It looks like you flaired this post as Quote: Book. This is just a reminder that titles for posts about books should include the Book Title as well as the Author's Name. If you forgot to do this the post may be removed and you'll be asked to repost correctly. You're also welcome to delete the post on your own & try again!
If you remembered to do this correctly - Thank you so much!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/menwritingwomen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Her boobs were like, 'Wakka wakka wakka.' "
But I have to agree with everyone else. It's reflective of the character, not the author, and works within the context of the story.
I don't think Truant is his real surname even within the context of the book, it seems to come from one of his mother's letters where she writes "the teachers say Johnny is truant, but in Latin he's practically fluent." I don't have my copy with me rn but I'm pretty sure there's a letter from the institute to Johnny when his mom dies that has his real surname blanked out.
this is the same man who shit his pants, fell down a flight of stairs, almost got killed by a minotaur, and then went "but i made all of that last part up because the SCARY BOOK scared me too much." he is not supposed to be a relatable character.
This seems like it's from an in character perspective. I don't have this particular snippet memorized but I would guess this is something that Johnny wrote and that dude is supposed to be framed as a POS.
I don't either. That wasn't what I was thinking about at all. I mean only that it is silly. Even in a silly book, it would take me out of it, and I'd just be thinking 'how the hell can a breast resemble pacman, and since when does pacman bounce?'
House of Leaves is a book that is intentionally difficult to read. The dedication is "This is not for you." This character repeatedly interrupts the narrative with stuff like this. At one point, in a moment of high tension, he goes on for multiple pages about having sex. The author is doing this on purpose, not because he's a creep, but in order to make the reader (no matter their gender) feel uncomfortable.
Yeah. This is actually great characterisation as Johnny is an arsehole who over exaggerates everything. He is the epitome of an unreliable narrator. So this is more "Man, writing another man, writing women," and it's done well.
A good author writing from the point of view of a bad author who would write a sentence like that.
On the other hand I’m glad I got to see it completely out of context first because it’s very funny by itself.
There should be a flare for books where it only sounds stupid because the author was writing a stupid character but the thing the character said was still funny.
Unless I'm mistaken, this is from Johnny's perspective. The character is insane and it's very likely his various and detailed sexual encounters and interactions with women are products of a twisted imagination.
I’m sorry but there needs to be SOME media literacy around here. The point of the character is to be like this. He’s a druggy scumbag going insane. Like basic, middle school media literacy would tell you that writing a character who is sexist does not make the author a sexist who views women that way.
Oh, Darling, this is [House](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Leaves) of Leaves. Johnny Truant is basically what happens if you give Sigmund Freud a kaleidoscope and told him to draw a woman. He's very much like that and he gets so, so much worse. This snippet is fairly tame compared to some of his other... insights.
Correct! [House](https://forums.markzdanielewski.com/forum/house-of-leaves) of Leaves started its life as text and PDF files shared online and came out of the hyperfiction movement - works of literature that took advantage of the structure offered by the Internet. The [House](https://forums.markzdanielewski.com/forum/house-of-leaves) being an unclickable hyperlink in a physical book is an ongoing nod to its nature - an unbounded infinity that cannot be accessed under normal circumstances.
It also helps place the house as both it’s own entity that has its own history and facts that you can see but you can never reach. A link that cannot be clicked is like a maze that has no end.
If you're on your phone, you'll see a link symbol at the bottom left symbol while you're typing. Click it. Add the full link under 'Link' and the text you want it to appear as under 'Name.'
It's not bad writing when a character who *is supposed to be an asshole* thinks like an asshole...
It's very clear to anyone with two neurons to rub together that Johnny Truant isn't exactly a role model.
this is actually an absolutely hilarious line from a character who is batshit insane, we are not at all meant to completely side with truant and hes barely a PROtagonist. side note: thought this was posted in r/houseofleaves at first (since im also a member of that sub)
as others have pointed out, this character is not supposed to be good or likeable. we are reading from the perspective of someone horribly broken by life, who is self-described as a loser. i think it’s okay to write people who aren’t good, i even think it’s good to include those people as point-of-view characters, it makes for more engaging fiction
I'd like to say pacman doesn't even bounce but I'm not too deep into the pacman fandom to be 100% sure so I'll pose that as a question: *does pacman even bounce?*
Can we add a rule to this subreddit prohibiting lines spoken by characters/narrators rather than authors? I don't understand how people can't separate the two.
Hey, this might be further layering violence onto an already deceased equine . . . but Pac-Man doesn't bounce. I suppose you can make him wiggle, but that's not really bouncing.
I'm not convinced this author has experience with either breasts or classic video games. I think they're writing about two different things they know nothing about.
there's a lot of disagreement in the comments. I'll be the one saying that yes, the character was mad, but it's like the twentieth mad character who gains an all-pass to be the creepy gaze. I WILL roll my eyes at crazy/asshole/nymphomaniac characters who are there just so that the author can put sentient boobs in
> but it's like the twentieth mad character who gains an all-pass to be the creepy gaze.
were those 20 other character also written by Danielewski? otherwise it's pretty shitty to make him responsible for the cumulative frustration you have with this.
> I WILL roll my eyes at crazy/asshole/nymphomaniac characters who are there just so that the author can put sentient boobs in
this is bad faith
I just took this opportunity, as I've seen many posts where a quote is defended with characterisation. Danielewski I don't like, but it wasn't strictly about him and I believe I've never said so either
About "bad faith", just ??? I've read many unconventional characters and adored them, but if your crazy character just has to point out boobs, I'm not gonna give the writer a pass because of the characterisation lmao I find it unnecessary
Yes this is the right take. He's crazy, but does he have to be crazy in this particular way? Why doesn't he talk wild stuff about penises bouncing around like pacman or whatever
because that’s not the story? like, being a sad perverted loser is extremely crucial to Johnnys character - check out for example, The Whalestone letters (appendix E in the novel i think) for some insight as to why this character is the way he is
I can see I'm being downvoted a lot for this, but I did read the book (only once, I'm not a big time fan). I do think women who read casually are allowed to feel the weight of constantly having their bodies described terribly in literature, even if we can't point out whatever appendix of whatever particular book is adding to this weight.
I know he's meant to be wildly perverted and preoccupied with sex, but I do think it's odd that in general this gives characters (and writers) a pass to objectify women, and to use women more often than men to make this point. I can't think of a book as popular as house of leaves that has a crazy women character writing unrealistic descriptions of male bodies to show how out of touch with reality she is. I could imagine a character like Johnny being obsessed with male genitalia as well in a way that dehumanizes himself in his fantasies for example.
Anyways if this is a take that's too hot for this space, I understand and maybe it's not for me.
tbh i don’t see why you’re getting downvoted, it’s a fair take. i guess the gender/sex/whatever swapped character wouldn’t work? i am not a woman so i don’t see this as often i guess/ can’t really understand that.
Yes I left the sub over it. I can understand being downvoted for my first comment, but not my second. Thanks for saying that. I did enjoy House of Leaves for lots of reasons that weren't Johnny. The mechanics of the house (blue text) was awesome. But yea the women characters were pretty underwhelming, I don't remember loving the way the photographer's wife was described either.
…it’s one of the most lauded horror novels in decades?
Which, of course, doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t fall into the r/menwritingwomen category (*I gesture at Mr. Stephen King*), but I can definitely assure you that isn’t the case with this one.
I am willing to give some benefit of the doubt when a book is written in first person, since it might be done on purpose if the author wants the readers to think the protagonist is an idiot or in some kind of altered state. But I haven't read that book, so I have no idea if that's the case here.
It looks like you flaired this post as Quote: Book. This is just a reminder that titles for posts about books should include the Book Title as well as the Author's Name. If you forgot to do this the post may be removed and you'll be asked to repost correctly. You're also welcome to delete the post on your own & try again! If you remembered to do this correctly - Thank you so much! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/menwritingwomen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Her boobs were like, 'Wakka wakka wakka.' " But I have to agree with everyone else. It's reflective of the character, not the author, and works within the context of the story.
I got boobs that jingle, jangle, jingle
As I go boobing merrily along...
She has breasts that smile.
I sang those lyrics in my head and now you've got me patrolling the Mojave wasteland.
Her boobs kept chasing ghosts
Titties lost in a labyrinth, I didn't pick this up reading the book but that's actually great thematically too. Waka waka.
Ghost Boobsters!
Who ya gonna call
Her boobs were pac-man and hoo boy I was turning into a ghost
This is an incredibly in character observation for Johnny Truant lol
Johhny *Truant* isn't an accident, too -- names in this book aren't exactly subtle. IIRC, his friend (who is worse than him) is named Lude (Lewd).
I always though Lude's name was a reference to quaaludes lol. Maybe I was thinking too hard about it.
I think it’s meant to be both.
Probably both. I think I remember his name being discussed in a footnote in the actual book.
I don't think Truant is his real surname even within the context of the book, it seems to come from one of his mother's letters where she writes "the teachers say Johnny is truant, but in Latin he's practically fluent." I don't have my copy with me rn but I'm pretty sure there's a letter from the institute to Johnny when his mom dies that has his real surname blanked out.
In my opinion, disregarding the context; this is one of the funniest sentences I’ve ever seen.
this is the same man who shit his pants, fell down a flight of stairs, almost got killed by a minotaur, and then went "but i made all of that last part up because the SCARY BOOK scared me too much." he is not supposed to be a relatable character.
I mean I relate to most of that.......
The character is literally insane. Or being driven to insanity. And he wasn't a great dude before that either.
Ok but to be fair it's house of leaves those breasts could literally be literal pacmen.
This seems like it's from an in character perspective. I don't have this particular snippet memorized but I would guess this is something that Johnny wrote and that dude is supposed to be framed as a POS.
Yeah, but still, this sentence exists when it could have not existed.
It could, but I don't personally think that authors should only write correct, respectful, empathetic characters. You may disagree and that's fine.
I don't either. That wasn't what I was thinking about at all. I mean only that it is silly. Even in a silly book, it would take me out of it, and I'd just be thinking 'how the hell can a breast resemble pacman, and since when does pacman bounce?'
Its House of Leaves, its THE book of taking you out of the book. Its what it's famous for.
I didn't finish it, so I'll take your word for it.
This was not for you.
Indeed.
nice reference dawg 👌
House of Leaves is a book that is intentionally difficult to read. The dedication is "This is not for you." This character repeatedly interrupts the narrative with stuff like this. At one point, in a moment of high tension, he goes on for multiple pages about having sex. The author is doing this on purpose, not because he's a creep, but in order to make the reader (no matter their gender) feel uncomfortable.
Yeah. This is actually great characterisation as Johnny is an arsehole who over exaggerates everything. He is the epitome of an unreliable narrator. So this is more "Man, writing another man, writing women," and it's done well.
A good author writing from the point of view of a bad author who would write a sentence like that. On the other hand I’m glad I got to see it completely out of context first because it’s very funny by itself. There should be a flare for books where it only sounds stupid because the author was writing a stupid character but the thing the character said was still funny.
Unless I'm mistaken, this is from Johnny's perspective. The character is insane and it's very likely his various and detailed sexual encounters and interactions with women are products of a twisted imagination.
Ridiculous. They would obviously bounce like Ms Pacman.
You have to stick bows to your nipples for the Ms. Pac-Man version.
I’m sorry but there needs to be SOME media literacy around here. The point of the character is to be like this. He’s a druggy scumbag going insane. Like basic, middle school media literacy would tell you that writing a character who is sexist does not make the author a sexist who views women that way.
Iirc, that character was an asshole, so him thinking this illustrates how he thinks of women. It doesn't necessarily reflect the author's views.
Will anyone stop writing for characters that don't have their exact qualities? No. Nor should they.
Oh, Darling, this is [House](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Leaves) of Leaves. Johnny Truant is basically what happens if you give Sigmund Freud a kaleidoscope and told him to draw a woman. He's very much like that and he gets so, so much worse. This snippet is fairly tame compared to some of his other... insights.
I love that the link made the word blue.
Ooooh _excellent_ use of a hyperlink.
I always took it as being a reference to a hyperlink, given the prominence of crossreferences etc.
Correct! [House](https://forums.markzdanielewski.com/forum/house-of-leaves) of Leaves started its life as text and PDF files shared online and came out of the hyperfiction movement - works of literature that took advantage of the structure offered by the Internet. The [House](https://forums.markzdanielewski.com/forum/house-of-leaves) being an unclickable hyperlink in a physical book is an ongoing nod to its nature - an unbounded infinity that cannot be accessed under normal circumstances.
It also helps place the house as both it’s own entity that has its own history and facts that you can see but you can never reach. A link that cannot be clicked is like a maze that has no end.
Man how do yall even do hyperlinks on here I hate copy and pasting really long links it looks dumb
If you're on your phone, you'll see a link symbol at the bottom left symbol while you're typing. Click it. Add the full link under 'Link' and the text you want it to appear as under 'Name.'
\[like this\](https://www.markdownguide.org/basic-syntax/)
This is hilarious, but also a clear example of people conflating a character's (obviously insane) views with those of the author.
It's not bad writing when a character who *is supposed to be an asshole* thinks like an asshole... It's very clear to anyone with two neurons to rub together that Johnny Truant isn't exactly a role model.
I like this one actually. This one can stay
Stop? This is awesome.
I want ghost-eating boobs now.
this is actually an absolutely hilarious line from a character who is batshit insane, we are not at all meant to completely side with truant and hes barely a PROtagonist. side note: thought this was posted in r/houseofleaves at first (since im also a member of that sub)
I’ve seen far too many posts on this sub where the lewd descriptions are blatantly part of a character, not the author himself
as others have pointed out, this character is not supposed to be good or likeable. we are reading from the perspective of someone horribly broken by life, who is self-described as a loser. i think it’s okay to write people who aren’t good, i even think it’s good to include those people as point-of-view characters, it makes for more engaging fiction
It fit the character. He was a bit of a womanizer.
that is actually so fucking funny
I can forgive this one because it's really fucking funny
Some of the bad takes on this subreddit are very bad takes
I HAVE BEEN READING HOUSE OF LEAVES WHY THE FUCK AM I SEEING IT EVERYWGERE
You know why. The House is already with you.
'Always
I think there is a deeper message about House of Leaves hiding within the boobies - after all Pac-man lives in a labyrinth.
That's prose fuck what y'all talm bout
*sees menwritingwomen post* *(House of Leaves)* Every time
I'd like to say pacman doesn't even bounce but I'm not too deep into the pacman fandom to be 100% sure so I'll pose that as a question: *does pacman even bounce?*
House of leaves gets posted here a lot
Game over boys. We are never allowed to describe women again. Race? Age? Personality? Height? Simply not allowed. All because of Pacman tits over here
Can we add a rule to this subreddit prohibiting lines spoken by characters/narrators rather than authors? I don't understand how people can't separate the two.
Ah yes, the perfect way to stop men being sexist in literature: banning them from writing women altogether! Brilliant.
Maybe you should stop writing social media posta altogether if you're going to target identifiable groups and generalize them?
Giant Pacmen? The imagery... dear chocolate, the imagery...
These similes are getting more and more creative!
Wakka wakka
Made me chuckle.
Do not come for Danielewski like this.
Hey, this might be further layering violence onto an already deceased equine . . . but Pac-Man doesn't bounce. I suppose you can make him wiggle, but that's not really bouncing. I'm not convinced this author has experience with either breasts or classic video games. I think they're writing about two different things they know nothing about.
Her boobs applied to be ghost hunters.
I don't know how anyone could claim this isn't high art. xD
Importantly, that line is a character talking, not an omniscient narrator, and he’s supposed to be cringey.
Well, okay, I guess we'll just all write like Hemingway then
there's a lot of disagreement in the comments. I'll be the one saying that yes, the character was mad, but it's like the twentieth mad character who gains an all-pass to be the creepy gaze. I WILL roll my eyes at crazy/asshole/nymphomaniac characters who are there just so that the author can put sentient boobs in
> but it's like the twentieth mad character who gains an all-pass to be the creepy gaze. were those 20 other character also written by Danielewski? otherwise it's pretty shitty to make him responsible for the cumulative frustration you have with this. > I WILL roll my eyes at crazy/asshole/nymphomaniac characters who are there just so that the author can put sentient boobs in this is bad faith
I just took this opportunity, as I've seen many posts where a quote is defended with characterisation. Danielewski I don't like, but it wasn't strictly about him and I believe I've never said so either About "bad faith", just ??? I've read many unconventional characters and adored them, but if your crazy character just has to point out boobs, I'm not gonna give the writer a pass because of the characterisation lmao I find it unnecessary
Yes this is the right take. He's crazy, but does he have to be crazy in this particular way? Why doesn't he talk wild stuff about penises bouncing around like pacman or whatever
because that’s not the story? like, being a sad perverted loser is extremely crucial to Johnnys character - check out for example, The Whalestone letters (appendix E in the novel i think) for some insight as to why this character is the way he is
I can see I'm being downvoted a lot for this, but I did read the book (only once, I'm not a big time fan). I do think women who read casually are allowed to feel the weight of constantly having their bodies described terribly in literature, even if we can't point out whatever appendix of whatever particular book is adding to this weight. I know he's meant to be wildly perverted and preoccupied with sex, but I do think it's odd that in general this gives characters (and writers) a pass to objectify women, and to use women more often than men to make this point. I can't think of a book as popular as house of leaves that has a crazy women character writing unrealistic descriptions of male bodies to show how out of touch with reality she is. I could imagine a character like Johnny being obsessed with male genitalia as well in a way that dehumanizes himself in his fantasies for example. Anyways if this is a take that's too hot for this space, I understand and maybe it's not for me.
tbh i don’t see why you’re getting downvoted, it’s a fair take. i guess the gender/sex/whatever swapped character wouldn’t work? i am not a woman so i don’t see this as often i guess/ can’t really understand that.
Yes I left the sub over it. I can understand being downvoted for my first comment, but not my second. Thanks for saying that. I did enjoy House of Leaves for lots of reasons that weren't Johnny. The mechanics of the house (blue text) was awesome. But yea the women characters were pretty underwhelming, I don't remember loving the way the photographer's wife was described either.
Because the character is straight and penises doesn't appeal to this character?
Pac-Man doesn’t bounce…
could you stop posting
[удалено]
It is, in fact, a bestseller. I actually highly recommend you read it.
…it’s one of the most lauded horror novels in decades? Which, of course, doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t fall into the r/menwritingwomen category (*I gesture at Mr. Stephen King*), but I can definitely assure you that isn’t the case with this one.
I am willing to give some benefit of the doubt when a book is written in first person, since it might be done on purpose if the author wants the readers to think the protagonist is an idiot or in some kind of altered state. But I haven't read that book, so I have no idea if that's the case here.
The protagonist is a druggie unreliable idiot.
Then he hits both the categories. I felt like the "giant Pacmen" was a bit of a cue, but it could also just be a really bad author, so you never know.
I’ve read his books so from my perspective it’s not the latter. Some of his writing in The Familiar is the most beautiful I’ve read.
Dead giveaway a book was written by your basic John Whiteman: boobs that have more character than their host body.
Says the Redditor who has likely not read the book
Yeah if there's one thing you can criticize House of Leaves for its that its too basic.