[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 275x362, House_of_leaves.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21859353 No.21859353 [Reply] [Original]

It's the scariest book ever written.

>> No.21859387

Besides the gimmick is this book actually good

>> No.21859718

Literary fiction masquerading as pop lit. Very po-mo.

>> No.21859909

>>21859718
It is, in fact, the opposite.

>> No.21860075

>>21859387
I love House of Leaves, even with the gimmicks removed it's worth reading. It is far from scary in my opinion, but I think it has literary merit. I hate it's reputation as a psued book.

>> No.21860081

>>21859387
yeah it's definitely worth a read. All things aside the concept is very original and well thought out. It's definitely """"""""post-modern"""""""" but the execution is good.

>> No.21860699

>>21859353
Literally one of the most beautiful stories aver written about fraternal love.

>> No.21860877

The navidson record is the only part of the book worth reading. The tattoo artist’s part reads like something someone who glanced at a page of Joyce would dream up on a mescaline trip. Makes me wonder if he didn’t write that part much much earlier in his career and then add the later portions to make a completed book.

>> No.21861391

>>21859353
Heard this was good. Flipped through it and saw it looked like gimmicky schlock with different text throughout and returned it without reading a page. Give it to me straight, did I filter myself?

>> No.21861400

>>21859353
I uh... got bored

>> No.21861456

>>21859353
>scariest book ever
Not really. Not to me, anyway. These themes aren’t particularly unique. I do appreciate Danielewski’s takedown of modern cited academic treatises, which is one theme almost everyone ignores. This thing mogs the shit out of academic writing. Structurally, I found it mostly interesting if unnecessary. I’m talking about the physical orientation of the words on the page, not the structure of the narrative. The book’s narrative is interesting and open-ended. What’s real, what’s not, etc. As for the themes for which it’s most lauded, there’s nothing really groundbreaking. That said, I read it all and enjoyed it all. The index is particularly amusing. A lot of comedy in this thing for fans of wordplay. It’s worth a read. It’ll also make you a faster reader. This is a very physically high-effort read, which makes consuming more traditionally built stories a breeze. The book will increase your reading speed and comprehension and retention, if nothing else.

>> No.21861463

>>21860877
I got a copy at Goodwill with notes scribbled in the margins by the previous owner. I had a good laugh at that.

>> No.21861471

>>21860075
What's the gimmick? Or is it a spoiler.

>> No.21861476

>>21861456
>I do appreciate Danielewski’s takedown of modern cited academic treatises
Say more on this, I never picked up on this angle when I read the book

>> No.21861493

>>21861471
The gimmick is that the book experiments heavily with format. The book is supposed to be a treatise written on a documentary movie, with an obsessed former reader's notes in the margin. So the gimmick is that, based upon the formatting of text on the page it tells three different stories simultaneously- Johnny Traunt in the margin, Will Navidson in the movie being discussed and Zampano the author of the treatise discussing the movie who reveals through his writing details about himself. It's actually very similar to Pale Fire in this regard, but different in the way that the words are printed are meant to evoke the scenario of the story at times.

>> No.21861735

>>21861476
>the hidden critique of academia
In House of Leaves, the stacked narrative is that a man called Navidson made a documentary of a house with non-Euclidian geometry, and that movie was released. Zampano is the author of a treatise on that documentary, and he cites every kind of other similar treatise down to the most minute detail, often for no reason (and by Zampano’s own admission, often without his actually reading — or having read to him — the cited works). The sole reason is to establish literary/academic authority. Zampano’s footnotes are exhaustive and mostly pointless, except for the fact that they show the rest of the academic world’s take on The Navidson Record documentary. And these takes are so narrow in scope, with titles so longwinded and asinine, that the dissection of this documentary is a parody of itself. The whole world (in the diagesis of the book) was analyzing every facet — meaningful and, far more often, meaningless — of the Navidson film. In this, Danielewski is mocking the academic model of hyperdissection and underlining the sheer ridiculous and self-indulgent nature of academics discussing art. This is contrasted by Johnny Truant’s footnotes which, as Truant is “uneducated” but artistic in a raw, unteachable sense, are far more readable and enjoyable and emotional and meaningful, but not at all of the academic sensibility. Academic takes are thus devalued and shown as self-satisfied efforts that carry no real weight or share any real insight into the visceral emotion of the work. Only drugged out good-kid Johnny has anything meaningful to add, typos and all. Danielewski hammers this home with the index. I love the index. He picks random words, common words, and lists every page on which they appear. But the entry for “index” doesn’t include the Index title page, which is amusing. He also includes words in the index that don’t appear anywhere in the book, which is another fun rip on academic wonkery. This criticism of academia is IMO the single biggest theme of the book, whether or not that wS the author’s intent. Give this to any self-satisfied academician with a published body of work wherein they analyze the art of another, and they’ll be humiliated. If they have any self awareness, anyway.

>> No.21861754

>>21861476
It may also be one story, by Truant, with Zampano as a framing device of a fictional documentary. The gimmick there is muddied water, and it’s expertly done. The gimmick re structure of words on the page (something everyone is familiar with in the real of poetry, where nonstandard spacing is a metaphor for pacing and emotional distance, etc.) isn’t new, but it is well-done, as you say. The further gimmick is the academic one where Danielewski dabs on academic writing and literary critique writing. The book is a dissection of art mogging the very idea of the dissection of art.

>> No.21861775

So wtf was the house anyways, why did it need to consume people?

>> No.21861790

>>21861735
>wS
Phoneposter detected.
Jokes aside, I liked the book a lot but I found Truant's corny, dated edginess grating.

>> No.21861809

>>21861775
>what is the house and why did it consume people?
Most simply I think it’s a metaphor for longing and emotional distance between people, along with the fleeting nature of connections even when those are made. Longing consumes all, and connections simply delay the longing. But that’s just one aspect. It’s my take that in the diagesis of the book, the house isn’t real, there was no documentary, there was no Zampano, and Truant is the sole author of a fictional work.

>> No.21861819

>>21861790
I’m only phoneposting in the narrative of the comment. IRL I’m using a 1992 blue label Model M, for which you can find my lengthy and well-sourced review online.

>> No.21861837

>>21861790
>Truant’s edginess is grating
I can see that. I enjoyed it myself. Seemed like an homage to Less Than Zero in some ways. Overall I found every aspect of this work noteworthy in a way most serious works fail to capture. It’s an important book, which is a rarity for anything published in the last 25 years. Danielewski spent 10 years on it, and he rather screwed himself. He’ll never top it, but that’s a small price to pay.

>> No.21861841

>>21861819
Please cite multiple nested academic sources that may or may not exist referencing the quality of the 1992 blue label Model M and how it's able to access this website at all in 2023.

>> No.21861909

>>21861841
“The IBM model M is a masterpiece of engineering. Designed in an era when an enterprise workstation cost upwards of $10,000, the keyboard looks, feels, and sounds like a $500 piece of technology built to withstand the expectations of a new, uncharted, and booming consumer computer age.”
>Sal Wisterman, “My Keyboard, Yiur Keyboard, Our Keyboard: Data Entry Democratized,” IBM University Press, Wichita, Kansas (1994), pp. 714

“There are few iconic pieces of technology that have withstood the test of time. The keyboard is one such innovation. Designed over 30 years ago, the basic Model M set the standard for the human-computer interface of the future. And while keyboards have since been made cheaper, they’ve never been made better. The buckling spring pioneered by IBM remains the gold standard even in its obsolescence, though we’re beginning to see the emergence of proper mechanical solutions displacing the membrane-based abominations that have relegated the M to the desks of only the most dedicated writers and programmers.”
>Asdef G. Quertie, “Insane In The Membrane,” Keytrokes Quarterly, Q2, 1998, pp. 35

“N-key rollover before N-key rollover was a thing. Writing at 100 words per minute is hard enough. Imagine coding at 100 words per minute!”
>James Masterson, speaking at the 2014 Retro-Board Revival conference, Solingen, Germany

“Why buy a new Ducky or Nuphy when you can get a 30-year-old Model M for the same price? They’re also great for home defense.”
>Eduardo Jimenez, IGN, 2021

“You want a new keyboard? Fair enough. But eventually you’ll realize you’ll never do better than a Blue (IBM Model) M. As long as you use an active PS/2-to-USB converter, they’ll work with any system. You want wireless? Fuck wireless. Type faster. If you don’t notice latency at the font level, you’re an amateur. Step up your game.”
>Anon, 4chan, /lit/, April 1, 2023, 8:38 p.m.

>> No.21861955

>>21859353
I thought the book was hilarious.

>> No.21861960

>>21861391
It’s worth reading, anon. Personally, I credit House of Leaves with influencing the SCP-Wiki (Euclids, anyway), seeding the “analog horror” trend so popular on the socials, and leading the way for the “liminal spaces” stuff. It’s pretty influential. The gimmicks are gimmicks, but they’re really very well executed. Pick up a copy, it’s worth the $20. Or $4 at Goodwill.

>> No.21862086

>>21861909
Damn. You're good.

>> No.21862132

>>21862086
Thanks, anon. It was a fun cigarette.

>> No.21863141

>>21861960
>>21861391
>>21859353
Are there any other books like this? Like gimmicky type books. I know it's trash and ruins literature but still

>> No.21863252

>>21859353
The first half is fun but it turns into utter shite, like a goth kids diary.

>> No.21863255

>>21863141
I should not that I haven't read any of these but there are
Griffin & Sabine by Nick Bantock
S. by J.J. Abrams and
The Raw Shark Texts by Steven Hall
Of course there's also Infinite Jest and Pale Fire if you want something more literary.
There are also the children's novels by Walter Moers that do quite a lot of this sort of trickery, and while they are fun, the books are clearly aimed at children. If you know a 8-14 year-old who enjoys reading, gift him a copy of The 13½ Lives of Captain Bluebear.
Lastly, there's also the Codex Seraphinianus if just want something to look at, but it's $150 when it can be found in stock (which is rarely)<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>> No.21863256
File: 646 KB, 2800x2100, 1680427947009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21863256

I like this book too

>> No.21863257

>>21859353
Husband said he started having nightmares reading this book, I need to reread it, I think I got turned off by the kind of tedious small text parts, main story was good

>> No.21863270

>>21859353
It's pretty good but Borges wrote the same thing within 20 pages instead of 700

>> No.21863276

>>21863141
Calligrames by Apollinaire
>I know it's trash and ruins literature
Not at all, /lit/ is just fags who hate fun

>> No.21863280

>>21861790
>I found Truant's corny, dated edginess grating.
I thought that was the point, that it's purposefully aggravating to navigate (like a labyrinth durr)

>> No.21863327

>>21859353
It's scary how bad it is.

>> No.21864238

>haunted houses
>parody of academia
>unlikable unreliable horny narrator that disappears in his delusions
>frame narrative is a commentary on another autobiographical work
>last names with significations
>experiments with form with sections you wouldn't normally see in a novel
>sends you on treasure hunts back and forth through the book that sometimes put you in a loop
>highly interpretable with many opposing camps of fan theories
pale fire is great. pic unrelated.

even if you put that aside, the separate sections lack cohesion to such an extent that the whole book comes off as disgustingly amateurish. everything feels like an afterthought. it is NOT scary in the slightest. the navidson story is barebones and generic. the "commentary" on academia is unfunny, obvious and drawn out to death. the truant parts are everyone's least favorite with how cringy they are, and they are the longest, which would have been fine had they served a solid unified vision. this isnt good by genre-shit standards. the best part about the main chunk is the cheap gimmicks used to pad this aimless story out to a big boy page count. the moms letters were good, but were obviously a late addition, and make the final product an even more frustrating mix. if you think this has merit, even as solid pulpy entertainment, get your radar checked. its not even as popular as it needs to be. if more people that actually read either genre or literary fiction suffered it to the end, it would be revealed to the public as the confused, embarrassing, pretentious, clumsy debut work it is.

>> No.21864301

Hunger Games is the scariest book fr

>> No.21864344

>>21861837
>Danielewski spent 10 years on it, and he rather screwed himself. He’ll never top it, but that’s a small price to pay.
If I spent 10 years writing a book that comes out as the pinnacle of my technical skill for the rest of my life, I'd consider it a decade well spent.

>> No.21864688

>>21864344
It just kind if backed him into a corner. He’s abandoned several projects due to their scope because he’s trying to outdo this thing. He needs to pivot. I understand his followup is decent, though. Need to order it.

>> No.21864992

>>21864688
I think at that point the creative in you has to admit that you reached ego death and you can just fuck around for the rest of your life. I say it like it's easy though, but I imagine it's Earth shattering.

>> No.21865140

>>21864238
>the separate sections lack cohesion
Gee it's almost as if they're meant to be written by wildly different people...

>it is NOT scary in the slightest
Many people cite this as the most nightmare inducing book they've read. Sucks to be you I guess.

>> No.21865174

>>21865140
If you’re wired to be bugged out by the backrooms/liminal spaces stuff or analog horror stuff, this book is kind of the granddaddy of that stuff (as it is popular today — the ideas all predate HoL by decades or more). If you just find those things oddly charming or interesting, the book won’t be scary at all. An elevator is comfy to some and terrifying to others. Depends on the reader. For those scared by such, the book must be an absolute horror thrill ride. For those not so unnerved, the book has a lot of other commentary and story to offer. I wasn’t scared by it, but I thought an awful lot about it after I finished reading it.

>> No.21865310

>>21864992
Well, he’s more than competent and could write about any number of things. He may need to abandon the meta-structure gimmick. He’s done it, it’s the standard now. They’ve been trying to make this thing into a movie or show for 15 years, and there’s no reason it’s not doable. If Rowling can pivot, he can pivot.

>> No.21865325

>>21865140
>it's almost as if they're meant to be written by wildly different people
Exactly. But also, they don’t lack cohesion at all. All three narratives are telling the same story (in terms of general theme) three different ways, and they have strong parallels. There’s overwhelming cohesion. Maybe it’s just a book where it’s easy for casual readers to miss all the subtext of the intertwined narratives.

>> No.21865393

>>21861960
>credit House of Leaves with influencing the SCP-Wiki (Euclids, anyway), seeding the “analog horror” trend so popular on the socials, and leading the way for the “liminal spaces” stuff. It’s pretty influential.
Ah so it gave rise to a bunch of retarded internet teenager memery. A value contribution to the canon.

>> No.21865501

>>21865393
An influential work is merely influential. I’m not sure you can judge the value of a work by derivatives thereof. If that’s the metric, every piece of erstwhile meaningful art can now be unilaterally classified as vapid, destructive, and non-valuable. But your standards are your own and I’ll not try to convince you otherwise. I like the book and think it’s interesting across the board.

>> No.21865647 [DELETED] 

>>21859353
this was my favorite book in elementary school because i thought the gimmick with the text was cool, but i reread it recently and i thought it was good but not as amazing as i once thought it was. i picked up on a bunch of the beauty hidden in it that i missed as a kid. i wouldn't recommend this book but it's not exactly a waste of time if you happen to come across it.

>> No.21866641

>>21865140
>Gee it's almost as if they're meant to be written by wildly different people...
im not saying theyre merely different. they dont gel together at all in the bigger picture (very much unlike pale fire which it heavily apes from). many people say skip the truant parts to enjoy the navidson parts, because you cant expect a menacing atmosphere to work alongside quirky passages (that might have worked elsewhere) like
>Quick note here: if this crush-slash-swooning stuff is hard for you to stomach; if you’ve never had a similar experience, then you should come to grips with the fact that you’ve got a TV dinner for a heart and might want to consider climbing inside a microwave and turning it on high for at least an hour, which if you do consider only goes to show what kind of idiot you truly are because microwaves are way too small for anyone, let alone you, to climb into.
even then zampanos academic wankery isnt clever and constantly gets in the way of the atmosphere. both the horror and the humor of the truant and navidson sections clash completely, and no fan can deny that HoL is trying to do way too many things at once. the core of the novel is definitely not supported by the academic aspect at all, nor by johnnys sexual escapades, not in clean elegant ways at least. you could argue that that is the point, that the book doesnt even have a core, that it doesnt come together, just like the house, but the narratives are too human to mirror the cold inhuman house. also by the 2000s, the idea of a core-less novel where you draw your own connections is nothing new, and really smells like a cop out for the author.
>Many people cite this as the most nightmare inducing book they've read.
for many its the first and only horror book theyve read.
>>21865325
>All three narratives are telling the same story (in terms of general theme) three different ways. There’s overwhelming cohesion.
enlighten me. the connections to be drawn seem too loose and forced.
>>21865393
if we're judging it by its influence, it gave rise to ted the caver, which to me is in every way better than it.

>> No.21866646

I usually love stuff like this, and the premise was kinda cool, but I got bored after like 80 pages. Should I give it another try?

>> No.21866673

>>21863141
J R

>> No.21866942

>>21861754
>It may also be one story, by Truant
Truant is dead, the story is written by his mom

>> No.21866965

>>21866942
I hadn’t considered that. Excellent.

>> No.21867293

>>21863141
Rayuela by Cortazar

>> No.21867301

>>21866965
Whalestoe Letters is ambiguous in that regard. It does act as a sort of key but it's been over a decade since I read it.