MAZE General Comments

For saying something.

This and that.

 - Image copyright 1985 by Christopher Manson

892 thoughts on “MAZE General Comments

  1. I don’t really play video games but I do like to watch trailers and playthroughs of ones that catch my interest. I recently watched some videos on “The Exit 8″ and it seems like one that Maze people might enjoy.

    • This is quite neat! Doesn’t seem to rely on cheap scares in the same way a lot of other “backrooms” styled games do. Thank you for sharing it!

  2. I finally read House of Leaves. I was aware of its daedalian-ness going into it, but I was surprised at its similarities with Maze. I think they’re pretty much trying to evoke the same things.
    Maze is accessible and often branded a children’s book. House of Leaves is dense and unfriendly, even from the first page (“this is not for you.”) It evades rereads, even first reads. In this way, it captures the feeling of Room 24 better than Maze ever could, because many readers will get lost in it and quit in frustration. But Maze captures the feeling of Navidson’s mysterious hallway, a gate that keeps drawing you back in. I can’t imagine someone reading Maze once and then never trying again.
    I got the feeling that House of Leaves was a little more confident than Maze in its unique formatting. Maze pulls its 29 gambit and doesn’t push its luck past that. I mean, it can be argued that the ergodic, decade-spanning undertaking of decrypting clues goes deeper than House of Leaves ever did. But the act of piecing together room clues is only pushed in the reader’s face in the introduction. Maze lays its mysteries out in plain sight, in objects and text that will be ignored as the rooms are navigated. You can read the book without caring about its rules. House of Leaves is unreadable in this way. You don’t discover turning it upside-down, you have to.
    I loved House of Leaves. We’re all Holloways here.

    • I enjoyed House of Leaves a lot when I read it, enough that I was very excited to read Only Revolutions, and then very disappointed in the little bit that I read, and then curious again to finish it, and then resigned to make it all the way through, and then gratified to an extent. A decade or so down the road, it’s Only Revolutions that has stuck with me more, although maybe just because it was so much more of an ordeal.

      I like Danielewski’s approach to writing more than I like his actual writing. He comes up with ambitious concepts that depend on a lot of precise decorative elements and structural commitment, and he puts in the effort to perfect those aspects. Ultimately, the structure and the ornamentation overwhelm the traditional narrative elements, which may sound like a criticism, but it’s not–if I were to describe beautiful architecture in terms of its structure and ornamentation, well, you get the point, there’s nothing wrong with that.

  3. For the first time in years, I found one of White Raven’s hidden webpages, but I was half-asleep and didn’t save it…
    Maybe it was just a dream! I remember it was some sort of dialogue between two characters

    • For my suitor was a river-god, Achelous, who in three shapes was always asking me from my father—coming now as a bull in visible form, now as a serpent, sheeny and coiled, now ox-faced with human trunk, while from his thick-shaded beard wellheads of fountain-water sprayed. In the expectation that such a suitor would get me, I was always praying in my misery that I might die, before I should ever approach that marriage-bed. But at last, to my joy, the glorious son of Zeus and Alcmena came and closed with him in combat and delivered me.


    • Well, I was thinking specifically of 33′s pitcher and horn, and the -on ending.

    • My fault, everybody. I should have asked whether we could EACH come up with a bad idea by the end of the year.

    • Also, “Achelous” doesn’t end with “-on.” I was thinking of Acheron, who I was reading about for some reason. I can’t even remember who Achelous is. Or Acheron.

    • Acheron is the river at the entrance of the underworld and Achelous is a different river, with the god Achelous being the personification of it. Achelous is related to horns and pitchers indeed (his fight with Herc/Heracles where his horn got torn off, poor guy…) but I can’t think of how Acheron would relate to 33. Though the lighting is pretty hellish

    • I wasn’t actually so incurious that I didn’t look “Acheron” up, but I thought it was appropriate to leave my mistake up, and receive the shame it merited.

    • I guess I did it more for the sake of just having the definitions of both up to think about, I don’t know… I should never doubt if you’ll validly verify veracity Vince!

  4. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I can’t believe INTO THE ABYSS is 8 years old, and MAZECAST is 7 years old. Time flies when you’re having fun.


Post Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>