Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.03 AVERAGE
4.03 AVERAGE
Gave up. I started this again because the publisher was having a 25th anniversary read-along. But after I started, I found that it had actually started at the first of January which put me months behind. So it wasn't so much a read-along, as a read again which didn't appeal. And I'd forgotten how difficult this book is to read and I still haven't decided if it's really avant garde or pure wankery. That, and the fact that I'm already reading a book that has a spooky house caused too much cross-contamination.
It's also physically difficult to read. The typeface is very small and jumbled, which is certainly by design. The overall size is awkward (although if it were any smaller it'd be 10 inches thick).
So ... no.
It's also physically difficult to read. The typeface is very small and jumbled, which is certainly by design. The overall size is awkward (although if it were any smaller it'd be 10 inches thick).
So ... no.
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
An interesting book. A bit self-serving, I think, but a unique book. I do not, however, recommend reading it for hours each day while your spouse is out of town and you are alone in the house...
this is not a book for the impatient - I found it more exasperating to read than Infinite Jest
I really loved the conceit of the house, and the Whalestoe letters
I really loved the conceit of the house, and the Whalestoe letters
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Things that I liked:
• pseudo-academic manner of writing
• experiments with text margins and overall imitation of spatiality in the text structure
• concept of the main story
• intriguing possibility of a creature (Minotaur) lurking in the House
• House messing around with Navidson and co.
• episode of Reston vs. Holloway
No-no’s:
• Johnny Truant and his tiresome freewriting
• interesting horror concept, the potential of which wasn’t fully developed
• Truant’s scribble. Again. Seriously. There’s too much of it and the only reaction it invokes is annoyance. Whatever was the purpose of his inclusion in the novel, it didn’t play the role it was supposed to, I guess.
• pseudo-academic manner of writing
• experiments with text margins and overall imitation of spatiality in the text structure
• concept of the main story
• intriguing possibility of a creature (Minotaur) lurking in the House
• House messing around with Navidson and co.
• episode of Reston vs. Holloway
No-no’s:
• Johnny Truant and his tiresome freewriting
• interesting horror concept, the potential of which wasn’t fully developed
• Truant’s scribble. Again. Seriously. There’s too much of it and the only reaction it invokes is annoyance. Whatever was the purpose of his inclusion in the novel, it didn’t play the role it was supposed to, I guess.
I've heard you either love or hate House of Leaves, and boy can I see why. It wasn't really on my radar, as I conceptualized it as one of those things a little too close to litfic for me to leave my little fantasy gremlin pile, but some people in my book club were reading it and I picked it up at a time where I really didn't have the room in my schedule to read it, banking on my "I'll read 10 pages and if I'm not into it I'll put it down" policy.
Reader, I did not put it down. Well, a few times, if only because even I can't quite get through 700 pages in one sitting, even if a number of them are rather empty.
I was taken by the conceit, though I can see why many people wouldn't be. The layers on layers on layers intrigued me, as did the presentation of the """central""" text as academic analysis. As someone who's read one too many theory papers in the last 5 years of my PhD, it was entertainingly familiar. I think I liked Johnny's additions so much more for the way they, in a way, "bring down" this highly pretentious ivory-tower text. A lot of people hate that about the footnotes. Me, I was happy to let Johnny rub his grubby hands all over it.
Somehow I never properly registered that the book was in the "fucked up house" genre, which happens to be one of my favorites. So that was a delightful surprise for me. I adored the house, and the way Danielewski represented that through the iconic manipulation of the text. I also deeply appreciate that this is a horror story where love wins, in the end, and not because it defeats the house--but because the house lets it. I want so much more analysis on the character and psychology of the house. My own layer of footnotes, maybe?
I really can't tell you how it managed to be so engaging, because what the hell is pacing? The timeline jumps all over, and the "action" is sporadic at best. And yet. I think the dry humor helped, as did the various allusions and the treasure hunt sort of feel as you were sent tromping around in footnotes and appendices. A real fun experience to read. Your partner will look at you funny if you lay in bed reading it, though. Flip, flip, turn, twist, turn, flip.
I have so many more thoughts on this book, but they're all swimming around in my brain in a mess of layers not unlike the book itself. I might come back and add more later, I might not. I'll just tell you I finished this book three months ago and I just now got around to writing a review and I'm still thinking about it. Damn.
It's 4 stars because there were times where either the academic analysis or Johnny's rambling became just a bit too much, and only one of those times actually seemed intentional. And while I had little problem with Johnny being a huge sleazeball because that did seem to be part of the point, I felt like the description became gratuitous and leaning heavily on shock value at points. Also, I forgot to return it to the library and they (temporarily) charged me a $50 replacement fee and it gave me a mini heart attack. (Not really affecting my rating. But it did cause me more stress than any other horror-adjacent novel! Maybe the rating should go up for that?)
Reader, I did not put it down. Well, a few times, if only because even I can't quite get through 700 pages in one sitting, even if a number of them are rather empty.
I was taken by the conceit, though I can see why many people wouldn't be. The layers on layers on layers intrigued me, as did the presentation of the """central""" text as academic analysis. As someone who's read one too many theory papers in the last 5 years of my PhD, it was entertainingly familiar. I think I liked Johnny's additions so much more for the way they, in a way, "bring down" this highly pretentious ivory-tower text. A lot of people hate that about the footnotes. Me, I was happy to let Johnny rub his grubby hands all over it.
Somehow I never properly registered that the book was in the "fucked up house" genre, which happens to be one of my favorites. So that was a delightful surprise for me. I adored the house, and the way Danielewski represented that through the iconic manipulation of the text. I also deeply appreciate that this is a horror story where love wins, in the end, and not because it defeats the house--but because the house lets it. I want so much more analysis on the character and psychology of the house. My own layer of footnotes, maybe?
I really can't tell you how it managed to be so engaging, because what the hell is pacing? The timeline jumps all over, and the "action" is sporadic at best. And yet. I think the dry humor helped, as did the various allusions and the treasure hunt sort of feel as you were sent tromping around in footnotes and appendices. A real fun experience to read. Your partner will look at you funny if you lay in bed reading it, though. Flip, flip, turn, twist, turn, flip.
I have so many more thoughts on this book, but they're all swimming around in my brain in a mess of layers not unlike the book itself. I might come back and add more later, I might not. I'll just tell you I finished this book three months ago and I just now got around to writing a review and I'm still thinking about it. Damn.
It's 4 stars because there were times where either the academic analysis or Johnny's rambling became just a bit too much, and only one of those times actually seemed intentional. And while I had little problem with Johnny being a huge sleazeball because that did seem to be part of the point, I felt like the description became gratuitous and leaning heavily on shock value at points. Also, I forgot to return it to the library and they (temporarily) charged me a $50 replacement fee and it gave me a mini heart attack. (Not really affecting my rating. But it did cause me more stress than any other horror-adjacent novel! Maybe the rating should go up for that?)