we are all entitled to our opinions and just because I disagree with you does not mean I am dismissing your arguments. However I do find other approaches to the book more persuasive.

And I have never stated that I find this book to be sacred, or holding just one truth. Far from it. One of the appealing things about the book is that there is ample room for disagreement. We all of us have differing opinions and this website is a broad church.

And please don't be so patronising as to suggest that some of us are ignoring 'what the author is trying to say'. Figuring out the clues as to the authorship which have bben deliberately concealed in the text is not mutually exclusive to a broader understanding of the emotional core of the book.

Calm down.

[delirium]

With regard for your assertion that 'I have fallen for the post-modernist's trap', the posts that I have made to this board during the last few weeks generally assert that there is a concrete authorship (P/Z) and that the Navidson Record is a coded dialogue between P and Z. Hardly a post-modern thesis is it?

[micah]

So I wonder, is this board going to be an argument of who has the proverbial "bigger balls" or a discussion of what (if anything) this book mean?
Oh don't get me wrong, I like a good heated talk just as much as the next bugger.

[micah]

and Don't call ME Chief either!...