How do you write a review for this book without writing a series of essays and sounding as bad shit crazy as Zampano or Truant?

If you like puzzles and mysteries (and footnotes), this book may just be for you.  

The labyrinth imagery thought this book is not only a physical thing happening in the book, but a break in the 4th wall and happening to the reader as well.  All the footnotes are designed to lead the reader down paths not in the "main" narrative flow.

There are essentially three main stories here.  The most straight forward and accessible is the account of the house on Ash Tree Ln that's bigger on the inside, The Navidson Record.  The subsequent documentaries let to a fascination with the house.  When this book is described as horror it's these sections, with it's use of liminal spaces, mysterious monster growls, and missing people.

Then there's the collection of various academic papers and articles written about the events, complied by the blind man Zampano.  There's a critique of academia here, especially when you look at a blind man writing about a film.

Finally there's the young man, Johnny Truant, who collects and organizes Zampano's notes, while adding his own diary-like entries, to make the book we're reading, House of Leaves.  Here we look at madness and unreliable narrators.  

This book is working on so many levels, you seriously need corkboards and string to link it all together.  Throw in Greek (and Norse) mythology, the science of sound, and an appreciation of breaking the 4th wall, and you've got yourself one hell of a book.  

I'm sure I've forgotten half of the things I was thinking about and looking up while reading this book.  Like I said, a more thorough review would end up like a Zampano section of the book.  This is a book I will definitely revisit in the future.  I think subsequent rereads will only enhance your experience with House of Leaves.  Danielewski is one crazy smart author putting this all together, remember everything in this book is there intentionally.