I have so many questions about this book. Is the book clever or pretentious? Is it a horror novel, a book of philosophy, a discourse on mental health, a satire on literary criticism or a love story? Are the truths of the book to be found in the appendices and/or footnotes? Which is truth and which is lies?

The things I know are:
• The novel clearly gets you thinking. I have probably discussed this book with more people than any other I have read this year.
• It’s hard work and I mean really hard work with a lot of footnotes and appendices that you MUST read in order to understand the story. This is probably one of the most often DNF’d books on Goodreads.
• It has not just one of those endings that leave you hanging but two of those endings (maybe three?)
This is experimental fiction. It’s all about the format and begins with the quote “this book is not for you”. This may well be true.

Below is the format of the book (warning some people may believe this is a spoiler and want to go in blind. I have not given away any of the story though).
This is about a man who works in a tattoo parlour (Johnny) finding a book written by a blind man (Zampano) about a documentary film made by Navidson about his house where very strange and scary shit happened (Navidson). The book is written as an academic examination of the HOUSE and gives arguments for the motivations etc of the people who appear in the documentary as well as describing the film. The book about the HOUSE is supported by Zampano’s footnotes and appendices. Johnny begins to add his own footnotes and appendices as he complies the book. The story is a combination of the main text, the footnotes and appendices. I suggest you use two bookmarks for this one as you may find yourself going at least two directions at once.

Anything else beyond this is spoiler territory but I would be happy to discuss thoughts and confusions with anyone who has finished.