Rating: 
Summary: Good ol' fashion head games
Review: I was attracted to House of Leaves because of an article about it in Newsweek. That sent me to this site, where I found the critics polarized: Joe Pro loved it, Joe Shmoe hated it. I had to find out for myself!If you're like me and don't usually use words such as "metafiction" and "no vivifying center," I just want to say, the book was a total hoot. At times trying, yes. But so is Monty Python--I think it takes that experimental attitude to reach the breakthrough stuff. Contrary to other reviewers, I found the central narrative genuinely eerie, much more so than anything I've read by Steven King or Dean Koontz. In some places I was turning the pages breathlessly. At the same time, I found myself chuckling with delight at pages that are typeset to match the scenes they describe. For example, in one scene where explorers are hopelessly lost, the pages feature dense footnotes in random columns -- some even printed upside-down, some backwards. As you try to puzzle out what to read next, you suddenly realize you are experiencing some of the same disorientation as the explorers. I think this is just plain old fun. The author purposely interrupts the story in places to frustrate you; saves some of the best stuff for obscure appendixes (be sure to read the letters from Johnny Truant's institutionalized Mom); and generally challenges your assumptions about what a book is supposed to do or be. At the same time, for the most part he delivers the goods in the old-fashioned narrative sense. So, yeah, it takes a little work to read, and it's not conventional, and it's not perfect. But it's ORIGINAL. I'm REALLY glad I bought it. I enjoyed it a ton, and the emotions of the book continue to resonate with me days after finishing it. If any of you reading this enjoyed David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, as I did, House of Leaves is simply a must.And, if you are tired of slick, predictable stories that give you nothing to think about, I think you should give House of Leaves a chance.
Rating:
Summary: metaficciones
Review: Of course I picked up this book with skepticism. Most of the "literature" today is fluff, and one must wade through the mire to get to something truly worthwhile. House of Leaves is, of course, not for everyone. Fans of Eco, Calvino, Borges, et al. will delight in the metafiction that Danielewski has created. The footnotes and appendices serve to enhance the Navidson record while also making it even more real. Without them, the story is less exciting. The House of Leaves not only contains the Navidson record, but it contains the books that Danielewski has created- not written, mind you, but created- the footnotes that are fake create the ideas for texts that could have been written, just as the Navidson record creates the film that it recollects. The book is not a horror novel, but rather, one that makes you think and question dimensions, relations, and space. Truly not for the faint of mind, or those who do not want to think about their entertainment. For those who want to judge the book, the sprawling mess that leads to the overwhelming nothingness that is the House of Leaves.
Rating:
Summary: all your favorite authors are either dead or are communists
Review: forget understanding through comparison to dead authors and don't even bother with the post-this and post-thats. i haven't seen or heard the supposed hype, but i like the author's boundary expanding methods and appreciate the promise of a challenge. i'd recommend this book if you really enjoy experiments in prose and convoluted plots and enjoy the sensation of detachment. i'd tell you to avoid it if you are: a) a big fan of genre fiction b) unable to relate to anything without first comparing it to at least three other things c) overly concerned with a book's lasting value to society d) spend large amounts of your free time writing reviews on web sites, or e)see title of review
Rating:
Summary: cult status and great literature
Review: there is a difference between a cult novel and great literature. A great cult novel is JG Ballard's Crash, a great piece of Literature is James Joyce's Ulysses. Where is this book? definately on the cult side, but leaning towrds the literature side. The most elusive piece of beauty about this book is the layout, like a severe bout with a pyschotropic drug, it pulls you in, where there is suspense, there are few words and lots of withe space, causing you to read and turn the pages faster. And unlike any stephen king book, it scared me. made even Lovecraft seem like the muppets. Best book I've read in a long time.
Rating:
Summary: some people just don't get it
Review: What a shame, some people just don't get this book. It is brilliant! Personally, I think this guy sold his soul for this book. The sheer depth of his writing, his characterizations, his empathy, his often-lyrical, beautiful prose is absolutely amazing. If you shy away from mental exercise, puzzles and the like, don't bother. If your preference is for the superficial quick fix, instant gratification type of bestsellers that you find on the shelves today, don't bother. You'll just frustrate yourself. Because that's exactly what the book is, a puzzle; actually, a labyrinth within a labyrinth, with doors and passageways leading nowhere, red herrings and more than a few distractions. It's a glass house, and it's good. Very, very good.
Rating: 
Summary: a crumbling house
Review: i read this book through and only wish it had a story to tell. Danielewski should find new editors, ones who will tell to him to get rid of all the meaningless footnotes and the special effects, which are more of an irritation than anything. maybe they could tell him that the story is what counts and not the lofty notions and packaging.
Rating: 
Summary: Resurrected my fear of the dark
Review: I am only halfway through House of Leaves, but I felt compelled to write my thoughts on the book so far. At first, I found Johnny Truant's "writing style" to be amateurish, a bit overenamored with the L.A. lifestyle, and reminded me very strongly of the level of writing skill in many computer text-adventure games I have played (<You are standing in front of a long, pitch-black hallway that seems to stretch back forever. A doorway leads to the EAST. > )However, as I got farther into the book, his narrative became much more engrossing, and less irritating. I disagree with a previous review - for me, the seemingly scattershot structure of the book actually heightened the suspense. I would be in the midst of a thread where someone was about to enter the mysterious and menacing hallway, when the book would veer for several pages into a Truant journal entry before it would bring me back to what happened in the hallway. Even Truant's own story would allude to one thing, such as the story of the Pekinese, or the scars on his forearms, and did not reveal the full story until much later on. A basic literary device, in a slightly new form, but the interweaving of these two main stories did hold my interest. The footnotes are occasionally amusing, but the brackets placed inside words to indicate a mis[]ing letter, even when obvious what that le[]ter had to be... these got tiresome. All things told, though, the non-linear approach is perfectly appropriate for someone raised with so much variety in sensory input, as I assume this author was. I doubt he's in his 50's. It works well for those readers who have much legitimate literary interest, but are used to shorter, faster bursts of information than those of previous generations. Here's my main comment: I'm 31, and a little too old to look suspiciously at shadows, at least not without a significant loss of dignity. I am probably just suggestible, but last night, when I realized this story was reawakening my childhood fear of the dark, I put the book down and wondered if it was a good idea to be reading it at all. And this morning, when I made my way through the darkened house this morning at 4 am to get my coffee and head out to work, I'll tell you - I got out of there FAST. (On a side note, I noticed in reading the other reviews of this book how many seem to laud Stephen King, by way of comparison. Now really, when was the last time King wrote a really GOOD novel? I don't mean one with a few chilling bits here and there - a good one? Perhaps I am pretentious as well, but though King is wildly popular, I don't recall much of his work being given serious critical esteem. I've read most of his books, since my airplane trips tend to happen about as frequently as King books get released, and Misery was the most recent one that I found interesting. I doubt he will ever write anything as good as The Shining again. House of Leaves, though not without flaws and naive choices, is infinitely better than a good chunk of King's work.)
Rating:
Summary: House of the Fantastic
Review: This novel was truly a masterpiece. Some people look at the footnotes and think how pretentious and fake they are (not seeing the hidden irony that Mr. Truant comes right out and says it point blank in the introduction, not to mention the hidden novel-esque qualities the listed titles, struck out lines, and diary-like projections they were intended to make), and some call it pointless (not seeing the irony in that the point is in it's pointlessness), but it's the best damn book I've read in a long time. It draws you in, it forces you to think, it makes you look back and make those connections that you were intended to make, leaving those childish and done things like symbolism to the reader. It's an interpertation.
Rating:
Summary: Tough sledding but worth it
Review: Although this is not a conventional horror story by any means it did give me the willies in several places. I found it tough sledding at first but then gradually the thing started taking me over and the characters assumed palpability in my mind. Almost the best thing (and certainly the scariest) in the book is the very end (spoiler). House of Leaves is also quite good on the way photographers think. Among the more noteworthy features of this book is its bizarre, inventive typography. As the characters get lost in geometry, the reader is forced to turn the book upside down and sideways and flip backwards and forwards and a host of other things beside. It's almost stupidly literal, but the odd thing is that it works, or at least it did for me. I finished the book with the sense of waking up from a dream -- a pleasurably creepy one.
Rating:
Summary: An enjoyable read by a daring newcomer
Review: This book is really a lot of fun, but it is certainly not for someone who expects something like Stephen King. I bought this book and started reading it before I heard all of the "hype". It took me about three pages and all I could think of was Infinite Jest (and not Stephen King). The book pokes fun at academia and its tendency to overanalyze ad nauseum. He's got two interesting stories intertwined, but frankly it took me a while to get into the story of the house, while Johnny Truant's story I found interesting from the get go. I would recommend this book to someone who enjoys David Foster Wallace and who is not afraid to read footnotes. I completely disagree with some of the reviewers here who recommend skipping the footnotes. Frankly, they don't get it, and you won't either if you skip them. If you like Stephen King and want a scary novel, wait for his next book.
|
