Inspired by the deliberate writing constraints employed by the Oulipo writers, Paul Glennon uses the geometry of a dodecahedron as the scaffolding for his collection of short stories, The Dodecahedron, or A Frame for Frames. Each of the twelve faces represents a distinct narrative; the thirty edges define the relationships between these stories; the twenty vertices suggest further points of intersection.
The constraint creates both structure and a kind of imaginative pressure. In one story, ‘Some Clippings for My Article on Machine Literature,’ the narrator describes software capable of generating novels, including one shaped by the geometry of the dodecahedron. It is an image that captures both the audacity and the precariousness of Glennon’s undertaking.
Knowing the structure from the outset adds a subtle allure to reading the stories, but by the end it risks feeling over-elaborated. Glennon appends an explanatory afterword, perhaps to illuminate the formal design, though the stories themselves carry sufficient resonance to suggest their interconnectedness without overt signalling.
The interrelationship between the stories is compelling. In ‘In My Father’s Library,’ a boy consumes his father’s books to keep them from three sinister investigators; the repercussions of this act ripple through subsequent narratives, exhilarating in their echoes and divergences. Glennon’s imaginative invention and the vividness of his worlds sustain the reader’s attention beyond the structural conceit.
By the conclusion, no authoritative interpretation is offered: the ambiguity between stories remains unresolved. The collection is all the better for that refusal to simplify.
>I agree that things got a bit labored, especially toward the end, but also agree with the fascination of the interconnecting stories and the strength gained by Glennon's ability to let things stay ambiguous. I like his concept of the final story not being the "final word" – of each story informing all the others equally. I had a lot of fun with this one; glad you enjoyed it too. 🙂
>I don't think that I've ever scribbled in a book quite as much as this one. Lacking your motivation to complete the brilliant mapping of the dodecahedron, I came up with a coding system and annotated almost every page. Or rather I did for the first eight stories, then got a bit bored with the scaffolding, and just enjoyed the stories.
>I'm glad you enjoyed this, Anthony, but the content was so middling to me that it was hard to appreciate the structure that you and the others found so fascinating. In contrast, Georges Perec's Life A User's Manual wowed me both with its feverish storytelling and its "architecture" (not that it's really fair to compare Glennon with Perec). Anyway, hope you'll consider joining us for the Josipovici read this month–I'm very much look forward to that one. Cheers!
>Thanks, Richard. I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on Josipovici; I've read it once and dip in frequently.
>I agree that the interrelationship is fascinating in certain regards, and I found myself enjoying individual pieces here, but the self-consciousness of the structuring killed it for me. I agree wholeheartedly with Richard about the comparisons with Perec. This in no way approximated the experience of Life A User's Manual for me.And your opinions of the Josipovici inspired me to pick this for my first turn of the year with the Wolves. Expect I will be returning to your insights soon.
>Thanks, Frances. Your comments here and elsewhere accord with my reading, though I possibly enjoyed the stories a little more, and the mystery of trying to figure out the interrelationships. Glennon is clearly very proud of his structure, and his explanation at the end was unnecessary and condescending.