Constant Readers email log, April 28, 2009
From: Neil Harkham
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I've finished reading Janet's initial digest of the Danielewski work, and I have to say I find the content extremely suggestive. Most particularly I don't think we can overlook the fact that of the various "celebrities" depicted in the "What Some Have Thought" section, it's Stephen King who intuits that Karen Navidson didn't make this up.
The congruences with Black House are obvious, as well as with such structures as the house on Neibolt Street and the Dutch Hill mansion, and of course the black hotel in The Talisman. (Michael, do I recall correctly that you were compiling a list of King's inimical houses for Ms. McGee prior to the Dolphin Hotel operation in '07?) I'm not certain what to make of the less obvious congruences between this work and "N.", which seem both subtler and more superficial. Certainly there's a familiarity to Johnny Truant's growing obsession with the manuscript and his compulsive measuring and placing, and of course Navidson, like N., is a photographer. And possibly the most worrying is the repeated injunction "There's nothing there, so stay away."
We've never had a firm policy on drawing conclusions from works by authors other than King, have we?
Neil Harkham
From: Tara Wilson
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> And possibly the most worrying is the repeated injunction "There's nothing there, so stay away."
Let's not forget all the strikeout-red text and the excised minotaur/labyrinth content. Are we looking at something to do with Erinyes here?
From: Andrea Faber
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> We've never had a firm policy on drawing conclusions from works by authors other than King, have we?
No, and we ought to. You know my position on the subject: at best a distraction, at worst a danger. From a literary viewpoint it's fascinating, of course, but if you'll forgive the analogy, it's as though the Vatican were to pronounce Church doctrine based on Milton or Dante (or Gaiman). Relatedness does not constitute relevance.
I know we're trained to look for patterns and connections and to discount the possibility of coincidence, but sometimes nineteen is just the number that comes between eighteen and twenty every time you count.
From: Jason Parker
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> I know we're trained to look for patterns and connections and to discount the possibility of
> coincidence, but sometimes nineteen is just the number that comes between eighteen and
> twenty every time you count.
And sometimes it's not. Look, we all know King is a keystone because for whatever cosmic reason, the one mind that's tuned to the right frequency to pick up Ves-ka' Gan the most clearly, with the least interference, is the mind of a third-rate hack writer with a drinking problem. That doesn't mean he's the only one picking it up.
You know _my_ position on this: from a literary viewpoint it's all garbage. And from the excerpts in Janet's digest, this guy sounds pretentious as all fuck and about as deep as the back of a cereal box, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that if there's something here that might relate to the canon, we can't afford to dismiss it as Apophenia Theatre.
(And hey, by all evidence, pretentious as fuck is a prerequisite.)
From: Greg Toman
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I gotta agree with Parkerboy on this one.
From: Jason Parker
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> I gotta agree with Parkerboy on this one.
Those of you playing the home game may wish to note down the date and time.
From: Greg Toman
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> > I gotta agree with Parkerboy on this one.
> Those of you playing the home game may wish to note down the date and time.
That's ignoring the usual cheapshots and asshattery about King, of course.
From: Jason Parker
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> > > I gotta agree with Parkerboy on this one.
> > Those of you playing the home game may wish to note down the date and time.
> That's ignoring the usual cheapshots and asshattery about King, of course.
Of course.
From: Tara Wilson
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Beep-beep, Jason.
From: Zee Hayden
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I don't know, you guys. I mean, I agree in principle that we've got to pay attention to patterns, but ... this one just doesn't ping like something important, to me.
From: Todd Penfield
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Zee's right. Look, you know I'm all for extracanonical sources (Arthur, anyone?), but I'm not convinced this book is doing anything more than rehashing some of the same archetypes King uses. Which is what archetypes are: stories and pieces of stories that come back again and again because they work. And their recurrence says more about the human psyche than it does about the universe.
Like Annie said, relatedness =/= relevance.
From: Ethan Yadlow
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
So a friend of mine's been trying to get me to read this thing anyway and I figured it was worth a look.
Folken, this is the real deal and we ignore it AT OUR PERIL. Check the attached scan. See it, Jake, the key is red.
Call that a coincidence, I dare you.
From: Todd Penfield
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Jesus, Ethan, melodramatic much?
From: Ethan Yadlow
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Okay could we maybe pretend we're talking about something actually serious here? Like, oh I don't know, yet another possible threat to the continued existence of um everything?
I mean we know that's nothing new, so sorry if we're boring you here Todd but a little focus on the mission please?
> Jesus, Ethan, melodramatic much?
From: Todd Penfield
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I've yet to see word one that convinces me this has anything to do with the mission.
(And you have no idea how much I'm self-censoring right now.)
From: Andrea Faber
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
People, please! There's no call to not be civil.
From: Janet Creeque
To: Tara Wilson
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I just wanted to tell the nice people about the yogurt. :(
From: Tara Wilson
To: Janet Creeque
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Don't worry about it yet, hon. Wait till Michael checks in.
From: Zee Hayden
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to anyone else going into this further. If we were still working for Tet I'd say we should keep it on our own time, but since it's all our own time these days, what difference does it make?
From: Tara Wilson
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> but since it's all our own time these days, what difference does it make?
Well, for one thing, it affects whether or not Greg should put it on the agenda for the next meeting.
From: Zee Hayden
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
About that: I probably won't be able to make the next meeting. I've got a job interview in Connecticut that day, and by the time I get home it's going to be really late and I'm going to be way too tired to contribute anything.
From: Jason Parker
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> About that: I probably won't be able to make the next meeting. I've got a job interview
Wow. Okay. Good luck with that, I guess.
So we're down to six?
From: Zee Hayden
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Fuck you too, Parkerboy.
From: Janet Creeque
To: Tara Wilson
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Where the hell is Mike?
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I've finished reading Janet's initial digest of the Danielewski work, and I have to say I find the content extremely suggestive. Most particularly I don't think we can overlook the fact that of the various "celebrities" depicted in the "What Some Have Thought" section, it's Stephen King who intuits that Karen Navidson didn't make this up.
The congruences with Black House are obvious, as well as with such structures as the house on Neibolt Street and the Dutch Hill mansion, and of course the black hotel in The Talisman. (Michael, do I recall correctly that you were compiling a list of King's inimical houses for Ms. McGee prior to the Dolphin Hotel operation in '07?) I'm not certain what to make of the less obvious congruences between this work and "N.", which seem both subtler and more superficial. Certainly there's a familiarity to Johnny Truant's growing obsession with the manuscript and his compulsive measuring and placing, and of course Navidson, like N., is a photographer. And possibly the most worrying is the repeated injunction "There's nothing there, so stay away."
We've never had a firm policy on drawing conclusions from works by authors other than King, have we?
Neil Harkham
From: Tara Wilson
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> And possibly the most worrying is the repeated injunction "There's nothing there, so stay away."
Let's not forget all the strikeout-red text and the excised minotaur/labyrinth content. Are we looking at something to do with Erinyes here?
From: Andrea Faber
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> We've never had a firm policy on drawing conclusions from works by authors other than King, have we?
No, and we ought to. You know my position on the subject: at best a distraction, at worst a danger. From a literary viewpoint it's fascinating, of course, but if you'll forgive the analogy, it's as though the Vatican were to pronounce Church doctrine based on Milton or Dante (or Gaiman). Relatedness does not constitute relevance.
I know we're trained to look for patterns and connections and to discount the possibility of coincidence, but sometimes nineteen is just the number that comes between eighteen and twenty every time you count.
From: Jason Parker
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> I know we're trained to look for patterns and connections and to discount the possibility of
> coincidence, but sometimes nineteen is just the number that comes between eighteen and
> twenty every time you count.
And sometimes it's not. Look, we all know King is a keystone because for whatever cosmic reason, the one mind that's tuned to the right frequency to pick up Ves-ka' Gan the most clearly, with the least interference, is the mind of a third-rate hack writer with a drinking problem. That doesn't mean he's the only one picking it up.
You know _my_ position on this: from a literary viewpoint it's all garbage. And from the excerpts in Janet's digest, this guy sounds pretentious as all fuck and about as deep as the back of a cereal box, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that if there's something here that might relate to the canon, we can't afford to dismiss it as Apophenia Theatre.
(And hey, by all evidence, pretentious as fuck is a prerequisite.)
From: Greg Toman
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I gotta agree with Parkerboy on this one.
From: Jason Parker
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> I gotta agree with Parkerboy on this one.
Those of you playing the home game may wish to note down the date and time.
From: Greg Toman
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> > I gotta agree with Parkerboy on this one.
> Those of you playing the home game may wish to note down the date and time.
That's ignoring the usual cheapshots and asshattery about King, of course.
From: Jason Parker
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> > > I gotta agree with Parkerboy on this one.
> > Those of you playing the home game may wish to note down the date and time.
> That's ignoring the usual cheapshots and asshattery about King, of course.
Of course.
From: Tara Wilson
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Beep-beep, Jason.
From: Zee Hayden
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I don't know, you guys. I mean, I agree in principle that we've got to pay attention to patterns, but ... this one just doesn't ping like something important, to me.
From: Todd Penfield
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Zee's right. Look, you know I'm all for extracanonical sources (Arthur, anyone?), but I'm not convinced this book is doing anything more than rehashing some of the same archetypes King uses. Which is what archetypes are: stories and pieces of stories that come back again and again because they work. And their recurrence says more about the human psyche than it does about the universe.
Like Annie said, relatedness =/= relevance.
From: Ethan Yadlow
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
So a friend of mine's been trying to get me to read this thing anyway and I figured it was worth a look.
Folken, this is the real deal and we ignore it AT OUR PERIL. Check the attached scan. See it, Jake, the key is red.
Call that a coincidence, I dare you.
From: Todd Penfield
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Jesus, Ethan, melodramatic much?
From: Ethan Yadlow
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Okay could we maybe pretend we're talking about something actually serious here? Like, oh I don't know, yet another possible threat to the continued existence of um everything?
I mean we know that's nothing new, so sorry if we're boring you here Todd but a little focus on the mission please?
> Jesus, Ethan, melodramatic much?
From: Todd Penfield
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I've yet to see word one that convinces me this has anything to do with the mission.
(And you have no idea how much I'm self-censoring right now.)
From: Andrea Faber
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
People, please! There's no call to not be civil.
From: Janet Creeque
To: Tara Wilson
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
I just wanted to tell the nice people about the yogurt. :(
From: Tara Wilson
To: Janet Creeque
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Don't worry about it yet, hon. Wait till Michael checks in.
From: Zee Hayden
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to anyone else going into this further. If we were still working for Tet I'd say we should keep it on our own time, but since it's all our own time these days, what difference does it make?
From: Tara Wilson
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> but since it's all our own time these days, what difference does it make?
Well, for one thing, it affects whether or not Greg should put it on the agenda for the next meeting.
From: Zee Hayden
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
About that: I probably won't be able to make the next meeting. I've got a job interview in Connecticut that day, and by the time I get home it's going to be really late and I'm going to be way too tired to contribute anything.
From: Jason Parker
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
> About that: I probably won't be able to make the next meeting. I've got a job interview
Wow. Okay. Good luck with that, I guess.
So we're down to six?
From: Zee Hayden
To: Constant Readers
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Fuck you too, Parkerboy.
From: Janet Creeque
To: Tara Wilson
Sent: Wed 4/28/2009 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: safe as houses
Where the hell is Mike?