/lit/ - Literature

>reading House of Leaves
>Dad goes "what's it about?"
>show him this
>let him read a few dozen pages, gets into it
>He reads the whole thing after I finish
>everythingwentbetterthanexpected.tiff

Sup /lit/
First time here, so I wanted to know, what'd you think about House of Leaves?

What about Only Revolutions?

Personally, I found the first to be thoroughly enjoyable (and as soon as I find where the fuck it went, I'm gonna reread it.)

But Only Revolutions... I still haven't finished it. Can't quite get into it.

>>1861783
The page structure also gets more and more bonkers as time goes on.
Starts out normal enough, but then footnotes just get weird.

>>1453096
It's not hard. Just pay attention.

How do you think talking to Mark Z. Danielewski on MSN feels like?

>>1216354

Oops. House of Leaves pic here.

Note-to-self: Don't do these sort of things when you're drunk.

Just finished House of Leaves. I personally found it a fantastic piece of work, although very confusing in parts. May have to re-read to get the full effect. The rarely seen manipulation of the text itself in such a far-reaching manner was something unexpected.

What are some books I should check out based on that?

>>1035612
This book

House of Leaves.

And the best is that if you don't get the satire part, it's still a pretty cool horror story.

inb4 boring, gimmicky etc.

>>992661
Memento, Inception, Shutter Island and Zodiac are all intricate, multi-layered films. I suggest you take a look at House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. It's about this guy that finds this academic criticism about this non-existing FILM written by a blind, old mann. As Truant, this guy, edits this book, adding footnotes about his personal life that oftentimes go several pages, he is driven insane by the text he is reading. The film itself is about a couple that moves into a house and discovers that the house is larger inside than it is outside.

It's first and foremostly a pretty creepy horror story, there's also a love story at the core, and it is also a satire of academical texts. Often there will be footnotes where the old man says for example this and that guy said this and that, but that is wrong, it's like this and that.

There are parts that will confuse you, and parts you will not understand, but if you can stomach these, it's a great experience. About 70~ pages in, there is a part that a lot of people give up, where the old man writes about the physics of echoes. If you know what he is talking about, I have no idea, it's hilarious, but if not, then I can understand many finding it tedious as this chapter is instantly followed by a like three to four pages long footnote where the guy who finds the book, in a grammarless, intoxicated state writes about his crush.

Most of it is just fun, but as you're new to books and will probably easier give up, just realize that even though you don't understand something, just keep going-- as the books dedication says, "[that part] is not for you."

Pic of a random page from the book for you to see and go, damn, that's neat, I want to read this shit.

HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO READ THAT

alright, who here has read house of leaves? opinions?

i'm reading right now, and i find it fucking amazing.

So, what does /lit/ think of House of Leaves?

Has anyone here read House of Leaves?

Your impressions? I'm interested in buying it but I don't want to buy something I won't like. I don't trust Amazon reviews, either.

>>714050
There are time when you have to follow the text as it snakes its way several pages forward, and back to where it started; when you'll be following footnotes that point to footnotes that point to footnotes; when the positioning of the text on the page itself is half the story. It's kind of a big deal.