House of Leaves : A novel

Rating:
Summary: Shallow, boring and posturing
Review: Some of the comparisons touted in the PR materials for this novel are plainly insulting. Danielewski is to Nabokov what Kenny G is to John Coltrane. They don't even inhabit the same planet. Nabokov had to struggle for years with rejection from american publishers, reviewers and readers. He was a writer, not a pop star. Danieleski, himself the brother of pop star Poe, is a hipster with good connections that is being obscenely hyped by the huge publicity machine of Pantheon (none other than Random House) as the next one-hit wonderboy of the week. That's all right if you want to consume the cool disposable coffee table book of the month, but I'm afraid delluding oneself to believe press releases is s symptom of how "pop culture" is eating whatever was left of worthy and meaninngul in mainstream publisher's lists. HOUSE OF LEAVES is amateurish, bloated with self-importance and as boring as it gets. It reads like what a pretentious, self-absorbed adolescent might write. Mr.Danielewski, who had his hair tinted to blue "because he likes to frustrate people's expectations" is a product, period, and a quite lousy one at that. Enough is enough with all this shallow glorification of the banal, the supposedly hip and the ephimerous media dear of the second. Major publishers are dropping the midlist, with great authors and important books getting lost forever, in favor of peddling this fodder "for modern hipsters". Read Nabokov, or Umberto Eco or any of the names the publicists have appropiated for the pandering of this object. And don't wait for the movie, wait for the Multimedia set. This time, the Emperor new clothes come straight from the Mall.

Rating:
Summary: A story about the power of storytelling
Review: For those of you who read the book: When you finished it, did you find yourself believing that there was a documentary called "The Navidson Record," even though you were advised at the beginning that no such thing existed? This to me is the most interesting part of "House of Leaves." I think the footnotes and lists are there to build the idea that this is authentic. Even the denial of authenticity at the beginning adds an authentic flavor to the story. Yes, the ending is deeply unsatisfying and the typographic gymnastics annoying, but I think he's on to something here about contemporary myth-making through the accumulation of detail. A footnote of my own: I found the letters from Johnny's mom to be at once tedious and disturbing, which is kind of weird, no?

Rating:
Summary: one step below literature one step above "formula book"
Review: His book is certainly a novel idea: tell two or three stories in one book. Johnny Truant, Zampano, Navidson and his family, Johnny's Mom, etc.. Its a terrific idea but the writing falls short. Read this book if you are into the horror genre and want something different.

Rating:
Summary: So unworthy -
Review: and I should run back to Stephen King? Oh really? I am of the number that finds Crock of Leaves elitist, irrelevant and so unoriginal it's gut crunchingly funny. The patronising readers of this book, who feel that us ordinary mortals are not worthy of "The House", should consider it time they left their High School geekiness behind and go "vivify" themselves. Anybody with a life should not waste their valuable bucks and time on this heap of compost. Go live your full lives, read your King with pride and don't do as I did. That's lose a whole valuable weekend of a rich life to this drivel.

Rating:
Summary: A rave review, with caveats....
Review: I am no great mind or fatuous intellectual; I shared some of the frustrations of readers who complained about this book...until, along about page 125 or so I had to give it up to the author. This book is not one you escape into, as you would some mysteries or other novels, but one that requires you to sustain the threads of several narrative lines (and do go to the appendices when you are advised to do so). I had to laugh at myself because I am such the archtype reader Danielewski satirizes....I'm constantly interrupting my reading to look up obscure references or arcane words I don't know...he has provided me with all the footnotes I could want, and more! The ones referencing Paul Auster and Donna Tartt (remember her?) made me LOL! This is an incredibly creative, provocative work that should make you at least consider (if not confront) the demons and "issues" you shove aside in order to function in the world. It's not a cozy, curl up by the fire kind of book, but it is well worth the mental exercise required (ok, and so skip a few footnotes--its a novel, for goodness sake!) I recommend it if you have the time and inclination to give it the attention it deserves.

Rating:
Summary: Not for the timid
Review: This book is not built to be 'popular'; that is, to appeal to the broadest, shallowest portion of the reading public. This book will require concentration that lasts more than half a page. If you haven't learned how to really read yet, this book is not the place to start. To those of you who love to be challenged in reading, this book is a joy. Contrary to the opinion of many of the reviewers, the many and diverse elements added by the author are not 'irrelevant'; each small piece adds dimension to the whole that conventional novels cannot display. You will feel anxiety within the first 40 pages. If you don't, put the book down and go back to Stephen King; you aren't ready for House of Leaves yet.

Rating:
Summary: Just give it a try......
Review: There are a lot of reasons to dismiss this book after a cursory glance. Seems to be a erudite (snotty/pretentious) Blair Witch Project or a very pale Pale Fire. The clever use of footnotes was exhausted in Infinite Jest. Derivative as it may be, House of Leaves is a riot. I work in a bookstore of a lot the reaction has gone the route of "oooooo...it's creepy." I just haven't got that as the main thrust; it seems like there's too much worth paying attention to. While the game the book presents is much less complex than Nabokov's, it's still not a People crossword puzzle to VN's New York Times brain buster, and maybe I've got a sick sense of humor, but the book is pretty funny. (If you watch the dates on the footnotes, appendices, ect, it's obvious the whole thing is the work of a preveracatin' crackpot. Anything more than a superficial comparison to the Blair Improv Fest seems unfair.)

Rating:
Summary: it could have been great
Review: 'House of Leaves' was excessively long: its sporadic progression from different topics, events, and points of view may lead to its possible categorization as a prodigious letdown; a result of its inability to live up to the expectations procured by hyped reviews. The focus of the book should revolve directly around "The Navidson Record," which was without doubt the sole reason many will refrain from trashing the book before they reach the end. "The Navidson Record" is not only an example of Danielewski's vast imagination, but also his ability to enthrall, petrify, and captivate the reader; if there was more on this topic than the parts of had very little importance, the book may have been able to live up to its possibilities: there should have been more focus on this and less on the surrounding topics. Numerous hypothetical citations led to an outrageous amount of footnotes, and its tedious references to historical facts, events, stories and myths may prevent the book from receiving all the credit it deserves. Despite its faults, at the core of the book there subsists an incredibly well written novel. Indubitably, there were parts of the book not mentioned in its reviews that may lead many a reader to expect one thing and receive another- but when it comes down to it, the story that lies deep inside Danielewski's seemingly endless ramblings is nothing short of stupefying. Danielewski's writing reveals an unmatched talent, especially when describing parts of the human mind that may not be touched by everyone. He dives into the minds of multiple characters, dissecting the possible effects that may take place in a person's attitude towards life as they themselves change, as well as capturing respective descents into insanity, depression, denial, and sometimes the revelations of who and what they may or may not ever be. If you extract the core of the plot from the sometimes obscure observations of the narrator, the book may very well be categorized as a literary pioneer, taking methods of writing to new heights. Danielewski has a limitless source of creativity and the ability to enthrall anyone with enough willpower to get to the heart of the story- his talent adds to the fact that the book's intention is nothing short of brilliant. The downfall of the novel can be attributed to his attempts at plunging too far into the stories that he creates to surround the plot, and the unnecessary themes that eventually cause the book to surrender the vast amounts of commendation it wholly deserves.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent. Gripping.
Review: a truly enjoyable novel. do not let the negative reviews discourage you, read this book now. It is excellent. True, it falls somewhat short of the standards for a classic work of literature, but it is still thoroughly menacing and a necessary read for anyone with an open mind.

Rating:
Summary: the disagreement over this book should tell you something
Review: I have read this book and there is some truth in both the good and bad reviews. Read the reviews, look at the book and decide for yourself. How much you enjoy yourself with House of Leaves will, I think, be largely a matter of temperment.