Only Revolutions

by Mark Z. Danielewski

Sam:
They were with us before Romeo & Juliet. And long after too. Because they’re forever around. Or so both claim, carolling gleefully:

We’re allways sixteen.

Sam & Hailey, powered by an ever-rotating fleet of cars, from Model T to Lincoln Continental, career from the Civil War to the Cold War, barrelling down through the Appalachians, up the Mississippi River, across the Badlands, finally cutting a nation in half as they try to outrace History itself.

By turns beguiling and gripping, finally worldwrecking, Only Revolutions is unlike anything ever published before, a remarkable feat of heart and intellect, moving us with the journey of two kids, perpetually of summer, perpetually sixteen, who give up everything except each other.

Hailey:
They were with us before Tristan & Isolde. And long after too. Because they’re forever around. Or so both claim, gleefully carolling:

We’re allways sixteen.

Hailey & Sam, powered by an ever-rotating fleet of cars, from Shelby Mustang to Sumover Linx, careen from the Civil Rights Movement to the Iraq War, tearing down to New Orleans, up the Mississippi River, across Montana, finally cutting a nation in half as they try to outrace History itself.

By turns enticing and exhilarating, finally breathtaking, Only Revolutions is unlike anything ever conceived before, a remarkable feat of heart and intellect, moving us with the journey of two kids, perpetually of summer, perpetually sixteen, who give up everything except each other.

Genres: Fiction, Poetry, Fantasy, Romance, Literature, Novels, Literary Fiction

384 pages, Hardcover

First published September 12, 2006

About the author

Mark Z. Danielewski is an American author best known for his books House of Leaves, Only Revolutions, The Fifty Year Sword, The Little Blue Kite, and The Familiar series.

Danielewski studied English Literature at Yale. He then decided to move to Berkeley, California, where he took a summer program in Latin at the University of California, Berkeley. He also spent time in Paris, preoccupied mostly with writing.

In the early 1990s, he pursued graduate studies at the USC School of Cinema-Television. He later served as an assistant editor and worked on sound for Derrida, a documentary based on the life of the Algerian-born French literary critic and philosopher Jacques Derrida.

His second novel, Only Revolutions, was released in 2006. The novel was a finalist for the 2006 National Book Award.

His novel The Fifty Year Sword was released in the Netherlands in 2005. A new version with stitched illustrations was released in the United States 2012 (including a limited-edition release featuring a latched box that held the book). On Halloween 2010-2012, Danielewski "conducted" staged readings of the book at the REDCAT Theater inside the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. Each year was different and included features such as large-scale shadows, music, and performances from actors such as Betsy Brandt (Breaking Bad).

On May 12, 2015, he released the first volume, The Familiar (Volume 1): One Rainy Day in May in his announced 27-volume series The Familiar. The story "concerns a 12-year-old girl who finds a kitten..." The second volume, The Familiar (Volume 2): Into the Forest was released on Oct. 27, 2015, The Familiar (Volume 3): Honeysuckle & Pain came out June 14, 2016, and The Familiar (Volume 4): Hades arrived in bookstores on Feb. 7, 2017, and The Familiar (Volume 5): Redwood was released on Halloween 2017.

His latest release, The Little Blue Kite, is out now.

Quick Facts

He is the son of Polish avant-garde film director Tad Danielewski and the brother of singer and songwriter Annie Decatur Danielewski, a.k.a. Poe.

House of Leaves, Danielewski's first novel, has gained a considerable cult following. In 2000, Danielewski toured with his sister across America at Borders Books and Music locations, promoting Poe’s album Haunted, which reflects elements of House of Leaves.

Danielewski's work is characterized by experimental choices in form, such as intricate and multi-layered narratives and typographical variation.

In 2015, his piece Thrown, a reflection on Matthew Barney's Cremaster 2, appeared on display at the Guggenheim Museum in New York.

Official "Yarn + Ink" apparel inspired by his books House of Leaves and The Familiar is now available through his official website, Amazon and Etsy.

His latest short story, "There's a Place for You" was released on www.markzdanielewski.com in August 2020.

Read more on his Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z....

Reviews

[Sean · Rating 2 out of 5]

Howdy there, O happy reader!
It is of the utmost
and most sincerest importance
that you understand
what kind of adventure
you will bestow upon your self
by undertaking and reaping
the novel that HOUSE OF LEAVES'
very own Mark Z. Danielewski has sown.

Sam and Hailey and Hailey and Sam
are two star-crossed lovers
driving across America and
through time as their love
blossoms and grows and yet
so do the country and times
they invade most irreparably.

It is the ambition and the bravery
that makes this labyrinthian puzzle book
worth sticking with, but the narrative:
a concoction of prose and poetry
TOGETHER makes for a story
so confusing and surreal so as to render
most of the book inexplicable and incomprehensible.

Worth gazing upon for severe interest
dear reader, but be warned:
it is a book most troubling, and
mostly impossible to follow.

Final Grade: C

ɔ :ǝpɐɹƃ ןɐuıɟ

˙ʍoןןoɟ oʇ ǝןqıssodɯı ʎןʇsoɯ
puɐ 'ƃuıןqnoɹʇ ʇsoɯ ʞooq ɐ sı ʇı
:pǝuɹɐʍ ǝq ʇnq 'ɹǝpɐǝɹ ɹɐǝp
ʇsǝɹǝʇuı ǝɹǝʌǝs ɹoɟ uodn ƃuızɐƃ ɥʇɹoʍ

˙ǝןqısuǝɥǝɹdɯoɔuı puɐ ǝןqɐɔıןdxǝuı ʞooq ǝɥʇ ɟo ʇsoɯ
ɹǝpuǝɹ oʇ sɐ os ןɐǝɹɹns puɐ ƃuısnɟuoɔ os
ʎɹoʇs ɐ ɹoɟ sǝʞɐɯ ɹǝɥʇǝƃoʇ
ʎɹʇǝod puɐ ǝsoɹd ɟo uoıʇɔoɔuoɔ ɐ
:ǝʌıʇɐɹɹɐu ǝɥʇ ʇnq 'ɥʇıʍ ƃuıʞɔıʇs ɥʇɹoʍ
ʞooq ǝןzznd uɐıɥʇuıɹʎqɐן sıɥʇ sǝʞɐɯ ʇɐɥʇ
ʎɹǝʌɐɹq ǝɥʇ puɐ uoıʇıqɯɐ ǝɥʇ sı ʇı

˙ʎןqɐɹɐdǝɹɹı ʇsoɯ ǝpɐʌuı ʎǝɥʇ
sǝɯıʇ puɐ ʎɹʇunoɔ ǝɥʇ op os
ʇǝʎ puɐ sʍoɹƃ puɐ sɯossoןq
ǝʌoן ɹıǝɥʇ sɐ ǝɯıʇ ɥƃnoɹɥʇ
puɐ ɐɔıɹǝɯɐ ssoɹɔɐ ƃuıʌıɹp
sɹǝʌoן pǝssoɹɔ-ɹɐʇs oʍʇ ǝɹɐ
ɯɐs puɐ ʎǝןıɐɥ puɐ ʎǝןıɐɥ puɐ ɯɐs

˙uʍos sɐɥ ıʞsʍǝןǝıuɐp ˙z ʞɹɐɯ uʍo ʎɹǝʌ
,sǝʌɐǝן ɟo ǝsnoɥ ʇɐɥʇ ןǝʌou ǝɥʇ
ƃuıdɐǝɹ puɐ ƃuıʞɐʇɹǝpun ʎq
ɟןǝs ɹnoʎ uodn ʍoʇsǝq ןןıʍ noʎ
ǝɹnʇuǝʌpɐ ɟo puıʞ ʇɐɥʍ
puɐʇsɹǝpun noʎ ʇɐɥʇ
ǝɔuɐʇɹodɯı ʇsǝɹǝɔuıs ʇsoɯ puɐ
ʇsoɯʇn ǝɥʇ ɟo sı ʇı
¡ɹǝpɐǝɹ ʎddɐɥ o 'ǝɹǝɥʇ ʎpʍoɥ

[Adam · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was like a cross between Da Vinci Code and something by Palahniuk. And I mean that in the most insulting way possible.

The summaries and reviews I read before getting the book had all focused on how it's the same story about two people told from each of their perspectives. Therefore, I hoped going in that it would have some interesting and thought-provoking juxtapositions.

There were no interesting juxtapositions. When reading one character's take on a situation, the question was not in what subtle way would the other character's view of it differ, but rather in what way would the other character's view be the exact opposite. If he said that he drove the car with great skill, would she say he drove poorly, or would she say that SHE drove the car with great skill?

To give an idea of the degree to which this book sucked, here's the summary of a typical scenario from each character's perspective. And as much as you may think that I'm making this up because you don't believe that something this bad could possibly have been published, let me assure you that I am not. Let me repeat - you may find this scene summary to be offensive. It is Danielewski's scene, straight out of the book, not embellished, not made up:
He says: he has a big penis, she has small breasts, he satisfied her sexually and ejaculated massive quantities of come all over her, and then he drove the car with great skill, and she got car sick.
She says: he has a small penis, she has large breasts, he performed poorly sexually and ejaculated a tiny amount of come on the ground next to her, and then she drove the car with great skill, and he got car sick.

It was all so juvenile and formulaic that I had a hard time believing it was really happening and a much harder time believing that anyone could get through more than a few pages of this without dismissing it as total shit. How could any review of this book not trash it completely? I suffered through to the end of the book just so that I could assure myself that it did not, in fact, get better at some point. It did not. This book was horrible.

I gave this book a chance for the same reasons that I gave House of Leaves a chance - mostly that they seemed unique, and I like unique books and writing styles. Both books turned out to be without substance and poorly written by someone who appears to have the maturity of a teenager.

I'm done with Danielewski. He's a hack.

[Michelle · Rating 1 out of 5]

For every bit of love I felt for Danielewski’s House of Leaves, which was quite a bit, I felt an equal amount of dislike for this one. For me this book embodies a word I have recently seen thrown around Goodreads: Gimmicky. It was gimmicky with a capital G. Gimmicky with all caps. GIMMICKY. It was just bad, man. Bad, bad, bad.

The book tells the story of Sam and Hailey, eternal sixteen-year-old road-tripping Romeo and Juliet types who drive across country and through history. Their story is told by each of them, and is printed on two sides so that each cover of the book could be either the front or back cover. One side is the story told in Sam’s point of view, and if you flip the book upside down and to what would be the back cover, you can read it from Hailey’s point of view. I guess the layout of the book was a…unique idea. An…interesting concept. The problem was that Sam and Hailey’s story wasn’t interesting to read. At all. The dreamy, often misspelled kiddie speak which they used reminded me a little bit of Francesca Lia Block’s books, but she does it oh-so-much better.

I almost never do this, but after I read the book I read its Wikipedia page. I don’t know what I was looking for exactly. Maybe I was looking for a special meaning that I must have missed because surely it couldn't have been that bad, right? Wrong. Incidentally, the most interesting things about the book were found on its Wiki page, which leads me to believe that either the author himself or a huge fan must have written it. But, nothing was enough to sway my opinion or call myself a dumbass for missing some earth-shattering motif that another smarter reader would have picked up on. The information below is quoted directly from Wikipedia:

The first letter of each 8 page "section" is larger and bold when compared to the other letters. When the reader puts the single letters together from Hailey's side they spell out "Sam and Hailey and Sam and Hailey..." etc. When read from Sam's side, they spell out "Hailey and Sam and Hailey and Sam..." etc.

{Huh. Didn't catch that.}

Each half-page contains exactly 90 words. When both stories are combined, the words add together for a total of 180 words per page, perhaps to symbolize the 180 degrees the reader must turn the book to read the opposite volume. Also, with both pages open, the full word count is 360, essentially making a revolution (360 degrees) with every open page.

{Didn't catch that either. But...someone actually counted that shit?}

Get it? Only Revolutions.

Yeah.

The only reason I gave Only Revolutions one star instead of zero was because I was so elated after I turned the last page.

[Lala BooksandLala · Rating 1 out of 5]

accompanying vlog https://youtu.be/zfBpv0x7atE

[Amber · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book as I LOVED House of Leaves, and furthermore, I wanted to be the elitist one that could espouse, "ohhhh, you didn't like it??? well, it was a difficult boooook..."

but

I just didn't like it. I mean, I get the concept. I get the format, I get the epic quality.... but I think the entire thing could have been done in half the length with twice the impact. After a while the "flip the book" gimmick because almost unbearable as I would get distracted and forget in which voice I was reading, not to mention that the people at the coffee shop must have thought I was a psycho. I really like the "events" in the sidebar, but by the time I would read a full page of them, I would forget what was going on in the actual text. All in all, just too much. TOO MUCH I TELL YOU! But maybe you'll like it, who knows?

Although - I did hear a bit of the author reading from the text on the book's website, and it was really pleasing to hear. So perhaps listening to it as a spoken poem in his own voice would be the preferable mode of ingestion.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have learned that something can be structurally interesting and yet completely unappealing. I read about 24 pages each direction before I realised that reading more would be a chore and not worth my time.

[hh · Rating 5 out of 5]

reread: may 14, 2011-

(1/1/07): the best book i've read in a while is now out in paperback and as an audio book and mzd has announced his fall tour. what better time to update my review of this gorgeous, personal, political work? plus, who doesn't love a book that so prominently features american cars and asks to be read like a steering wheel?

only revolutions succeeds at a nigh-impossible feat: it is a modern epic poem. it is a novel. a love story. a history. a myth. it is lewis carroll, jack kerouac, t.s. eliot, vladimir nabokov, ralph ellison. (i am stunned, actually, that so few reviews compare danielewski's diction to carroll's - the wordplay similarities might as well be wet fish smacking you in the face. unsurprisingly, no shortage of joyce and pynchon comparisons with which i disagree.)

yes, yes, the presentation of this story is unusual. and reviewers seem to either love or loathe the mobius design. like all the best writing, one reading will not suffice. with that in mind, i jettisoned the historical documentation on the first trip through, referring only to the dates. yes, there is a lot on the page. but it doesn't have to be daunting.

sam and hailey's story is timeless and boundless - it is a story as old as human civilization. the narrative is free and uprooted. and danielewski creatively honors that. the work both relies upon and transcends its formatting.

i'm looking forward to my second pass, to letting hailey and sam attach themselves to the ebb and flow of events and then cast themselves away. the sidebars, and to some degree the typography, allow danielewski to be innovative with this doomed-romance, to superimpose the story of america. the characters are not 'everyman.' they are every possibility. they are the unending potential of a nation that has steadfastly clung to the brink. with these perpetual teens, danielewski paints a portrait of our national character- of our haughty isolationism, our delusions of grandeur, our energetic whirl of morebetterfasternow, and our tentative relationship to everything outside ourselves.

[Marley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think I'm one of very few people actually set up to love this book. Obtuse pointless internal rhymes, a romp through history for some vague reason hanging on the Kennedy assassination as fulcrum, an obsessive parallelism as metaphor for love, a total overstuffing of reference as a way of talking about Americanness, and a bunch of Finnegans Wake references--yes, this is one of those things where taste is defined by what kinds of silliness you'll tolerate.

But for me, anyway, it's like reading a giant sestina--all these obsessive rules, all these endless rearrangings of a few elements around a wisp of a story: boy meets girl, couple go on road trip, the forces of evil try to pry them apart, tragedy gives the whole thing meaning. For me, all the extra ways you can read parallels (back to front, top to bottom, left to right) are a sign of this book's maniacal artistry.

So even though nobody else agrees, I think I'm more likely to reread this than House of Leaves. Some of that book's typographical tricks in the last few chapters just got cheesy to me and took away from the really interesting story. This thing is a seamless whole--a sometimes idiotically simple story, to be sure, but like a jewel, legible from all sorts of glittering angles.

Or in other words: Boomblastandruin!

[Nathan "N.R." Gaddis]

Alright. That's enough. Page 113 (from each end). Were I to finish it, it would be merely pro forma.

So but anyway. If you're even in the least bit curious about his book, this object of the book designers' trade, probably not so much the novelists' trade(?), then my own very personal suggestion would be that ; lieber to be curious about either Larva: A Midsummer Night's Babel or Zettels Traum. Seriously.

On the other hand, all best wishes to those who've made Only Revolutiions a meaningful work. I count myself not among them.



The Z=man was so kind as to signature=ify my 50 Year and my Book of the House of the Leaves (still undetermined whether I trust him on his forthcoming), whereupon I had priorly written ::
______________
So now but since I've read that !@#$%^&* Fifty Year Sword I understand why this little volume might be as vacuous as the disappointed-because-not-HOUSE-OF-LEAVES-PART-II Reviews say it is. I'm still up for it. But Mr Z said "Derrida" just too many times at his reading for me to believe that he understands enough Derrida to make a Derrididian novel.

"Derrida is not an excuse." -- Nathan "N.R."

[Stevie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I dont mind working to read a book. I loved "House of Leaves" and I dont mind being a bit 'lost' in a book - Umberto Eco's "Focault's Pendulum" was a truly difficult read that required work to read and research to fully comprehend. But this one... lost me WAY before it could hook me.

I don't mind the gimmick, really. "House of Leaves" was gimmicky - but it had a great story, an interesting story, a story that sucked you in and kept you reading, and turning, and looking, and puzzling. "Only Revolutions" is beautiful to look at, its puzzle is well constructed and its fun to see how it all fits together (180 pages, 180 degrees... etc.) but like someone else said - thats the art of it. It may be art but it still has to be a book. After all the title of the 'art' is "Only Revolvtions: A Novel . Unfortunately it seems Danielewski forgot about that part because as far as story goes - this was AWFUL. The lack of narrative and story and aetherical characters makes the art/puzzle frustrating instead of fun. It is written in a kind of stream of consciousness prose.. ugh.

I'll save most of you some time. From the books wiki entry:

Only Revolutions is printed in such a way that both covers appear to be the front of the book. The side with the green cover is the story as told by Sam, and the side with the gold cover is the story as told by Hailey. Every page contains upside-down text in the bottom margin, which is actually later pages of the opposite volume. For example, the first page of Hailey's story contains the last several lines of Sam's story, apparently upside down. When you reach that page while reading Sam's story, those lines will appear to be the only right-side-up text on the page.
The first letter of each 8 page "section" is larger and bold when compared to the other letters. When the reader puts the single letters together from Hailey's side they spell out "Sam and Hailey and Sam and Hailey..." etc. When read from Sam's side, they spell out "Hailey and Sam and Hailey and Sam..." etc.
Each half-page contains exactly 90 words. When both stories are combined, the words add together for a total of 180 words per page, perhaps to symbolize the 180 degrees the reader must turn the book to read the opposite volume.[original research?:] Also, with both pages open, the full word count is 360, essentially making a revolution (360 degrees) with every open page.
The publisher recommends the reading of eight pages from one story, then the other, and so on.
In addition, every page contains a sidebar with a date and a list of world events that happened between that date and the one which appears on the next page. Dates in Sam's story run from Nov 22, 1863 to Nov 22, 1963, while dates in Hailey's story run from Nov 22, 1963 to Jan 19, 2063. This chronological sidebar, which offers a mosaic of 19th - 21st Century historical quotations, becomes blank after Only Revolutions' own publication date. The diverging point between Sam's line and Hailey's line is set at the date of the John F. Kennedy assassination, November 22, 1963.

And with that you have read the most interesting thing about this book. If you want to you could even print out the above quote and take yourself to a bookstore - find the book and check out the art, hold it, turn it, look at it. Then do yourself a favor and put it back on the shelf.

[Paul]

Zero stars. That's right. Zero of them. This is the worst book I've ever read. It was appallingly bad. Again, it was the worst book I have ever read.

Here's my longer review of it:


Writing by Numbers:
Mark Danielewski’s Only Revolutions

The age-old love-struck teenaged social pariah theme gets a new spin in Only Revolutions, Mark Z. Danielewski’s latest meretricious undertaking. Told by two sixteen-year-olds, Hailey and Sam, the book begins from both ends, “allowing” the reader to flip it over every eight pages, alternating between characters. Danielewski claims to have conceived of the format after having separately written Sam’s and Hailey’s stories, though this is difficult to believe considering the two tales are hardly distinct. Nor do their voices differ; solipsistic Sam asserts, “I am astounding,” egocentric Hailey declares, “I am astonishing,” and aside from such slight dictional variances, the book essentially repeats itself each time it is flipped.

A strong sense of rhythm and an ability to generate momentum are evident immediately as Sam and Hailey race about in a polynymic car, fornicating, eating HONEY and defecating, all the while extolling themselves to the point of absurdity. The car, however, remains undescribed, their driving is aimless, the shitting grandiose and, to say the least, excessive. Further, puerile phrases like chillin, no biggie, bouncing gazongas, and phat props, plus apocopic colloquialisms dis, sitch, and sesh are unengaging and detrimental to the notion of timelessness, a supposed major theme of the novel. All seems consequently quite desultory, the constant book-turning serving no purpose but to prohibit the momentum from really taking off. And while a mollified pace eventually makes room for conflict, even this seems forced: the two try desperately to get married, a social convention such outsiders would surely eschew. Somehow they succeed, and later each holds the other in his/her arms, all vitality inexplicably drained therefrom. The entire narrative is devoid of any setting and context, unless one is inclined to read the so-called history margins, a running compendium of cryptic non-sequiturs obtained largely via fan submission to the author’s web forum. These exist as a separate text alongside the story proper, serving only, really, to distract. Though they do, according to the author, evoke the look of a road. Neat.

While he may lack linguistic maturity, Danielewski excels in graphical flourish and gimmick. Giant Ulyssesesque initials commence both characters’ halves, although, despite several critics’ claims, this is as Joycean as the novel gets. Drop caps indicate the breaks at which the book is meant to be turned over; these follow a rigid pattern of two, three, or five lines in height. Black dots in page corners act as cinematic cigarette burns, harbingers of each expositionally insignificant five-line cap. Type shrinks from 20 to 12 points over the narrative course, a visual representation of Hailey and Sam’s collective quietus. On Sam’s side, fauna is set in bold and fades puzzlingly to gray; Hailey’s repeats the trick with flora. Page numbers revolve around each other in flip-book fashion and the pronoun US is set always in narcissistic capitals, reading as an initialism like a note sung off-key. Though none of this adds anything to the reader’s experience, Danielewski clearly believes an overdeveloped structure can supersede content. Typefaces are numerous, have apposite names—Life, Perpetua, Tempo, Myriad, Spectrum, Univers—and are listed “in order of arrival” as if playing an active role. Within the text though, proper characters clash with Sam and Hailey only visually, via their small-capped monikers, and not through any sort of literal development. Indeed the only memorable one of the bunch is THE CREEP, and only because his handle appears throughout in arbitrary purple ink.

The paperback edition makes small improvements. An appropriate, if obvious, road adorns each cover, replacing the marginally relevant pupils of the hardback. Gone is the further incongruous case, a photocollage of dead birds, insects and plants, and while the eliminated double-ribbon means the reader will have to supply her own bookmarks, these are easy enough to come by. The cryptic endsheets, an apparent concordance set in reverse and arranged in an odd pattern of various overlapping ovals, remain only in part, suggesting dispensability. Rest assured, though, fans; each O and zero are still set in either green (in Sam’s portion) or gold (in Hailey’s). The text itself remains unchanged.

Though specious, House of Leaves, Danielewski’s experimental debut novel, showed ambition. Here, however, he forgoes sentiment for numerical allusion, filling each of his 360 pages with 36 lines and exactly 180 words but not a trace of genuine emotion. Perhaps he’s hoping this paucity of substance will be missed for the constant book-flipping. Indeed, as Hailey claims 67.8% of the way through her half of the novel, “If you can’t fix it, give it a spin.”

[Matthew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh, what a gimmick! Two stories, sharing the page, meeting at page 180, and continuing on to page 360 where the ending of each story is also the beginning of the next. If you follow the publisher's recommendation, you'll turn the book over every eight pages to weave the two stories together. There's different colored ink, puns and riffs that would make Joyce jealous, and a list of dates in the sidebar that serves as a kind of Cliff's Notes of American History. It's all very exciting and exhausting. But is it anything more than a cool idea? Is there any story here? Is it, like the jacket proclaims, a novel?

Can I answer yes and no? Ostensibly a story about Sam and Hailey, two sixteen-year-old kids on a road trip through America, Only Revolutions is much too abstract to be read as simply a novel. It's really more of an epic poem; there is a narrative thread, but it's obscured by Danielewski's kaleidoscopic style. Sam and Hailey are larger than life, and often supernatural, characters who alternate between dealing with the minutiae of everyday life (working, driving, going to the bathroom) and dealing with larger issues (destroying worlds and universes, reincarnation, etc.).

I was both continually frustrated and occasionally amazed. Only Revolutions may just be art for art's sake, but it's pretty art, and Danielewski's command of language is breathtaking at times. I'll close my conflicted review with this: At best, it's a brilliant literary experiment, something transendent that I just didn't fully grasp. At worst, it's an over-stylized and insultingly simple parable about nature and youth.

"Because we're every happy trail, / enjoining a World free of US / to have fun. Enjoy. We're all anyone / must absatively fail to destroy."

[Erin Beck · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’m on the bus for 2 hours a day. It’s where I do all of my reading. It’s like being in the bathroom and reading the back of shampoo bottles – Almost anything is better than just looking out the window – But not this book.

I really wanted to like Only Revolutions. I thought the idea was great. The same story told from the male and female perspective. You read 8 pages of the male side then flip the book over and read 8 pages of the female side.

But I thought I would be reading prose - not an epic poem. I understand some people may like the poetry style, but not me. I thought the book just started this way and would transform to a novel after a few pages, but this is the way the whole damn thing is written.

I want my money back. I’m pretty angry.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Make no mistake about it--this book is *not* for everyone. Even those who managed to conquer Danielewski's House of Leaves (or at least finish it--conquering it is perhaps another matter altogether), may find themselves ultimately beaten or annoyed by Only Revolutions. Taking structural formalism to an extreme, Danielewski weaves the story of two seemingly immortal and un-aging sixteen year old kids, Hailey and Sam, as they trek across the United States on the run from the enigmatic character The Creep, in pursuit of that which occupies every true sixteen year old's thoughts: complete freedom.

Along the way they fall in love, party like it's 1999 (several times over), take way too many drugs, work to make their ends meet at a city diner, and creep into what seems to be the end of the world--wherein the book's most beautiful and tearful passages are to be found. It's a shame that most readers won't make it this far--the entire story is told in manic free-verse poetry filled to the brim with obscure words and even obscurer etymologies, purposeful misspellings, and a healthy dose of pure adolescent gibberish--on top of which the story is split into dual narratives, soaked in Danielewski's trademark playful typological manipulations and use of colour, and rife with strange symbols, vague historical allusions, and compelling puzzles to be solved. A lot of readers dismiss the whole package as a postmodern gimmick of rather epic proportions, and it's hard to blame them.

So, if all of the above sounds like too much to slog through in pursuit of what is ultimately just a Romeo and Juliet sort of story, my recommendation is to avoid reading it like the plague. But please, please, even if you don't ever plan on attempting to read the thing, at least find a copy to flip through and admire. A lot of hard work obviously went into the planning and structure of this peculiar novel, and it's rare to behold a mass-produced book that so obviously begs to be admired even just as a physical object. Whatever Danielewski's faults as a writer may be, he pours what must be nearly all of himself that he has to give into every little detail of his books, and it really shows.

How lucky are the persistent and open-minded readers out there who have gotten the bulk of this book's text under their belts then and love it--they love it not only as a curious and bizarre object, but also as a curious and bizarre love story. For me, five stars is too few--for most, five stars is far too many. The truth about this amazing and flawed book lies somewhere in the middle. Let's call it a solid four.

Notes: Nominated for the 2006 National Book for Fiction.

[M · Rating 1 out of 5]

An epic poem, told from the point of view of two people, with lots of annotation and other Danielewski tricks anyone who read the interesting, if flawed, 'House of Leaves' will be familiar with. When I read this book I felt like it would probably be good for me to finish it, like eating Cheerios or Wheaties, but that's not why I read books (as a general rule). It's also supposed to be read 10 pages at a time, from each protagonist's point of view, and that definitely got annoying after about page 30. I think it's a ballsy exercise but it didn't do anything for me.

[Bianca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, allora. Con calma. Non lo so se ho capito niente, MA... l'idea e la costruzione del libro sono pazzeschi, non ci si aspetta altro di diverso di Dani.
360 pagine, 360 parole per pagine, 360 animali&piante, 360° da far compiere al libro per leggere i due pdv. Sam&Hailey, Hailey&Sam, due adolescenti per sempre sedicenni che si rincorrono e si intrecciano e si innamorano in un viaggio, fisico o metaforico, negli USA dal 1863 al 2063. In alcuni punti mi sono chiesta se stessi effettivamente leggendo di due ragazzini o piuttosto di due concetti astratti, come vita&morte, salute&malattia; più che altro alla fine mi è sembrato che loro due simboleggiassero un po' il concetto stesso di libertà, ostacolati dalle convenzioni sociali e dal resto della gente che non capisce.

Penso che la nota dolente di questo libro è che ci sia poca trama effettiva, per cui secondo me bisogna un po' andare avanti per amore dell'opera, magari del linguaggio stravagante e artificioso o del sapere come la storia si concluda (sempre che lo faccia). Come scritto sopra, in generale mi è sembrato come se il "poema" fosse tutto un'allegoria di cui però non sono riuscita bene a cogliere l'interpretazione. Ci sono tanti simboli che si ripetono: il Bracciale Sinistro, il MIELE, il Verme, la Speranza Morente e tutte le altre forme. Ho cercato qualcuno che l'avesse interpretato al posto mio ma ancora non l'ho trovato, eventualmente modificherò la recensione a posteriori.

Mi è piaciuta tanto la soggettività dei due pdv che si alternavano ogni otto pagine, per apprezzare quanto la verità sia volubile e quanto ognuno viva la propria storia attraverso la propria lente. E ho apprezzato che, man mano che il viaggio prosegue e i due ragazzi si conoscono meglio e si innamorano, il parere sull'altro muta, diventa meno critico, meno derisorio e si addolcisce, si riempie di stima, di rispetto e di ammirazione, fin quasi a una punta di invidia.

Nel corso della lettura, mi si era generato un sacco di hype per il momento centrale del libro, quello in cui i due pdv si sarebbe incrociati intorno a pag. 180 e effettivamente è stata una parte carina, simmetrica tra i due lati delle pagine (così sono in parte simmetriche anche altre pagine del libro in punti precisi della storia). Mi è piaciuto ancora di più tutto il finale della storia stessa, da entrambi i lati.

Alla fine della lettura, ho ancora tante domande irrisolte che temo potrebbero rimanere tali: cosa intendevano col "ruotare il Braccialetto Sinistro"? Potevano effettivamente viaggiare nel tempo e per questo riescono a rimanere 16enni e viaggiare per 200 anni? A cosa servono nella storia le note e le informazioni nei paragrafetti? Cosa rappresentano il miele, il verme, la speranza?

Vi dico che, molto più che con Casa di Foglie, per questo libro ci vuole pazienza e serve che vi prenda, perché altrimenti sarà una tortura mortale (lo dico perché all'inizio lo è stato per me).

[Jill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Exactly halfway through this book, my opinion of it changed completely.


Up to that point, I wasn't enjoying it. I was tired, as I am always tired, of arrogant adolescents getting into misadventures, scampering about having sex and consuming exorbitant amounts of drugs (aside: when you teach high school, glamorous nostalgia for the teenage years kinda loses ANY AND ALL power). I was irritated with the writing style -- choppy sentences and constant references to wildlife (what? I still don't get that) -- and with the fact that you have to constantly flip the book over and around. You're supposed to alternate between the confluent narratives of the two main characters, Hailey & Sam, every 8 pages -- this, while being a brilliant example of why a paper novel still has unique relevance, is also supremely annoying.

But exactly halfway through, the narrative starts repeating itself. Slightly differently. Things are different, now; Hailey and Sam have evolved a little, now. But if you skim back a few pages, you realize the same scene is being revisited -- slightly differently. And then, if you look at the mirror narrative below, you realize there are connections there, too.

And then it hit me how brilliant, how ambitious, Danielewski really is.

He doesn't succeed fully; this is not Cloud Atlas, though the 'nesting doll' structural metaphor works well here, too (but you could argue, probably more realistically, for that whole Nietzsche's-'eternal return'-thing). Still -- this book feels like uncharted territory, something to explore and inhabit, hate and love. It recalls all the Romeo & Juliet angst you could ask for, and it does it both timelessly and oh-so-contemporarily. And as for the physical experience --- well, you won't soon forget it. You might be happy to read a book where you can turn the page without having two bookmarks flapping around ---- but you also might miss Only Revolutions, and how after you read it -- it sort of becomes yours.



Ultimately: a gorgeous testament to the power of FORM, and the power of paper books. A not-so-gorgeous testament to the intensity and impetuousness of adolescence.

[Alex V. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think a lot of people pick up Finnegan's Wake and fall in love with the perverse but precise architecture of that book and figure, "shit, I can do that."

Well, they can't.

I positively adore Danielewski's House of Leaves equally for its compelling structure and the stories stretched up on those frames, but this one is all stretcher and no canvas. It's a he-said she said, both stories glind through the book, upside down from each other. The letter O appears in green everywhere in the book. The font in each story gets smaller as the story progresses, and there is a running oblique timeline of events that runs the sidebar, starting with teh abolition of slavery in the 1800's and the date progresses on each page by as many days as there is left in that particular story, starting in his story and telescoping into hers. Curiously, he continues the sidebar structure up into something like the year 2350, but stops filling it in around May of 2005, likely when the book was complete.

The story is written in higgledy-piggledy poetic form and while I caught myself getting caught in the meldoy of it, I could never really get a bead on what was going on. Graphic designers and other font obsessives will dig it, those who prefer form over function might dig it, but otherwise I found it to be an impenetrable curiosity.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible reading experience that works more as a novelistic slam poem than a typical novel. Danielewski creates two timeless characters whose youth never dies as their love continues to grow. Written in perfect rhythm and pace, reading the book outloud adds to the experience. The movements of the words and the power of Danielewski's language could be dampened by just looking at the book and letting it work interiorly. However, by saying the words, the story is brought to life even more to life. Danielewski continues to revolutionize the novel with this powerful portrayal of love through the ages. Not only the love between two individuals, but the love for your country and trying to maintain the vitality and youth that it stands for. This book looks incredibly challenging, but setting the sidebar dates aside (which only need to be understood as a reference point for further analysis...you only really need to read the narration) and the "flip the book" device, it isn't anything incredibly daunting that should scare readers away. While more challenging than a typical novel, it is a challenge worth taking with a payoff that brought me to tears.

[Brendan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This read like a dream. It was confusing, then clear and then confusing again. The story seemed to inch, jut, and leap forward, and then with a flip of the book an instant replay revealed a different perspective.

I loved Danielewski's use of two voices to tell a story. His understanding of the two main characters and their insatiable need for each other showcased the madness of love in a remarkable form of suggestion, saturation and passion.

I was often confused and amazed by the intricacies, layers and detail that entwined the story to the presentation. I felt like I missed a lot in my first read of this book, but like a dream, what I could grasp seems precious.

[nethescurial · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first instinct I (and probably most others who read this) have would be to compare this book in some way to "House of Leaves", because of course, but other than Danielewski being the author and other than him continuing to push the boundaries of the written word, it's an entirely one-of-a-kind experience. Even people who religiously analyze "House of Leaves" may find themselves bewildered and frustrated by this book, and tbh it's not hard to see why - Danielewski's sheer ambition here, that ambition for its own sake that I love so much about his writing, is cranked until the dial comes off, resulting in something that feels entirely its own and entirely impenetrable unless you really sit down with it and put work in. But its this presented challenge that made me so enamored with this, because this is the exact kind of artistic wildness I aspire to - in its love of the avant-garde, its love of poetry and written language, its love of the spectrum of human experience and the rhythmic musicality of all art; why must it justify itself to be anything other than it is?

So yeah, with all that being said, there are plenty of points of comparison for "House of Leaves". In some ways its joyous and often uplifting tone makes it feel like an opposite to that book, which is reinforced right down to the dedication page (which I can only interpret as being the direct antithesis to "this is not for you"). And unlike Danielewski's debut, which contracts inward and shifts in on itself as if to crush Navidson, Johnny's ailing mind, and the reader, "Only Revolutions" instead gives the feeling of expanding outwards. The two character-driven narrative prose poems that stand beside each other create an authentic feeling of spiraling out to and from each other when read as directed, and the amount of intertwining narrative threads and (often subtle) screwing with time and scene repetition creates the feeling of being bounced to and fro like a pinball machine through tons of ever-expanding wormholes in space. It's dizzying and sometimes even pummeling (getting to the end in particular, and realizing I was RIGHT BACK at the beginning of the book, felt like slamming into a concrete wall particularly), but by god, if it isn't one of the most unique and thrilling literary experiences I've had this year.

But it's not just thrilling because of the bizarre typology and upside-down-backwards-forwards composition of the book itself, but because of the actual contents of the poems themselves. Hailey and Sam are charming and in a sense relatable characters, self-concerned teen lovers with a desire for freedom from everything except each other, and despite the typical teenage selfishness on display there's a true sense of love and loyalty that pervades their narratives; they get into arguments and squabbles but they never abandon each other, always on the move, always looking to outrace their oppressors and time itself for the sake of each other and each other only. The story anchors this teenage self-centeredness with Hailey and Sam quite literally being the center of their own and each others' entire worlds, and this is reinforced through the imagery in the novel, which is this enticing usage of softly defined yet extreme fantasy; they travel in every model of every car known to man, their love causes storms and makes mountains crash, all the animals and plants of the world follow them through their journey throughout this landscape of surreal Americana, and they have lots of extravagantly described, metaphorically overloaded sex. It's literary maximalism to an extreme, I guess is what I'm trying to say here, and the fact it's from the perspective of two hormonal teens makes this approach super captivating because like, what teen's world ISN'T blown up to extremes??

All this Joyce-mixed-with-Lewis Carrol prose poem screwery and head-spinning typology would have been fun enough on its own, but Danielewski clearly cares about the two leads not just as archetypes and fantasy wish fulfillment, but as people, and I think that's the biggest and most pleasant surprise I had reading this novel. The book starts big and booming in its voice, extravagant and over-the-top teen boasting and arrogance, but the further you get, the more the manic poetic pace...begins to slow a little, begins to show cracks in Hailey and Sam's both literally and figuratively immortal armor. Roles begin to switch - insecurities and uncertainties are revealed - disagreements are had and real-life flaws and the minutiae of romantic intimacy are made more visible. At the end of the day, Sam and Hailey are volatile and emotional teens, immortal or not, and still bound by the human troubles of teenhood and the world around them which at every turn attempts to get them to comply. The heart of this book is kind and humanistic, tragic as it can be at several turns, and there's a deep empathy for the leads here that Danielewski is so skilled at conjuring.

And when these problems are for-the-time-being solved, the pace kicks up again, shooting back into that endless spiral, the constant push-pull of balancing life's pleasures and its miseries. The lengthy arc in Saint Louis is a fantastic example, as Hailey and Sam's love and freedom are challenged by the mundane reality of working a soul-sapping 9 to 5 where their shifts are separate and their peers and bosses are oppressive, perverted nuisances. It's only after a long series of raucous, poetically described food fights (yes, it really is that kind of book, if you were still unconvinced) that the couple finally escape the clutches of working under institutional slavery and go back to face that great, free unknown, the same one we all long for. It's actually a genuinely inspirational moment, and this feeling of yin-and-yang is prevalent throughout the novel; we'll all have our problems but we'll all also have our moments when we finally feel we can break free of them, future be damned.

This book ends up feeling as much music as it does literature - malleable, thriving in the abstract rather than the concrete, open to interpretation and eternally fluid and rhythmic. The poetry format is so useful for furthering this ambitious lyrical approach, making it feel constantly on the move, constantly driving forward, all terminology that also fits in with the actual imagery in the novel. You can write this off as a "gimmick" if you want, but not only is that a silly term that punishes art for pushing boundaries and having ideas, it also does a disservice to how genuinely smart this novel is on Danielewski's part, and the clear love and attention to detail with which this book was put together.

I can see why people wouldn't like this book, but to me it was absolutely life affirming. And isn't this book life, too? Always driving on no matter what, facing roadblocks and forcing oneself past them no matter what, whether that be with grace or indignity. Time charges ever on, but time is just a construct, isn't it? Maybe we can freeze time. Maybe we can live within the moment, maybe the moment is eternal and maybe it's all there is. And maybe all that matters is the people we share those precious moments with. Maybe love itself is a revolutionary act.

And I'm kind of devolving into my trademark psuedophilosophical rambling now that I'm so well versed in but you get it I think. I loved this. And even though most might not love it (as most of the reviews here will attest) I hope what I wrote here will mean something to you, even if you read it and think the book is bullshit. I want to give to the world what books like "Only Revolutions" give to me, at least to the best of my ability. Even if only a few people read this, or if only a few people like this book, or whatever. If literature and art touches anyone, even just one - then it matters. It's done something eternal and irreplaceable. And that's all I gotta say.

“Whenever we roam be beside me.
When you're allone. When you go.
When no one comes along. And for all we
Wander. Encounter and open
Allways curl up with me.
Give me pain, past and fury.
Betray my way. I won't abandon you."

[Max Nemtsov · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ну что, с одной стороны ничего нового, с другой — эксперименты хороши в свое время. Читая Данилевски, вспоминаешь «симюльтэн» — симультанизм Анри-Мартена Барзана (его «Эпоха драмы, 1912) и его последователей (хотя как посмотреть, многие считают — сверстников) Робера Делоне и прочих. Блэз Сандрар с его транссибирским путешествием в придачу. Те тоже — 100 лет назад — раскрашивали буквы разными красками, жонглировали шрифтами и шрифтовыми композициями. Выдавать экзерсисы Данилевски за новое слово в литературном эксперименте, как это делают его издатели, — неумно и как-то, гм, провинциально.
Самое интересное в этой книжке — разбираться, как она устроена. Как только разберешься, всякий интерес к ней пропадает, потому что читать там нечего, кроме конспекта мировой истории с 1863 года. Настоящие книги же — они для чтения все-таки, сколь угодно нелинейного, а не только для верчения в руках. Такое объективирование книги (похоже было у ДФУ) сродни порнографии, т.е. сильно на любителя. Т.е. ебать текст чтением — это одно, а всухую дрочить на его внешнюю оболочку — нечто другое. Ничего, что я не употребил гастрономическую метафору?

[Jesse · Rating 5 out of 5]

So I finally got around to tackling this book (or more like letting it tackle me) - and I must say this is definitely NOT a book for everyone. By that I mean that the book itself is conceived, structured, designed, and executed in a way that purposefully insulates - creating a sort or ring or sphere around the work (which means that it requires much work on the reader to find a way in). That said - history itself creeps in and there are amazing faint echoes and allusions that resound from the chronomosaics (history gutters) to the poetic central text. I do get why most people would not like this book, as it really does require ALOT from the reader, basically you have to flip the book back and forth, keep track of 4 distinct echoing parts on each page, deal with characters whose name shifts from page to page - and that doesn't even get into the fact that it is an epic poem written in an ever-evolving teenage slang. Oh, and also they can talk to plants and animals and their car shape-shifts its make and model.

But that said, once these uncertainties are overcome and the structure, technique, and voice begin to familiarize, you start to see a brilliantly unique and entangled story. Sam and Hailey have an ordained journey that takes them throughout America, but also an internal journey from ego to selflessness, or from Liberty to Love. Their language starts to become a song of sorts, and once you let go of complete understanding you begin to get a much better sense of what is happening. I know that sounds paradoxical, yet the archaic slang and animal/plant names really hung me up when I first read this book. Then on the second read through I became comfortable with animals and plants talking with Sam and Hailey (like in Disney movies) and realized the purpose of the slang. And once I got these bearings I realized that the specific language of Sam and Hailey act more as a chronological anchor and as such can generally be understood through context without the need for strict definition (although it is there and employed in fascinating ways)

Lastly, I'll say for those that may not have liked it but want to give it another shot, try reading it aloud or listening to the audio book (it is on Youtube). I got great joy out of the musicality of hearing this work read aloud and this also helped with understanding.

So basically I am saying: this book is a wholly unique reading experience, however you must:
become familiar with 200 years of slang
become familiar with 200 years of US history
keep track of 4 resonant allusions across each page
track the linear journey of Sam and Hailey through a circular story

This is ALOT to ask of a reader - but if that's your thing - this book will offer years of delight, pleasant surprise, philosophical wisdom, and last but not least - some of the best-written sex scenes in the history of literature.

[Nate D · Rating 2 out of 5]

America, its history, its ideals, as quadraphonic epic poetry. Extremely ambitious and probably brilliant, but I'm not exactly up to the task of determining this for myself. The one real complaint I feel fairly up to making is that unlike, say, Pynchon, where the references echo, riff off of, and bolster the content, here there virtually is no content outside the references. I'm not even convinced that all the references refer to anything at all. The design, however, is utterly gorgeous.

Or maybe I was doing it wrong, trying to read it like a story rather than just coming in and out and dancing through the words here and there. Or maybe I need to re-read, regardless.

[Thijs Joores · Rating 4 out of 5]

She knots up my hair, slurps
on my shoulder, so sobsloppily
tortured with shame and
remorse, though I'm the only
one here to blame of course.

***

My guts turning, splashes & sweats,
DTs to kicks. I'm all dreck. Wrecking
everything. Remorsefully.
Ashamed. Tortured. The only one
here to blame, assured.

[Darrell · Rating 1 out of 5]

After Danielewski's first novel House of Leaves, my expectations were high for Only Revolutions. Unfortunately, I was severely disappointed.

The book is about two young lovers, Sam and Hailey, who each tell their own side of the story (you flip the book upside down to switch between their viewpoints.) Their story takes the form of a poem, with arbitrary line breaks and indentation, puns, inconsistent rhyme, alliteration, intentionally misspelled words, made-up words, and so forth.

It's an interesting idea, however their versions of events are nearly identical. The points where they differ are like mirror images. In one scene, Hailey tells us Sam is driving, but from Sam's point of view Hailey is driving. There's another scene where they're skipping rocks across the water. Hailey claims she can skip rocks and Sam can't, while Sam claims it's the other way around. Myla Goldberg did a much better job at presenting multiple perspectives in Wickett's Remedy. Danielewski's attempt is pathetic.

Although Sam and Hailey's versions of events are basically the same, you still need to read both in order to understand what's going on, since Danielewski's poetry is so cryptic it's often impossible to discern what's going on.

For some reason, Danielewski decided to include historical trivia in the margins. He lists names of famous people, disasters, sporting events, politics, snippets from famous quotes, etc. However, as with his poetry, the historical tidbits he includes are often so fragmentary as to be meaningless.

All this reminds me of a quote from Russell Baker: "I gave up on new poetry myself thirty years ago, when most of it began to read like coded messages passing between lonely aliens on a hostile world." That about sums it up.

[Jenny (Reading Envy) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book was like an acid trip, or being schizophrenic. It is the story of two 16 year olds, Sam and Hailey. They are timeless, and they are on a road trip, and they are in love. It is written in some type of... prose? I don't know what to call it. It's not like a regular story. The stories start from opposite sides of the book, and you read 8 pages of a time, then flip it, then read 8 pages, then flip it. Each pair of 8 pages retells the same story. I noticed some parts of the story that mirrored what was going on upside down from it. Along the sides are parts of history listed chronologically with some commentary - I abandoned reading this after a while.

Long story short, I'm not sure I "got" it but it was an interesting reading experience. The book I really wanted to read by him was House of Leaves, so I still need to.


"Because we're taking it all. Taking our time. We're leaving everything behind." (Sam, pg 304)
"For him the World spins and to blow it away would forfeit all the World allready Loves of him." (Hailey, pg 305)

"I will sacrifice nothing. For there are no countries. Except me. And there is only one boundary. Me." (Sam, pg 3)

"But life's big. If you can't fix it, give it a spin." (Sam, pg 245)

[Susan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Clever in concept; awful in execution. The characters are as thin as the gimmicks are thick. Revolvings devolve into revolting. Only Revolutions can't really make up its mind what it is -- bad fiction or bad poetry -- circling tediously from cartoon to pornography to B-movie dialogue to quest narrative (though what is sought is never made clear and I use "narrative" losely), to alternative and parallel worlds. The idea of a book that can be read in both directions has potential and the flip-book rotation of folios by one degree is a nice touch, but that's about all this book has going for it. Only Revolutions is like being stuck in a revolving door, your life in suspension. Progress? Impossible. I came to this book with an open mind -- I love postmodern experimentation -- and read every word. Finally, it's a sterling example for the distinction between gimmick and art. If Danielewski had been able to give this work even a modicum of depth, he would have convinced me of its worth. This one's for the "ugh" shelf.

[HelloB · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ciao cacao! 💃

Si legge che è una tortura e poi alla fine non sai manco quello che hai letto 😃 vabbè Danielè c'hai provato 👍

[DJ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've been thinking about this book for days. What would I rate it and why. I'm not even sure that it's 3 worthy? Maybe 2 1/2? (finally settled on a 2) I know for a fact this might turn into less of a review and more of theories I have about this book.

The love story between two sixteen year olds, Sam & Hailey.

This book was sitting in the FREE section at a local used book store. And, hey, free is free. So I double checked that it wasn't a mistake because the paperback was going for $12/used and this was hardback. Definitely Free. Then I googled if the version mattered like it does for House of Leaves. Nope. So free book to read it is.

The publisher says it's a novel. What the publisher doesn't say that they probably should have is that it's an epic poem not a novel. Would have cleared up a lot. Better information to choose whether this book is right or wrong to read.

This book (according to the publisher) should be read in alternating views by flipping the book over every 8 pages. This is the approach I took to reading it, starting with Sam (though I've read Hailey is the recommended start. I chose Sam, because he has the earliest date on the history timeline (It's a sidebar on the left side of the page giving a date in history and the events of what happened that day, 9/11 isn't mentioned, but it does go up to 2005?). Now, I will say here that if you read all of Sam's side, then went to Hailey's, it would work as well. Each POV coordinates with the timeline in events and slang. It's rotations are infinite...

THE LOVE STORY: Each Chapter begins with an enlarged and bolded letters that spell out this infinite "...Sam And Hailey And..." loop. They're sixteen year olds in love. 16 year olds with different sets of circumstances (again, why the history stuff plays a role). Sam starts out (I believe) as a slave on the run. Hailey starts out being raped. They meet. They fall in love. They live this life of teen emotion and sex while on the run from their tormentors.

I believe that the love story is just a long circling tale of all those Sam and Haileys throughout the years, that it wasn't just the one couple, but an amalgam of all those teen loves that grow to exist then disappear. At times, they are a pure yin and yang...which when you look at the way each page is numbered--an O with two numbers within a small circle denoting which POV (Sam/Green, Hailey/Yellow) you are on. If you add a small curvy line to each of them, it makes a yin and yang symbol.



WHAT I THINK BEYOND THE LOVE STORY: I think Danielewski disguised a love poem for an ode to the United States. (I haven't found this theory anywhere.)



There's all these mispellings that contain ALL/ONE = unity, united. There's always "US" to be the pronoun/noun used in all caps, all the time. There is this word: FEER. It's written in place of fear most of the time, but google told me this word is a little known Scottish descendant meaning the fencing in of a large area. And having driven all over the western half of the country from Texas westward and northward, I have seen all the "feers" in action. Then there's places and vehicles, plants and animals...all of it listed in lyric...Pride in the US, landmarks and manufacturing feats. But, this is where that history also comes into play...the horrible acts that have gone on in our country and because of us--slavery, bombings of other places, war/War/WAR...



Personally, I don't like epic poems, but this was an okay one if you can get past the way some of the things are said. For me, though, it felt like it wasn't about just one thing, but so many things. And maybe that's where I wandered away. I did finish the book, which I was close to DNF'ing about 70% through.

I'm just not sure I would recommend this to the average reader. Maybe to someone looking for a challenge.

*A BEACH READ ~ JULY 2016*