The book is the house is the hallway. When you go into the hallway, there are multiple side doors that pop up and you can choose to go and open each door and look inside it, or you can speed through the main passage, never looking in any of the side doors. When they first went into the hallway and took the main passage approach I was like "HOW CAN YOU WALK BY THE DOORS WITHOUT LOOKING INSIDE?!?!?" Needless to say I read the footnotes. (And I usually get annoyed with footnotes, too). But the book was basically supposed to give you the physical experience of reading it that they got exploring the labyrinth.
The footnotes were required for this piece. There are multiple frame stories. And there are multiple citations to works that don't actually exist. The point of the footnotes (and the format) was to confuse the reader and always reminding the reader that these narrators are unreliable.
What i love about the book is that it almost seems to be teaching you to do that y'know? Not just for HOL but every book. It's trying to get you to slow down and interpret almost every word, font, number, structure, etc on the page. Theres a lot of people that pride themselves on being able to read a big book really fast (which the book itself comments on) and apart from being a fantastically strange story, fuck I'm having a brain fart; forgot what was going to follow this sentence, but you know what I'm getting at Edit: i kind of remember. Apart from being a great story, it's teaching you to take your time.
"This is not for you" -Mark on the first page itself explains why the stereotypical book readers won't like this book because of its footnotes and ergodic approach. Its for the "others"!!! - and I'm glad I loved this book ❤
Oh my GOD!!! There is some quality writing in this book, but you articulated my feelings about the footnotes perfectly. To be forced off on a tangent and then to have to remember where the story was going when the footnotes end. Maddening!
Ramsey Campbell said that he considered HOUSE OF LEAVES to be more frightening than "official" horror novels. I'd have to agree with that. A very disturbing experience.
Haha, I can imagine how horrible this must be for someone who doesn't like footnotes. I love footnotes and loved the experience. And this book just freaked me out, so scary. I wouldn't read it again either, but I am so glad I did.
It seems like it's something you either love or hate. The story was really scary... It was worth it in terms of scare factor. So a very small part of me is glad I read it. :)
trha2222 well I am scared of the dark and all the things that live in there, so the idea of an endless dark tunnel with unidentified sounds is about the scariest thing I can think of!
trha2222 not sure if care is the right word, but his story was just as interesting as the Navidson report. Also how his story worked with the construction of the book.
I am a reader of books about books and looking up book reviews I stumbled upon your vid, I loved it, I loved how you express your opinion and how animated you are and enjoyed the bit about you not liking footnotes...looking forward to watching more...by the way I just finished "The Footnote: A Curious History" by Anthony Grafton, weird timing, huh?
I don't mind footnotes, at least footnotes that tell me something relevant about the story. In "House of Leaves" they mostly seemed to be just decoration. I think the story (or stories) would have been better without the added creative challenge.
Agreed! A lot of the footnotes were for fictional texts, which means they lead to a dead end. Which I guess if we want to play with the maze theme, might have a slight point in terms of the feeling of being in a maze and constantly finding 'paths' that lead no where... But it was kind of annoying to break my reading of the stories (which were really cool) only to find a footnote for a fake text.
Sooo late to this video, but I started started watching your videos yesterday and got so excited when I saw this! House of Leaves is one of my favorite books. I think my top three are House of Leaves, 2666 by Roberto Bolaño, and Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. If you dont like footnotes then I would absolutely avoid Infinite Jest, but 2666 is a really awesome read and reading experience
I can agree with you about not wanting to read this book ever again. Probably. I really enjoyed this book, although I thought some of the techniques were utilized just to make the book seem more confusing and experimental, and didn't really serve a purpose. Like the boxes you mentioned, that are just full of a list of items. Not super crucial, so tempting to skim. I'm not sure whether or not I liked the experience, but I liked the fact that I can call it a reading experience. It is probably one of my proudest achievements of a reader of all time, definitely my biggest accomplishment for the year. Also, I love Johnny.
Yeah... The lists were super tempting to skim. It definitely is a reading experience and an accomplishment. I agree with you that the techniques were used to make the book seem more 'maze like'. I also wondered if the mazey feeling was supposed to reflect how mental illness might feel. Nothing in the book was really certain or linear, and I wonder if that might be Johnny's (who appears to be suffering from mental illness) daily experience -- uncertain what direction he will go in at any point in time...if that makes sense at all?
I totally agree. Also, I love that the scenes in the house with the strange typesetting reflect the feeling of being in the maze. It was the most effective part of the book, but the subtlety of the hints to mental illness are very intriguing. I also appreciate that you are able to appreciate the book without having loved it.
+View from the Bar I looked up "The Familiar". It sounds interesting. I'm not opposed to a challenging book in terms of content. It was really the footnotes that made the experience of reading "House of Leaves" unpleasant, not so much the content. I wouldn't be opposed to reading "The Familiar" :)
Footnotes don't usually bother me but I don't even think those fall into the category of footnotes, lol. I want to try it just because I think it is a challenge but I'm not dying to pick it up anytime soon. At least you pushed through and finished it, that's all you can really ask for, right?
Yeah... I guess some of the things shouldn't really count as footnotes in the traditional sense. But I didn't really know what else to call them. :P And by pushing through it, at least I know what happens and that it remained consistently something I dislike. Part of me wondered if the weird format meant it might change part way through, and if I just pushed past the bit I was on it would get better.
I’d definitely class this book as horror considering Zamp body is found with giant claw marks next to it and he’s blind and somehow writing about a film. Thus book is amazing tbh
The book is a labyrinthine story told to you by an insane guy, describing second-hand, from a blind guy, who is writing about a film. The house is a labyriinthe. The story is a labyrinthe. And the footnotes are a labyrinthe. The house is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. And because of the footnotes, the story is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.
I stumbled upon this and watched it. I wanted to add something on the off chance someone else sees this video before reading that book. While you made it clear that footnotes are a big part of the book, and let us know that the footnotes made the book less enjoyable for you, there is a reason behind the unorthodox structure that might help others understand why there is so much of that. The layout of the book is supposed to influence the way one absorbs the action represented in the text, and when you get to those bizarre, difficult sections, they make a lot of sense in the context of that part of the story. Without spoiling anything, an example you showed was one of the diversions into a long, tangential footnote, that was crammed into small squares of space for several pages. this is at the point where (within the Navidson narrative) we are being dragged into a very claustrophobic, intangible situation, and if one is fully immersed at that moment, the short bursts of text that one has to follow further into an unknown space, will build onto the scene and, in some cases, bring the panic of the characters more fully alive inside the reader. the layout is not just a gimmick, it is pretty clever and relevant, if maybe a little pretentious and excessive. just wanted to clarify in case a potential reader assumes the footnotes are just a way of building mystique.
Not a bad review, what you said towards the end (and I'm paraphrasing) really summed it up well: "I'd recommend it to no one but I'd recommend it to everyone." And while I think it's hard not to get a bit irked with the footnotes (you should never read David Foster Wallace) I think they really do add another layer of density and complexity to the novel as they elaborate on Zampano's fictitious source material and put words in the mouths of real people (Sontag, Spielberg, etc.) so in a sense you also hit the nail on the head towards the beginning when you said the book requires the reader to put the work in which, I think, if you're willing to do and up for the challenge, it's a great experience but if not, yeah, frustration. What did you think of the chapters where the word layout matched the action of exploring the House?
+Ryan Johnson I definitely appreciated what Danielewski did in terms of matching the layout to the action! I could totally appreciate what he was doing, but I still personally disliked the reading experience. :P
A horror story? Not at all. I figured the author would develop the house as a metaphor for being "lost" : privately suffering in a maze of ones experiences and thoughts, cut off from loved ones, in a 'real' cage yet physically impossible to account for. Yet he didn't. Seemed to be fascinated with the ever expanding dimensions-- yup, got it. Did everyone catch the one sentence or two in the introduction that The Navidson Record never existed? That Johnny Truant could not find it nor any experts that had supposedly commented on the film knew nothing of it? That being said, this is all the blind man's (Zampano's ) insanity. Once Truant knew this, not sure why it the "house" bothered him. Of course, he was falling into mental illness-- were we supposed to fall into mental illness too? Late in the book, it was explored that the "house" was on cursed territory -- so much for metaphysical introspection. That being said, the author writes wonderful prose and the creativity needed to run on so many tangents in such great detail, detail, detail is just breathtaking. So gifted a human.
it seems this book was designed to troll you. the fact that you need a mirror to get your true fix of footnotes is infuriating and beautiful. if you're into cyphers, there's an even deeper meaning to be found in those texts.
I'm from Ontario. But I spent a lot of my early language-learning years with German-speaking grandparents/family who spoke either German or heavily accented English to me. I don't know if that is what you're hearing in my English? I've actually just returned from a trip to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and their accents are HEAVY. I know people always comment on me saying "about" funny, but that is nothing compared to folks out east who really do say "OOt and AbOOt" like when Americans parody Canadians.
+Emily Cait (CreativeAndOriginalTitle) I already ordered it buy I also ordered HorrorStör if I don't like the House Of Leaves but overall it sounds interesting ☺
I read the Whalestoe Letters separately (it was published as an extracted short novella or something). I thought that was beautifully written and very sad.
Jeez, this book sounds terrifying, haha! Great review though. I'm okay with footnotes (I love "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" which has footnotes, but in no way are they annoying) depending on how they are laid out. I have been interested in picking this book up, but the more and more I hear about it, the less and less I want to read it. Just sounds way too challenging for me and just a waste of time.
My friend who is blind listened to this book... I'm not sure if there was an audio book or if his ereader read it to him... I can't wrap my head around how that would even work with this book... But there is potentially a way to get out of actually reading all the footnotes, and just having the chaos read to you? Maybe? If you are really curious about the story :P
I reeeeeeaally hated (reading) this book too. I got about 3/4 in and just went 'life is too short'. I was like 'the author clearly hates me, so why am I rewarding him by giving him my attention?' I actually don't mind footnotes in general, and even enjoyed reading Infinite Jest, which is another footnote-a-thon, but this, this was simply torture.
Bahaha! Life IS too short... unfortunately I agreed to read this as part of a challenge, so I felt obligated to finish it. "Torturous" is an excellent way to describe this book. :P
That sucks that there is no Russian translation yet! Fingers crossed that you get a translation soon! I may not have enjoyed the experience, but it's definitely worth giving it a read and developing your own opinion. Thank you for watching :)
Oh god.. I heard really good things about this book, so I bought it online. I just got it, and I was really confused on “how” to read it. I came here, and now I’m scared 😬😂
So... I just finished it (the... book, i suppose... if you want to call it that), and... WHAT?? What did I even just read? I mean, what is... what is the point of it? What was Danielewski even trying to accomplish with this? Who is it for? And, perhaps most pressingly, why did I finish it? You know what I want to read? A transcript of the conversation with the publisher that resulted in somebody agreeing to put _House of Leaves_, this act of verbal lunacy, in print. I want the elevator pitch that Danielewski used to sell this 700 page monstrosity, especially since (as far as I can tell), this was his first mass market publication. I agree with nearly everything you said in this review - especially re. the reading experience being frustrating and tedious, and with the idea that this was probably Danielewski's intent in the first place. I get it, okay? The reading experience performs the theme of the labyrinth. The dueling typographies highlight the referentiality between the parallel narratives, the mishmash of page layouts calculated to surprise and disorient. As our explorers dash into the void of the dark hallway the margins of the text grow larger and larger, compressing the text on each page into a smaller and smaller space, and allowing us to read faster and faster. The infinite footnotes, mostly fictional and completely devoid of semantic value, mirror the interminable dead-ends contained within that house on Ash Tree Lane. I get it. But... I think it all actually takes away from the book. It's too arch. Too bloated and vainglorious. Too cringe-inducingly aware of its own cleverness. This is a book for people whose favourite painting is that black square by Malevich, whose favourite sculpture is Duchamp's _Fountain_, for people who sing the praises of the infinite profundities in the poems of e.e. cummings. And I like an open ended narrative as much as the next guy but, well... really, what do you think happened? The entire thing is a fiction born of Danielewski. Let's establish that as a fact first and foremost. But within the mythology of the story, which narratives were "real", and which were fiction? 1. The Navidson Record was real and true. The house exists. JT just happened not to find any evidence of it. To the extent that his research controverted Z's account, Z's account was fictionalized. But everything else in Z's account is true. JT's account is true. 2. The Navidson Record was real and false. It was a "shaky cam" movie created by Miramax in the tradition of the Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity. Z was a kook who believed it was real and fabricated an entire dissertation around it. JT's account is true. 3. The Navidson Record was a fiction created by Z for the purposes of serving as a plot device in House of Leaves. JT's account is true. 4. The Navidson Record and Z are BOTH fictions created by JT... a. because of JT's dementia. His account is true. b. because JT is a crafty SOB. His account is ALSO fictional. 5. The Navidson Record and JT are BOTH fictions created by Z... a. because of Z's dementia. Portions of JT's account were written to reflect reality. b. because Z is a REALLY crafty SOB. ...I just re-read all of this... What am I even doing? Why am I even asking these questions about this book?
One of those books you love and appreciate having read, but by God, you only wanna read it ONCE. Forever after it just sits on your bookshelf as an ominous warning or a stain. A reminder that you went through some shit reading that book. You're glad you did, but GodDAMN, was it creepy as fuck and difficult to get through.
Quentin Barrentine , when I first read this book like over 15 yrs ago and reached the last line I immediately turned back to the beginning and read it again . The only thought I remember was wishing I could forget it all so I would be like the 1st time all over again ....it never was.
You definitely should. Even though I didn't enjoy it, it definitely is an experience. Plus the actual story was interesting, even if I personally didn't like the method of telling the story. :P
Generally, I also ignore footnotes. But I felt like I had to at least skim them, because I read this book for a challenge that is supposed to get me reading new and different things. Including footnotes. :P
Finally... FINALLY someone who feels the same as me. I couldn't stand this book. I would read 2 pages, fall asleep, read 2 more, fall asleep. Fuckin boring.
Haha! I can appreciate what it was trying to do -- also that it's not a book for everyone -- but yeah, the format definitely changed how engaging I found it.
Just finished reading it. The only way any of this makes sense is if you view it as one massive satire poking fun at academic criticism . It just seems like the author wrote a 700 page joke. I loved the story of the house and the film itself, but no author can write a book with pages and pages and pages of absolutely pointless footnotes and useless second narratives and be completely serious about them.
Was looking forward to reading this book as a result of the reviews but when I saw the method in which it was written I put it right back on the shelf and purchased something else. Still interested in the story but choose nit to torture myself.
I'd give HOUSE OF LEAVES an A minus--the sections on "The Navidson Record" are stunning, but the Johnny Truant interjections are overwritten and pretentious, and mar the overall work.
The book is the house is the hallway. When you go into the hallway, there are multiple side doors that pop up and you can choose to go and open each door and look inside it, or you can speed through the main passage, never looking in any of the side doors. When they first went into the hallway and took the main passage approach I was like "HOW CAN YOU WALK BY THE DOORS WITHOUT LOOKING INSIDE?!?!?" Needless to say I read the footnotes. (And I usually get annoyed with footnotes, too). But the book was basically supposed to give you the physical experience of reading it that they got exploring the labyrinth.
"if you read this book in public you look are insane..." haha:) Thats a fact!
+James Del Seriously though, imagine sitting at a bus stop watching an adult reading a book upside down... :P
I finished it on a 9 hour flight. I was spinning the book around like a top lol
It seems you forgot the first paragraph. "This isn't for you."
:)
+TheAnters isn't that the dedication?
+J89898080 Call it what you want, was just a joke :)
Yeah clearly not for someone who hates footnotes! I thought the book was great.
Analyticalinadream Yup, the footnotes was the soul of this book👑
The footnotes were like the spine of the book, the xylophonic steps in an Escher drawing!
The footnotes were required for this piece. There are multiple frame stories. And there are multiple citations to works that don't actually exist. The point of the footnotes (and the format) was to confuse the reader and always reminding the reader that these narrators are unreliable.
"Put work into the text to get something out of the text." Perfectly said
What i love about the book is that it almost seems to be teaching you to do that y'know? Not just for HOL but every book. It's trying to get you to slow down and interpret almost every word, font, number, structure, etc on the page. Theres a lot of people that pride themselves on being able to read a big book really fast (which the book itself comments on) and apart from being a fantastically strange story, fuck I'm having a brain fart; forgot what was going to follow this sentence, but you know what I'm getting at
Edit: i kind of remember. Apart from being a great story, it's teaching you to take your time.
I love your shelf, it looks just beautiful.
+Jorge Hernandez Thank you! :)
"This is not for you" -Mark on the first page itself explains why the stereotypical book readers won't like this book because of its footnotes and ergodic approach. Its for the "others"!!! - and I'm glad I loved this book ❤
Oh my GOD!!! There is some quality writing in this book, but you articulated my feelings about the footnotes perfectly. To be forced off on a tangent and then to have to remember where the story was going when the footnotes end. Maddening!
Ramsey Campbell said that he considered HOUSE OF LEAVES to be more frightening than "official" horror novels. I'd have to agree with that. A very disturbing experience.
Haha, I can imagine how horrible this must be for someone who doesn't like footnotes. I love footnotes and loved the experience. And this book just freaked me out, so scary. I wouldn't read it again either, but I am so glad I did.
It seems like it's something you either love or hate. The story was really scary... It was worth it in terms of scare factor. So a very small part of me is glad I read it. :)
trha2222 you just got to be kidding! That house freaked me out!
trha2222 well I am scared of the dark and all the things that live in there, so the idea of an endless dark tunnel with unidentified sounds is about the scariest thing I can think of!
trha2222 I liked that it was all over the place, and you know that light only make the rest of the dark darker, don't you?
trha2222 not sure if care is the right word, but his story was just as interesting as the Navidson report. Also how his story worked with the construction of the book.
I am a reader of books about books and looking up book reviews I stumbled upon your vid, I loved it, I loved how you express your opinion and how animated you are and enjoyed the bit about you not liking footnotes...looking forward to watching more...by the way I just finished "The Footnote: A Curious History"
by Anthony Grafton, weird timing, huh?
Hi there! Thank you for watching! I look forward to seeing you in the comments! :)
Cult classic. Not for everyone. Not everyone reads T. Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow either.
I do. Give me a cookie.
I don't mind footnotes, at least footnotes that tell me something relevant about the story. In "House of Leaves" they mostly seemed to be just decoration. I think the story (or stories) would have been better without the added creative challenge.
Agreed! A lot of the footnotes were for fictional texts, which means they lead to a dead end. Which I guess if we want to play with the maze theme, might have a slight point in terms of the feeling of being in a maze and constantly finding 'paths' that lead no where... But it was kind of annoying to break my reading of the stories (which were really cool) only to find a footnote for a fake text.
Sooo late to this video, but I started started watching your videos yesterday and got so excited when I saw this! House of Leaves is one of my favorite books. I think my top three are House of Leaves, 2666 by Roberto Bolaño, and Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. If you dont like footnotes then I would absolutely avoid Infinite Jest, but 2666 is a really awesome read and reading experience
I can agree with you about not wanting to read this book ever again. Probably. I really enjoyed this book, although I thought some of the techniques were utilized just to make the book seem more confusing and experimental, and didn't really serve a purpose. Like the boxes you mentioned, that are just full of a list of items. Not super crucial, so tempting to skim. I'm not sure whether or not I liked the experience, but I liked the fact that I can call it a reading experience. It is probably one of my proudest achievements of a reader of all time, definitely my biggest accomplishment for the year.
Also, I love Johnny.
Yeah... The lists were super tempting to skim. It definitely is a reading experience and an accomplishment. I agree with you that the techniques were used to make the book seem more 'maze like'. I also wondered if the mazey feeling was supposed to reflect how mental illness might feel. Nothing in the book was really certain or linear, and I wonder if that might be Johnny's (who appears to be suffering from mental illness) daily experience -- uncertain what direction he will go in at any point in time...if that makes sense at all?
I totally agree. Also, I love that the scenes in the house with the strange typesetting reflect the feeling of being in the maze. It was the most effective part of the book, but the subtlety of the hints to mental illness are very intriguing. I also appreciate that you are able to appreciate the book without having loved it.
I just embarked on Danielewski's new book, "The Familiar." No footnotes, but just as difficult as "House of Leaves." Think you'd give it a shot?
+View from the Bar I looked up "The Familiar". It sounds interesting. I'm not opposed to a challenging book in terms of content. It was really the footnotes that made the experience of reading "House of Leaves" unpleasant, not so much the content. I wouldn't be opposed to reading "The Familiar" :)
my god I cannot agree more with your explanation of footnotes!
Footnotes don't usually bother me but I don't even think those fall into the category of footnotes, lol. I want to try it just because I think it is a challenge but I'm not dying to pick it up anytime soon. At least you pushed through and finished it, that's all you can really ask for, right?
Yeah... I guess some of the things shouldn't really count as footnotes in the traditional sense. But I didn't really know what else to call them. :P
And by pushing through it, at least I know what happens and that it remained consistently something I dislike. Part of me wondered if the weird format meant it might change part way through, and if I just pushed past the bit I was on it would get better.
I’d definitely class this book as horror considering Zamp body is found with giant claw marks next to it and he’s blind and somehow writing about a film. Thus book is amazing tbh
OCTOBER! It's just such a month for it!
The book is a labyrinthine story told to you by an insane guy, describing second-hand, from a blind guy, who is writing about a film. The house is a labyriinthe. The story is a labyrinthe. And the footnotes are a labyrinthe. The house is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. And because of the footnotes, the story is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.
MLA?! Clearly you are not a historian haha. Footnotes are our best friends :-p
I stumbled upon this and watched it. I wanted to add something on the off chance someone else sees this video before reading that book.
While you made it clear that footnotes are a big part of the book, and let us know that the footnotes made the book less enjoyable for you, there is a reason behind the unorthodox structure that might help others understand why there is so much of that.
The layout of the book is supposed to influence the way one absorbs the action represented in the text, and when you get to those bizarre, difficult sections, they make a lot of sense in the context of that part of the story.
Without spoiling anything, an example you showed was one of the diversions into a long, tangential footnote, that was crammed into small squares of space for several pages. this is at the point where (within the Navidson narrative) we are being dragged into a very claustrophobic, intangible situation, and if one is fully immersed at that moment, the short bursts of text that one has to follow further into an unknown space, will build onto the scene and, in some cases, bring the panic of the characters more fully alive inside the reader.
the layout is not just a gimmick, it is pretty clever and relevant, if maybe a little pretentious and excessive. just wanted to clarify in case a potential reader assumes the footnotes are just a way of building mystique.
Emily! Footnotes increases your dynamic knowledge!!! Dont loathe it!!
Not a bad review, what you said towards the end (and I'm paraphrasing) really summed it up well: "I'd recommend it to no one but I'd recommend it to everyone."
And while I think it's hard not to get a bit irked with the footnotes (you should never read David Foster Wallace) I think they really do add another layer of density and complexity to the novel as they elaborate on Zampano's fictitious source material and put words in the mouths of real people (Sontag, Spielberg, etc.) so in a sense you also hit the nail on the head towards the beginning when you said the book requires the reader to put the work in which, I think, if you're willing to do and up for the challenge, it's a great experience but if not, yeah, frustration.
What did you think of the chapters where the word layout matched the action of exploring the House?
+Ryan Johnson I definitely appreciated what Danielewski did in terms of matching the layout to the action! I could totally appreciate what he was doing, but I still personally disliked the reading experience. :P
A horror story? Not at all. I figured the author would develop the house as a metaphor for being "lost" : privately suffering in a maze of ones experiences and thoughts, cut off from loved ones, in a 'real' cage yet physically impossible to account for. Yet he didn't. Seemed to be fascinated with the ever expanding dimensions-- yup, got it. Did everyone catch the one sentence or two in the introduction that The Navidson Record never existed? That Johnny Truant could not find it nor any experts that had supposedly commented on the film knew nothing of it? That being said, this is all the blind man's (Zampano's ) insanity. Once Truant knew this, not sure why it the "house" bothered him. Of course, he was falling into mental illness-- were we supposed to fall into mental illness too? Late in the book, it was explored that the "house" was on cursed territory -- so much for metaphysical introspection.
That being said, the author writes wonderful prose and the creativity needed to run on so many tangents in such great detail, detail, detail is just breathtaking. So gifted a human.
3:19 made me laugh so much hearing you say that! Great accent btw!
it seems this book was designed to troll you. the fact that you need a mirror to get your true fix of footnotes is infuriating and beautiful. if you're into cyphers, there's an even deeper meaning to be found in those texts.
You're definitely Canadian, but I'm guessing you're from Newfoundland or somewhere close.
I'm from Ontario. But I spent a lot of my early language-learning years with German-speaking grandparents/family who spoke either German or heavily accented English to me. I don't know if that is what you're hearing in my English?
I've actually just returned from a trip to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and their accents are HEAVY. I know people always comment on me saying "about" funny, but that is nothing compared to folks out east who really do say "OOt and AbOOt" like when Americans parody Canadians.
Wait so, I'm trying to take the risk of buying this book.. So I want to just know if this is a good book!!! 😭😭😭
+Lianni Duarte If you don't mind footnotes and working to unpack the story, then buy it. If you want and easy read, then avoid it.
+Emily Cait (CreativeAndOriginalTitle) I already ordered it buy I also ordered HorrorStör if I don't like the House Of Leaves but overall it sounds interesting ☺
I read the Whalestoe Letters separately (it was published as an extracted short novella or something). I thought that was beautifully written and very sad.
Jeez, this book sounds terrifying, haha! Great review though. I'm okay with footnotes (I love "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" which has footnotes, but in no way are they annoying) depending on how they are laid out. I have been interested in picking this book up, but the more and more I hear about it, the less and less I want to read it. Just sounds way too challenging for me and just a waste of time.
My friend who is blind listened to this book... I'm not sure if there was an audio book or if his ereader read it to him... I can't wrap my head around how that would even work with this book... But there is potentially a way to get out of actually reading all the footnotes, and just having the chaos read to you? Maybe? If you are really curious about the story :P
I reeeeeeaally hated (reading) this book too. I got about 3/4 in and just went 'life is too short'. I was like 'the author clearly hates me, so why am I rewarding him by giving him my attention?' I actually don't mind footnotes in general, and even enjoyed reading Infinite Jest, which is another footnote-a-thon, but this, this was simply torture.
Bahaha! Life IS too short... unfortunately I agreed to read this as part of a challenge, so I felt obligated to finish it. "Torturous" is an excellent way to describe this book. :P
Well, good on you for pushing through. And, plus, you never have to read it again, so there's the up side!
I want also to read this book. However russian translation is not. So sad. Thank you for your review and respect from Russia)))
That sucks that there is no Russian translation yet! Fingers crossed that you get a translation soon! I may not have enjoyed the experience, but it's definitely worth giving it a read and developing your own opinion. Thank you for watching :)
Oh god.. I heard really good things about this book, so I bought it online. I just got it, and I was really confused on “how” to read it. I came here, and now I’m scared 😬😂
I feel like House of Leaves is a really divisive book. Fingers crossed that you are someone who enjoys the strange formatting. :)
So... I just finished it (the... book, i suppose... if you want to call it that), and... WHAT?? What did I even just read? I mean, what is... what is the point of it? What was Danielewski even trying to accomplish with this? Who is it for? And, perhaps most pressingly, why did I finish it?
You know what I want to read? A transcript of the conversation with the publisher that resulted in somebody agreeing to put _House of Leaves_, this act of verbal lunacy, in print. I want the elevator pitch that Danielewski used to sell this 700 page monstrosity, especially since (as far as I can tell), this was his first mass market publication.
I agree with nearly everything you said in this review - especially re. the reading experience being frustrating and tedious, and with the idea that this was probably Danielewski's intent in the first place. I get it, okay? The reading experience performs the theme of the labyrinth. The dueling typographies highlight the referentiality between the parallel narratives, the mishmash of page layouts calculated to surprise and disorient. As our explorers dash into the void of the dark hallway the margins of the text grow larger and larger, compressing the text on each page into a smaller and smaller space, and allowing us to read faster and faster. The infinite footnotes, mostly fictional and completely devoid of semantic value, mirror the interminable dead-ends contained within that house on Ash Tree Lane. I get it.
But... I think it all actually takes away from the book. It's too arch. Too bloated and vainglorious. Too cringe-inducingly aware of its own cleverness. This is a book for people whose favourite painting is that black square by Malevich, whose favourite sculpture is Duchamp's _Fountain_, for people who sing the praises of the infinite profundities in the poems of e.e. cummings.
And I like an open ended narrative as much as the next guy but, well... really, what do you think happened? The entire thing is a fiction born of Danielewski. Let's establish that as a fact first and foremost. But within the mythology of the story, which narratives were "real", and which were fiction?
1. The Navidson Record was real and true. The house exists. JT just happened not to find any evidence of it. To the extent that his research controverted Z's account, Z's account was fictionalized. But everything else in Z's account is true. JT's account is true.
2. The Navidson Record was real and false. It was a "shaky cam" movie created by Miramax in the tradition of the Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity. Z was a kook who believed it was real and fabricated an entire dissertation around it. JT's account is true.
3. The Navidson Record was a fiction created by Z for the purposes of serving as a plot device in House of Leaves. JT's account is true.
4. The Navidson Record and Z are BOTH fictions created by JT...
a. because of JT's dementia. His account is true.
b. because JT is a crafty SOB. His account is ALSO fictional.
5. The Navidson Record and JT are BOTH fictions created by Z...
a. because of Z's dementia. Portions of JT's account were written to reflect reality.
b. because Z is a REALLY crafty SOB.
...I just re-read all of this... What am I even doing? Why am I even asking these questions about this book?
It was an enlightening experience for me✨
...yeah.......but what are your thoughts about foot notes?
I read this in public, random bloke on the train is like "what the fuck man" and I was like "Im thinking the same thing mate"
One of those books you love and appreciate having read, but by God, you only wanna read it ONCE. Forever after it just sits on your bookshelf as an ominous warning or a stain. A reminder that you went through some shit reading that book. You're glad you did, but GodDAMN, was it creepy as fuck and difficult to get through.
Quentin Barrentine , when I first read this book like over 15 yrs ago and reached the last line I immediately turned back to the beginning and read it again . The only thought I remember was wishing I could forget it all so I would be like the 1st time all over again ....it never was.
I want to read this book it looks interesting.
You definitely should. Even though I didn't enjoy it, it definitely is an experience. Plus the actual story was interesting, even if I personally didn't like the method of telling the story. :P
totally agree.
I ignore footnotes, i don't like them at all, they are like an annoying fly
Generally, I also ignore footnotes. But I felt like I had to at least skim them, because I read this book for a challenge that is supposed to get me reading new and different things. Including footnotes. :P
a much better book in this genre is S by JJ Abrams and Doug Dorst
Finally... FINALLY someone who feels the same as me. I couldn't stand this book. I would read 2 pages, fall asleep, read 2 more, fall asleep. Fuckin boring.
Haha! I can appreciate what it was trying to do -- also that it's not a book for everyone -- but yeah, the format definitely changed how engaging I found it.
Just finished reading it. The only way any of this makes sense is if you view it as one massive satire poking fun at academic criticism . It just seems like the author wrote a 700 page joke. I loved the story of the house and the film itself, but no author can write a book with pages and pages and pages of absolutely pointless footnotes and useless second narratives and be completely serious about them.
YES! That is a great way of thinking about this text. Although it's a really heavy-handed joke, if that is the author's intention :P
Either you are really small or that chair and mug is huge
It's both! I'm a small human with a huge coffee cup :P
That's not a chair, that's a small bench. lol
that's a big mug...
not for you
Was looking forward to reading this book as a result of the reviews but when I saw the method in which it was written I put it right back on the shelf and purchased something else. Still interested in the story but choose nit to torture myself.
So the book is Silent Hill2 and everyone was likely eaten by a grue
I'd give HOUSE OF LEAVES an A minus--the sections on "The Navidson Record" are stunning, but the Johnny Truant interjections are overwritten and pretentious, and mar the overall work.