Rating: 
Summary: House of Hype
Review: To begin with, all those "innovative" devices of typographic collages and design were already tired and empty mannerisms in the "so-called" and long defunct avant garde of the early 20th century. None of that stuff survived and is read today, for it was just a fashion item, a novelty aimed at gathering the efimerous infatuation of those who consume literature, or popular art, as flavor of the month andywharloades. What this novel constitutes, besides a pretentious bore, is a retrograde concept of innovation purely based on century old gimmicks or three decade old B series TV shows. This is truly a book for the TV age and the TV mentality, so probably that explains the disparity of tastes expressed on these reviews. My own opinion, and advice to the reader looking for new and brilliant horror writing, would be to find really smart, fun and well written stuff by authors as different as Jonathan Carroll, Thomas Ligotti or Graham Joyce. These people are real writers, artists with craft, with a world to tell and the talent and the chops to put it on paper. Mr.Danielewski is a pop star, the Menudo or NSync of "cool" stuff. They should sell this item at the Gap along with the books of "poetry" by Jewell. I bet they'd shift even more tons of this drivel than they already are. Everybody in Khakis! Everybody buy this book! Even the blurbs on the jacket sound even faker and more plastic than usual. So many fantastic books and great writers out there to discover... don't let publicity and MTV airhead salespeople fool you. Or at least, take time to sample the "genius" in this book before you buy.
Rating: 
Summary: A Unique Book Indeed
Review: There are a lot of good things about "House of Leaves," but there are also bad things...however, the good outweighs the bad. The good: thought provoking story, interesting premise, and the way Danielewski plays with text is beautiful. Sure, Johnny Truant is a bit annoying at times, but only when he whines about his mental conditions--Danielewski succeeded best when Johnny told stories, and not when he rambled like a punk-Lovecraft narrator. Zampano should've been developed more, but that is made up with the excellent characterizations of the Navidsons...Overall, a good read, a bit challenging, and ultimately rewarding.
Rating:
Summary: a tremendous disappointment!
Review: I really wanted to like this novel but, ultimately, a novel should have something to say to the reader. It should at least make a point. Style and structure are interesting, but House of Leaves says nothing, and is pointless.
Rating: 
Summary: Great read !
Review: An excellent book, though it certainly takes a little effort and a willingness to go on the specific journey the author created. Anyone willing to go on this ride, however, and travel with Danielewski will be well rewarded. Additionally, I must add, that the book gave me nightmares, which has not happened since early Stephen King. This is truly a frightening book.
Rating:
Summary: weak, very weak
Review: This might have been a good novel, I'll admit that up front. It wasn't, unfortunately, the writing is one-dimensional. I was never convinced that "several" authors were writing this - it read more like Johnny Truant (i.e. Danielewski) was playing intellectual "dress-up". (Hint for Danielewski: merely changing fonts is not enough.) The Navidson Record could have been exciting and scary, but is was never enough of any one thing to really matter to me. It wasn't scary enough and it wasn't original enough. As with the rest of this novel, no explanation was given for the house, and I'm sorry, but if your going to tease me for over 700 pages either entertain me or enlighten me. Danielewski should have published these stories individually, Truant's story is, at times, sad and compelling (one word - pekinese) but I don't think it had anything to do with what he was researching, clearly, he was "merely" going insane. Why wasn't that interesting enough? Johnny's last entry is an interesting story but what the hell does it mean! Who was the woman? who was the baby? why should we give a damn about that story? Does it relate to ANYTHING? And lastly, why load this story down with Zampano's boring, irrelevant, and admittedly, fabricated footnotes? Unless one is a scholar, and lets face it who reading this book would be, the unending discourse Zampano has with himself is superfluous - made up footnotes within made up footnotes within a fictional novel! Why is Danielewski intent on wasting my time?
Rating:
Summary: Nothing there.
Review: A gimmicky waste. Don't go in; there's nothing there.
Rating:
Summary: very disappointing
Review: The concept of House of Leaves is an interesting one, but the execution is extraordinarily poor. The writing is horrible, the characters are paper-thin, and some of the paraliterary conceits (or whatever they are) are so sophomoric I was actually embarrassed for the writer. Very much like the house in the novel, this book is a huge, sprawling mess with exactly nothing at its center. Do not waste your time on this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Promising
Review: It takes guts to build up a work as "life changing" in your own introduction, and I admit I was hesitant about reading the rest of the book. On a purely technical level, House of Leaves is amazing. The author's use of form to accentuate his story is complex, and shifts from hitting-you-over-the-head to very subtle. He managed to convince me that the texts of Zampano and Truant (and Truant's mother) came from different people by keeping their writing styles distinct. These things are indicators of remarkable talent. Technical ability aside, Danielewski seems so taken with the process of writing that he forgot what he was writing about. Truant and Zampano's lives are affected, but why? Who cares? The Navidsons were slightly more real, with less textbook characteristics, and were easier to empathize with. There were many places that were difficult to convince myself of the necessity to keep reading. There are many intriguing things about this novel and about the sheer volume of ideas pouring out of Danielewski's head. He doesn't rank amongst the great writers of genre-defining fiction yet, but with time and polishing of his considerable skills I believe he very well could. The book is worth a read, probably even two. But it's not life-changing.
Rating:
Summary: What's with all these stuffy reviewers?
Review: I don't get the nasty tone of some of the reveiwers of this book. I loved it. I could not stop reading it. I was totally taken in by the recurring themes, the metaphors, the language, the characters, the mystery, the bizarreness of the whole thing. The book made me question how I read, what I read, what text means, what words on the page mean and reflect. It was a tremendously moving and disturbing read. Don't listen to all the cranky people who've rated this lower than 4 stars (unless you think you're getting the next Stephen King novel). Buy this book, think about it, let it settle in and mess with your mind a little.
Rating:
Summary: Don't Believe the Hype
Review: This book has gotten a lot of good reviews in the media (Newsweek, NYTimes Book Review, etc...)but it is a colossal waste of time to read it. The writing is dull and puerile (Johnny Truant?) , the plot is stolen almost directly from the "Twilight Zone" and you will be bored stupid from the infinite footnotes. I think its hype in the media is just a case of a literary emperor with no clothes on, there is nothing of substance in this book; if someone asks you to read it, say no, put it down and walk away...
|
