Only Revolutions

"This is not for you."Fans of Mark Z. Danielewskyi's  House of Leaves  will recognize this as the first sentence of that book. While it is meant to be a warning by either Zampanò or Johnny Truant not to read the following book, it could also very well be a warning by MZD about his 2006 follow-up to "House of Leaves" "Only Revolutions" because this book is NOT for everybody. It certainly isn't for anybody expected it to be the same type of book that "House of Leaves" is and it would be wrong tell people "If you loved HOL, you're going to love this!" The worst review anybody could write is "I love it!" and almost as bad is "I hated it!" Why are these statements bad? Because they only say that the reviewer loved or hated something and not WHY they felt that way. Hopefully whoever reads this review will have a good idea about whether "Only Revolutions" is worth spending any money on.The first thing that the reader needs to know about "Only Revolutions" is that it---despite the claims of the author---is NOT a novel. Novels are written in prose. This is a poem. Two long, interlocking narrative poems, but still poems. It doesn't matter that all the lines of the book don't rhyme or that there isn't a consistent meter like iambic pentameter. One of my old English professors in college said that a poem is a piece of writing where it matters what is the first word in each line. Make no mistake---"Only Revolutions" is written with as much precision as anything you will ever see from William Shakespeare. Each page of the text contains 36 lines from top to bottom and also 180 words. The upper part of each page contains one poem with the perspective of one character, while the bottom part contains the perspective of the other character, but upside-down. The font of the upper section is very large and gradually gets smaller throughout the rest of the book, while the upside-down text goes from very tiny to very large. After every eight pages, a new section begins with a large capital letter. At this point, you are supposed to flip the book to the other side and read the corresponding chapter from the other perspective. Think of this as a poetry/literary fiction equivalent to Lauren Oliver's  Replica  I recommend reading the book this way because the corresponding chapters of this book tend to mirror each other. Similar things happen to each character, and we are supposed to notice how they are the same and also how they are different. I found that when it is hard to understand one character because of the period slang they use (more on that later), I can get the better gist of what's going on when I read the other side.Who are these characters and what is going on? Well, the characters names are two teenagers named "Sam" and "Hailey." If you take the first initial letter of each of the chapters, you will get the following message. From the Hailey narrative you get "S.A.M.A.N.D.H.A.I.L.E.Y.A.N.D.S.A.M.A.N.D.H.A.I.L.E.Y.A.N.D.S.A.M.A.N.D.H.A.I.L.E.Y.A.N.D." From the Sam narrative you get "H.A.I.L.E.Y.A.N.D.S.A.M.A.N.D.H.A.I.L.E.Y.A.N.D.S.A.M.A.N.D.H.A.I.L.E.Y.A.N.D.S.A.M.A.N.D." I believe this is a clue from the author about the importance of reading the book section by section. Furthermore, if you alternate narratives, that means the reader reads sixteen pages at a time before advancing to the next chapter. Both Sam and Hailey are sixteen years old, as we learn from the first pages of their stories. Not just sixteen right now, but sixteen allways [sic] because the characters do not age over the course of two hundred years.That's another thing that is difficult to grasp about this narrative. Sam's story begins in November 22, 1863 a few days after the Gettysburg Address is given. Hailey's begins a hundred years on the day John F. Kennedy is assassinated. No references are made in either poem as to the specific date, but on each page of the book, there is a sidebar which mentions historic incidents that took place supposedly when the events in the poem are taking place. So if the characters are a hundred years apart, how come they are both together in each narrative? For example, how can the Hailey of the 1960's show up in Sam's storyline in 1869, while he shows up in Hailey's storyline in 1963? Furthermore, what happens in each narrative is very, VERY similar. Is history repeating itself or are each character in a time warp perceiving the same events differently?My take is simple. This is an allegory, and the time elements should not be taken too literally. I think MZD uses the changing timeline to comment on what is happening in history, but I don't think it is necessary to get or understand every historical reference to appreciate the book. If you take the events what happens in the book too seriously, you won't enjoy it at all. For example, early in the book the reader gets used to Sam reciting lists of different animals that he sees, while Hailey notices different plants. These animals and plants give brief snippets of advice for the first half of the book and act as a sort of Greek chorus. Then around page 51 of both narratives comes an incident which will be the make or break point for many readers. In the Hailey narrative, the two stop for a call of nature, and Hailey will defecate five or six different types of trees along with rocks, and then she burps both clouds and rainbows. The same thing happens with Sam except for him it is five types of animals instead. Both wind up with a ring of excrement around their left wrists and somehow becomes a valuable "Leftwrist Twist" which symbolizes their growing love. I think just mentioning this has saved $15 on the part of many readers considering buying this book. But for the rest who are still interested, I'll explain why I kept reading.I kept reading because there are many parts of this book which are beautifully written, even though I didn't completely understand it. But MANY poems are like that. If you can push through the parts that area chore to read, you will get to more stuff that's interesting. If you're still not sure, go to YouTube and search for audio readings of this book to see if this is what you might be interested in. If I could understand more of it, or if it weren't so difficult to get through parts of this, I would give this book five stars. But there is too much stuff here that is too beautiful for me not to give it at least four.Now I'll see what "House of Leaves" is all about. (Yes, I'm one of the few people who has read this book w/o finishing "House of Leaves.") Wish me luck!

Every review that negatively compares Only Revolutions to House of Leaves is missing the point. They are deliberately different books, and for good reason. Every reviewer that thinks you need a terminal degree to get it has forgotten how much fun it is to be an open-minded youth. Everyone who says poetry is bad (or that this is bad poetry) is revealing their own taste and proclivity, more than they are reflecting accurately on the novel.Only Revolutions is an incredible, illuminating book. It can also be infuriating or bewildering. Good! You need to be bewildered sometimes. I read the first 40 pages or so without really "understanding" any of it. By page 180, I was completely hooked. By the last page, I was completely lost again. This is by design. I loved it, but it can be confusing at first. I'm not surprised that so many people are upset by this; most people hate being pushed or coaxed outside of their comfort zones. It's disappointing to see so many reviewers cast it aside just because they didn't immediately grasp or enjoy it.Do you really think you know everything? That you have seen all the world has to show you, that there is nothing new under the sun, that anything shocking or confusing deserves reproach? Don't you want to learn something new about the world, about books, about yourself? Because you can, and this book can help, but if you refuse it's your choice.Nearly four years later, I finally feel like I "understand" Only Revolutions, its relation to Danielewski's other books, and its relation to me. But I loved it before I "understood" it, and I love it now, and I'll love it four years from now when I realize I still don't really understand it yet.The book isn't experimental. Some reviewers are right when they say that so-called innovations have been done before. Yes, the big letters are like those in Ulysses. That's deliberate. Yes, Michel Butor's "Gyroscope" and Milorad Pavic's "The Inner Side of the Wind" both flip and start from either side. Good! That should help you feel less lost, like signposts along an unknown highway; they shouldn't make you dismiss it just because "it's been done before."But YOU are the ones calling it "experimental, postmodern, gimmicky, overblown." You are the ones calling it names. How rude! Danielewski has always said that none of his novels are experimental; they are carefully, deliberately designed to produce certain effects. Every time you apply a genre or era label to a book, you are immediately diminishing its capabilities, which is your fault -- not the books'. When you refuse to have fun, to be spun -- to be scared, or to be sacred: that's you, refusing. That's no fault of this book, or anyone else. You're the one who thinks you're either too smart, or too stupid, or too young or too old or too whatever else. Only Revolutions doesn't think you're any of those things. So why should you?Like a quickly-spinning gyroscope, or like two teenagers bursting with unspeakable needs, sometimes this book can be hard to hold on to. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, or to at least stand beside them as they pass.Let go of yourself. Let go of your bad moods, your critiques, your crotchetiness. Let go of your conviction that all things must be understood to be enjoyed. Remember what it was like to be seven, or twelve, or sixteen, or twenty-three, or thirty-three, or fifty-two, or eighty;(any age you felt alive, free, vital, essential, powerful)to Run through the woods like they were the whole world;to Talk to animals and to believe they could talk back;to Write furiously in your tattered notebook about heartbreaks and parted ways,About the exuberance and endlessness of your days;When you knew you knew everything and that you still had so much to learn;to Speak and write and read freely, without worrying about whether it was okay to like something,Whether what you were doing was "postmodern" or "poetry" or "cliché" or "clever,"Whether this thing was as good as that thing,Whether you'd be made fun of for being genuinely enthusiastic about your life, without hedging or justifying or otherwise tampering.Forget about the House, about the Author, about your Expectations, about your crippling Need To Be Right.Let go.And then hold on tight.Sam and Hailey wait for no one, but they'll allways wait for you.

The prose is beautiful, at times precise in its imagery, but at times verging on the neologism and nonsense. The form is tedious after a while, and you will have to read it again to understand the plot (and then again to remember it), not only this but the rotating gets really annoying. It was novel in House of Leaves because it was sparse, although I guess I should have known what I was getting into with a title like this...

I was expecting a lot from this, so I couldn't help being a little disappointed. It's worth reading for sure, but for me it didn't compare to House of Leaves. A few friends accused it of looking gimmicky, and to be honest I found it hard to defend. On the other hand, the binding is beautiful and I liked the inclusion of two different coloured ribbon bookmarks. Also the ending is very good and makes perseverance totally worthwhile!

Romanzo ergodico per sua natura complesso e sperimentale, Only Revolutions vede l'autore del cult "Casa di foglie" alle prese con due contemporanee narrazioni, che compongono una stessa storia, da due punti di vista differenti, come due sono i sensi di lettura a dover essere utilizzati. Storia d'amore, storia di viaggio, ma sempre con un elemento magico/misterico, che in questo caso è rappresentato (sopratutto) dalla flessibilità del tempo, così come lo spazio lo era stato per "Casa di foglie". Il risultato, sopratutto per un non madrelingua inglese, quale io sono, non è sempre di immediata comprensione, vuoi per le sfumature lessicali e idiomatiche, vuoi per i flussi di coscienza in stile poema in prosa, che punteggiano corposamente le pagine di un lavoro di ingegneria tipografica, come sempre assai avvincente da leggere, anche sotto il punto di vista meramente fisico. Auspicabile una sua traduzione in italiano, per poter meglio apprezzarne le numerose sfumature.

It’s very interesting. So there are two characters, Hailey and Sam. And they tell their point of view of the story on the same page but one of them is upside down and starts at the back of the book. A friend told me to read first 8 pages by Hailey, then 8 pages by Sam, and so forth. They write about their meeting, their journey together, but it’s all very “out there”. It’s no straightforward story. It’s thoughts, words, feelings, allegories, very confusing at times, and very much open to interpretation. At one point I thought Hailey was being gangbanged, but it turns out she’s actually describing a game of billiards she’s participating in. Also, it’s like each of them is in some sort of alternate universe, because there seem to be differences in the narrative. For instance that game of billiards described by Hailey turns into a bowling game described by Sam. A car found during their journey is a Ford in Hailey’s story but a Cadillac in Sam’s. Hailey includes lots of references to plants, flowers, trees, etc. Sam does the same, only he includes animals.Next to their story, each page is dated. Hailey’s story starts with the assassination of JFK. Sam’s story starts 100 years earlier. Each page moves forward in time and includes of list of historical facts in the margin. I’m not exactly sure what all these facts are. The ones I recognize are results of sporting events like who won the Superbowl, the Tour de France, boxing matches, Major League baseball finals, etc; the occurrence of natural disasters and their death toll, but also man-made disasters like plane crashes, factory explosions, mine collapses, riots etc; the births and deaths of famous people; the winners of political elections like presidents and vice-presidents; also true historical events of some significance; economic results too, like how many cars General Motors has built; lots of references to $ amounts I have no idea what they mean.There are some peculiarities in the text too. The letter “o” is always a different color; “alone” is spelled with to l’s, making it “allone” (which I think is to make it more like “all one”, but he does it for other words too like “allways”); “fear” is always spelled “feer”; the references to plants and animals are always in bold; pronouns are always in capital letters … The list with these peculiarities goes on.When it comes to the story, I have no idea what’s going on. Hailey and Sam have sex at one point and that was fun to read in this strange style. I’m not looking at it as a straightforward narrative but more as a continuous poem; it is all poetry and that’s what makes those interpretations possible. I think every reader will think something else is going on entirely; it’s our own experiences or our subconscious thoughts that project an image on top of the words we read and puts them in a certain context.I’m still not sure whether I truly like it myself. At least “House of Leaves” had a story to tell, it had a mystery to drag you along. “Only Revolutions” feels so random. The ending is quite good though, and the storytelling style turns almost Shakespearean. I got many quotes out of those final pages.

I was a huge fan of Hosue of Leaves and wanted to try another novel by Danielewski, fully aware that this would be quite different...I needed quite a while to get into the poetry of Only Revolutions, only to discover that his style is confusing at times but beautiful in places. I am not sure if this works as a love story, at least there is not much romance in the traditional sense in Only Revolutions. On the other hand we get a lot of toying around with language which often fails but produces little gems in between.The timeline at the side, the color codes, the meaning of numbers (180/ 360 degrees), the hidden and not so hidden letter codes... fun effects but nothing unusual after House of Leaves. I believe Only Revolutions could have worked without this, but then it's Danielewski's shtick.People who are into experimental literature and open to something new should definately give this a try. I can understand that some people will find Only Revolutions brilliant, personally, it had too many boring and unfulfilling episodes to be a true masterpiece.