I don't usually go and read the Amazon reviews of a book after I finish it (why do I care what someone else thought?) but I almost felt as though I had to for this. They seem split between OMG brilliant and ugh, gimmicky.

I suppose that depends partially on whether you think gimmicks can be brilliant. Make no mistake, this book is going to have fun with you, perhaps even annoy you and make you wonder why you're bothering sometimes. However, I was under the impression that the book was an invitation to the reader to participate in the gimmicks and the absurdity and appreciate how ridiculous it was.
I found the mocking of academia to be spot on (and one's relationship to those sections seems to be based on whether they're read as mimicry or parody.I read them as the latter.)
Of course, the book works, and I truly do believe it works, because there is a story with compelling characters underneath the gleeful semiotics and absurd post-modernism (also known as academic jerking off). The story works as a backbone and I think that's what really makes the difference between the five and one star reviewers. If, at the end of the day, the actual story fails to resonate, the book will never be anything more than a gimmick. But if you care about the characters and the horror story bubbling through the cracks of post-modern verbiage, the gimmicks become actual artistic choices in service of a story and you can't imagine getting half as expressive a tale without them.