/lit/ - Literature

>>4365602

>mfw people take house of leaves seriously

>Is there anything like House of Leaves that is gimmicky bullshit for teenage pseudo-intellectuals, which masquerades as a 2deep4u piece of meta-literature?

FTFY

>>4365617
>>4365619

quit being so butthurt about not being able to finish it samefag

>>4365624
lol. exactly the response I was expecting.

1st off, not samefag. I only wrote the second response.

Secondly, when your only response to criticism of a work is to claim that it must have been "too difficult" for the critic to read, you ought to know that you are headed down the wrong path.

I, in fact, have read House of Leaves twice. Once in high school, where I thought it had a cool concept, and that reading it made me seem edgy and intellectual. But even then, I had a nagging suspicion in my mind that the book was all style and no substance, and not a particularly interesting style at that.

Then, a few years ago, I took the chance to re-read it and see how my views had changed.

Absolute gimmicky trash. The author has no interesting ideas, and covers this by using MUH ZANY FORMAT to somehow imply depth and complexity.
This is the literary equivalent of those artists who, instead of creating a piece simply fill the gallery room with ping-pong balls or styrofoam peanuts, and then stand there with a smug look on their face, probably spouting something about how "My installation challenges the viewer to consider their perceptions of what 'art' really is while at the same time forcing a radical re-evaluation of the space they engage in." or some such drivel.

Look at his other novel, "Only Revolutions".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_Revolutions

HURR U HAVE TO TURN THE BOOK UPSIDE DOWN AND READ IT BACKWARDS AND CERTAIN LETTERS ARE DIFFERENT COLORS AND THE FIRST LETTER OF EACH PAGE SPELLS OUT THEIR NAMES AND SOME WORDS ARE MISSPELLED BUT ITS ON PURPOSE GUYS ISNT THIS DEEP?

The man's a fucking hack.

>>4365665
House of Leaves is more gimmick than substance -- I don't think many would disagree -- however, the format of it is satirical of film/literary analysis, regardless of if you like the book or not.

>>4365665
do you feel the same way towards finnegans wake?

>>4365672
hmm I'm not sure then. If you're looking for stuff that's satirical of sci-fi I could imagine some PKD books might fall into that category. Also possibly Harlan Ellison, but neither of them write what would be considered 'hard' SF.

Not really big into sci-fi so i won't be much help.

>>4365665
exactly, it's all bells, whistles, smoke, and mirrors for people who haven't yet read enough to know when they are reading an actually good book.

>b-b-but... i had to flip the book upside-down and put it in front of a mirror to read it!

ridiculous. a movie where you have to hold the tv upside down in a mirror, play back certain scenes in reverse, speed up the audio or invert the colors doesn't make it a good movie. the closest equivalent is memento, which OP probably thinks is a really cool and underrated 'film'

>>4365699
sort of. I've only partially read Finnegan's Wake, so I dont want to make a judgment on a book I haven't got a full grasp on, but the part I read really did nothing for me. it seemed lexically difficult just for the sake of it. I think its less "pretentious" than HOL though, and more just Joyce being an insane motherfucker.

That being said, perhaps I just didn't "get" it.

>>4365713
guy you responded to here.

I actually have to disagree with you on Memento. I felt that, confusing as it was on first viewing, it had a purpose. It very effectively gave the viewer the perspective of being a victim of short-term memory loss, and made it much easier to identify with the character. I think this is one of just a few movies where multiple viewings are a necessity, without it being a case of "complexity for complexity's sake"

>>4365672
"academics make their discourse obscure so no one but them can understand it and they're frauds so they hide their lack of ideas behind an impenetrable wall of redundant and obtuse terminology!!!"

OP here (first time posting since making the topic)

I wasn't claiming that HoL was brilliant, but like >>4365672 said it does mock film criticism

I was hoping there was something similar for hard scifi, since in my experience that is a genre that tends to take itself too seriously.

I honestly found it amusing to read, but then again, I have always enjoyed "Make your own adventure"-books.

>>4365840
This is specifically a parody of David Weber, but it's probably still funny if you've never read anything of his. If you have, it's absolutely hilarious.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=635193

>>4365665
>The author has no interesting ideas, and covers this by using MUH ZANY FORMAT to somehow imply depth and complexity.
>that's the joke.jpg
It's a large prank on modernist literature, academia, and literature analysis, which is well known for it's dense and "difficult" writing style, numerous references (some of them obscure, agenbyte of inwit), etc. The other guy was right:
>mfw people take house of leaves seriously
No wonder you're butthurt. It's a ghost story where the ghost is Joyce, drunk and wrapped in a bed sheet.

>>4365617
>>4365665

mfw people like this never list the novels they enjoy.

if you're so offended by this 'gimmicky' trash, you don't read enough.

>>4365665
I like house of leaves for no reason. I know it is all style and no substance, and I love the book a lot. I really don't have the mental capacity to explain to you or even myself why I love the book, but I read it three times and each time loved it more.

>>4365920
>it's

>>4365619
>gimmicky bullshit for teenage pseudo-intellectuals, which masquerades as a 2deep4u piece of meta-literature?
>which masquerades as a 2deep4u piece of meta-literature?
Did you read it. The whole point is it's making fun of that kind of shit. It's satire. It's a big joke that makes you aware of the gimmicks and shit used in 'experimental' lit etc.
Jesus.

>>4365920
>>4366406

If it is satire, why is everything he writes done in the same fashion? Either he's very committed to "sending up" overly complex writing schemes,

or

hes a talentless hack who knows a certain portion of the population will pride themselves on "getting" his inane, oh-so-unorthodox style, and who will consider themselves somehow part of a secret club of insiders who have the mental fortitude to understand why forcing your reader to turn the book upside-down is genius.

If it was just a case of him putting out HOL as a satire against something, I'd simply think it was a waste of time. But I honestly believe that he thinks this ridiculous arsenal of different fonts, inverted passages, footnotes-of-footnotes-of-footnotes and circular stories is actually innovative and intellectual.

>>4366596
The usage of fucking around with fonts and texts isn't really limited to HoL [I think 1982 Justine does it, as well]; and the endless footnotes are, again, satirical.

I'm not sure what you're expecting from PoMo texts if you're not willing to see them sometimes just be insane -- or be snobbish.

I liked it, because I was reading Borges at the time and the bottomless house looks like something he would have written about. But Borges also said something like "how stupid it is to write long-ass books when you could say the same thing in a few pages"

could this be the birth of an epic new literary movement?

>>4366657
yeah see if you're going to do meta-literary stuff, Borges is the way to go. and he doesnt have to rely on gimmicks and weird fonts to make his work effective.

>>4366691
>he doesnt have to rely on gimmicks
kek'd

>>4366722
name a "gimmick" that JLB uses.

go ahead.

>>4366727
not him but i can name one
relying on others people work

>>4366657
Borges is also among the worst offenders

>lol>>4366691
>>4366722
>bingo

>>4366727
le infinity is so deep face

>>4365720
Joyce made statements to the effect that FW was tangle/Gordian knot for lit. critics. Credit to him and Beckett for the amount of linguistic research done to come up with the material. It's unique, in that the commentaries are not and cannot be authoritative, and those who've undertaken them do it for love and in full knowledge of this; net result in highly stimulating/entertaining secondary literature that is honest, if only from the hermeneutic blackhole FW poses. Something that defies all attempts to 'deconstruct' it has to be worth something in the sense OP's asked for.

>>4366731
>>4366737

I dont see how either of these are gimmicks.

try harder

>>4366771
define gimmick

>>4366777

Wikipedia - "a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature."

OED - "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business."

google dictionary - "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business."

I think between those definitions you can gather what I mean by a "gimmick" when discussing literary techniques.

Referring to previously existing works, or focusing several essays on dissecting or re-interpreting someone else's famous work, whether you think it is a good practice or not, is not a gimmick.

Having "infinity" as a common theme in various stories is not a gimmick, although i suppose it *could be* argued that it implies a lack of artistic breadth.

Writing using a bunch of different fonts, sizes, orientations, or directions is a gimmick.

Releasing a book with blank pages, or that is designed to physically resemble an actual journal or lost manuscript or something - That's a gimmick.

Writing in a made up language, or only using words without "e", or only in palindromes - gimmick.

does that clarify things?

>>4366808
>a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries.
name a good author that used labyrinths in their books
u cant
its a gimmick

>>4366817
you mean the concept of a labyrinth? how can that be a gimmick? I honestly can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse right now.

Okay, here goes:

Borges: Library of Babel, The Immortals, The Two Kings and the Two Labyrinths

Umberto Eco: The Name of the Rose

The original fable of the Minotaur and the Labyrinth

That's like saying "any book about traveling is gimmicky" or "if a book has a castle in it, its a gimmick". Makes absolutely zero sense.

>>4366899
no, he means a book that is a labyrinth in itself, like Rayuela by Cortázar, which I didn't like at all, but mainly for his writing style

>>4366899
you are wrong

>>4366916

no u

give a reason.

fuck, I forgot that I was on 4chan. never mind. I give up. you (whoever I'm speaking to) are right. I'm wrong. I bow down to your intellectual fortitude.