User popularity level:
Rated by buyers
-
The mystery of all mysteries surrounds Mark Z. Danielewski's ONLY REVOLUTIONS (2006): Someone actually thought that this endless circuit of gibberish qualified for the National Book Award. And it is an endless circuit, literally. Columns of text spiral and loop, making the text all but unintelligible. We have two narratives---though the book does eschew traditional narrative, as if there were something revolutionary about doing so in 2006---that of Sam and that of Hailey, both of whom are perpetually sixteen. If you look at the bottom of the page while reading Sam's narrative, there you will find Hailey's upside down. The size of Sam's text dwindles as it progresses (from 22 November 1863 to 22 November 1963), gradually dwarfed by Hailey's. Turn the book around 180 degrees and start at the back, and you can read all about Hailey, from 22 November 1963 (the pivot of the book, the day of Kennedy's assassination) to 22 November 2063. History is circular, don't you know! The book's one motif is the stupidity of circularity.
Despite Danielewski's transparent desire to be innovative, there is nothing new here. It really is stunning how stale the book is rendered. The huge "S" with which Sam's narrative begins was stolen wholesale from ULYSSES, the characters Sam and Hailey are openly imitative of Shem and Shaun (the famous brothers of FINNEGANS WAKE), the typographical tics recall Derrida's GLAS and LA DISSEMINATION, and the wordage sounds a bit like the driveling gobbledygook of an ill-read high-school stoner who just finished leafing his way inattentively through both the WAKE and Pynchon's MASON & DIXON. Vaguely reminiscent of a designer Joyce-Made-EZ, ONLY REVOLUTIONS is enslaved to its precursors. Whereas Joyce creates worlds with words, however, Danielewski seems fearful of language and its literary capabilities. There is a kind of aggression toward language here, a certain virulent logophobia. It is a book not to be read--though I have read every silly, jingling phrase--but to be looked at.
How bad is the writing? At his very best, Danielewski recalls Shakespeare at his very worst. At his worst, he is singsongy, spewing forth nonsensical nursery rhymes that emerge from the page like sulphurous flames issuing from some mephitic kindergarten in Hell, as if the writer regarded FINNEGANS WAKE as a collection of limp, wince-inducing doggerel, as if the book were his ill-conceived idea of a "found poem"--the "found" part being the sort of dribbling babble found at the bottom of e-mails in order to fool SPAM filters--or his deeply unfortunate, private misinterpretation of Brion Gysin's "cut-up" method or surrealist automatism. To say that Danielewski's versification has little concern for elegance or expansiveness would be to say too little. When, for instance, he writes phrases and sentences such as "I outrace furry. Populate worry" [H 24]; "All of it too with puddles of goo, sog and drool" [H 43]; "Concerning her poverty, I resort to generosity" [S 9]; "I'm the heist. The impersonal price" [H 13]; "Slump. Plop. Awshucking dump" [S 83]; "And where five roads link, I poop puddles of stink" [S 241]; "Sam takes the lumps. And The Pumps" [H 55]; "Only capless Sam ups for horny, ogling my feet" [H 53]; "Sam spurts his mess. All over my chest" [H 59], you feel that it is really the result of indifference or laziness, as if jangle and flash were more important to the man than the explosive possibilities inherent to literary language.
By this, I do not mean to suggest that Danielewski's language is too difficult--far from it. His banter is not so much "difficult" as it is sterile and vacant of meaning.
It is impossible to do justice to this book without discussing another gimmick in its typographical design. This is because the book IS its typographical design. Danielewski the Graphic Designer highlights every "O" in the book with a golden hue, as if the letter were globally hyperlinked. This not an insignificant matter. The internet impresses itself upon every page of ONLY REVOLUTIONS. And in the final analysis, the flashy fonts and sprawling typographies are nothing more than glitzy Web design, counter-linguistic ruses distracting readers from the impoverishment of the book's verbal properties. But as some of us know, the pyrotechnics of typography and font are no substitute for writing with vividness and grace.
Dr. Joseph Suglia, The Greatest Author in the World / the author of Watch Out: The Definitive Version
Rated by buyers
-
House of Leaves was a revelation to me when i was 16, about the possibilites of literature and horror and textural themes. I have gifted HoL to many people in my life, and forced a girlfriend to buy me a copy when she damaged mine under the threat of ending our two year relationship.
Now that I've placed that book on such a high pedestal, lets get to Revolutions. I always keep my expectations of things low so i can be surprised, and even though i was sold on the technical mastery of this book, i really felt let down. Now I'm not an idiot. i can cut through philosophy and metaphors and tap into deeper intentions of books with little difficulty.
But on the flip side, i hate reading books where i feel like i need a english professor and a masters degree in literature to even get an idea of what is going on. and here is the problem of Only Revolutions. Its nearly impenetrable. And the worst part is that you spend hours reading the story, navigating your confusion and trying to keep some semblance of a story in your head, and it just ends. Very little seems acccomplished, and now I'm angry.
So now do i suffer through the book again with the meager hope that I will understand more this time? Given the strain from the very first round, no. especially since I see little reward in doing so. This was a masterful letdown of a novel, that went so far over me i need Hubble just to see it.
Rated by buyers
-
I really liked "House of Leaves." "Only Revolutions" is incomprehensible. On the other hand, if you never try and fail, you don't know what you're capable of. Here's to more glorious failures.
Rated by buyers
-
After Danielewski's House of Leaves I immediately bought this book, no questions asked. I had it reserved and got one of the very first copies, and, while this is a great thing from a fan's standpoint; from a literary standpoint this work is disappointing.
Only Revolutions tells the tale of two young lovers who may, or may not, have lived at the same time. While Danielewski still has imbued the work with riddles and hidden meanings the tale is lost in arbitrary rules set forth by himself for the book to have supposed meaning. While it sounds amazing read aloud, and the tale could have been a good one, Danielewski's endeavor at an "epic poem" largely fails. The story and the poetic form did not mesh as well as could have been hoped, and it pails when compared to such works as The Singer Trilogy by Calvin Miller.
It is obvious that Danielewski still has things to say, and they are well worth hearing. It is obvious that he will continue to make an impact upon the literary world, but Only Revolutions seems to follow an ever lengthening line of poor poetry peddled as great story telling (while he still manages to stay above the level of Ellen Hopkins -- hailed as a ground-breaker, truly just hack).
Rated by buyers
-
To put it mildly, this is a difficult book. As a follow up to House of Leaves, I wasn't surprised at the unique design and writing style. And since HoL had so much hidden beneath the surface for those who took the time to dig for it, I have to assume that this book has more to it than just nonsensical free-verse poetry and unconventional typography. Unfortunately, I'll never know for sure because, to be completely honest, I gave up.
Part of House of Leaves' brilliance is Danielewski's ability to shift back and forth between very different writing styles. That's why when I began reading Only Revolutions, I took the writing style in stride. After reading a few pages though, it dawned on me that maybe the whole thing was written like this. After scanning the rest of the book I realized that it was indeed written that way all the way through. That was a disappointing moment. The book is now taking up space on my shelf.
The people giving this book one star are being honest with themselves and with you. I'm sure that some of the positive reviews are from people who genuinely enjoyed the book. Some of the positive reviews simply seem like an opportunity for the reviewer to puff themselves up intellectually above those who "just didn't get it". Welcome to the Internet.
If you've never read Danielewski, go get House of Leaves immediately. It's awesome. I hope his subsequent one isn't like this.
Find other books like this one:
