House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $11.23 You Save: $8.72 (44%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.99 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of House of Leaves
Book Review: A Unique, Rewarding Horror Experience (Note the Lack of the Word Novel; This Book is an EXPERIENCE)
Summary: 5 Stars
If you don't have much patience, this book is not for you.
If, on the other hand, you enjoy browsing and reading some books several times--particularly books like this, where at least a couple of readings are required, since there's so much to discover--then this IS for you.
"House of Leaves" is indeed an experimental novel, but it's not precisely avant-garde. Everything follows a single cohesive storyline, even if it doesn't seem like it. Every digression and footnote is relevant, and enriches the experience.
However, again, you must be patient, and you have to enjoy perusing a book at leisure--speed-reading does no good here (trust me, I'mm a speed reader).
I don't want to go too much into the storyline (it's way too easy to offer spoilers) but basically, "House of Leaves" follows one man's discovery of a another man's archives documenting truly horrifying events chronicled by a pair of films that do not exist. These films were supposedly created by a professional photographer who was documenting his family's experience moving into a new house. Worse--or better, if you're into horror--those horrifying events are not really under the constraints of place or even time.
It if sounds convoluted, it's really not. Or, at least, it's easy to understand; you might have to read the above sentences a couple of times, but you absorb these facts almost by osmosis when you're reading "House of Leaves."
I'm afraid to say too much, because spoilers are much to easy to give away here, and while there's probably enough surprises and revelations in this novel that revealing a couple wouldn't make much difference on the book's impact, I don't feel like spitting anything out. I will say this is a very scary novel. If you're any kind of horror fan who longs, at least on occasion, for something beyond the usual spatter and gore, then "House of Leaves" is a must. If you're a reader looking for the next big thing--or at least the next talked-about thing--in literary forms, you, also, should read it. If, however, you're into perfectly streamlined, evenly chapter-divided stories that do not digress and get themselves over with quickly--or at least cleanly-- skip it. "House of Leaves" is a worthwhile experience--extremely worthwhile, in my opinion--but it is not easy, and it is often frustrating. This is not because it is difficult to read; rather, it is because you want to know every answer as soon as the question pops up. At times, it feels like it can't possibly make any sense, like the footnotes and notes and side stories can't possibly add to the story, like it's a waste of time.
Trust me, though.
It's not.
This book isn't a runaway, blockbuster, billion dollar bestseller, and for several reasons. The form does put some people off. Also,it is genuinely frightening, and many people, contrary to what they say, do not actually like being afraid. However, the fact that it's been in steady print says something. "House of Leaves" will continue to develop a cult following; however, that should not be the sole factor in your decision to read or not read this book. It doesn't matter who likes or doesn't like "House of Leaves." It is unique enough that both its fans and detractors are all kinds of people, from all walks of life and learning and experience. This book does not appeal to any one type of person. If you read it, you'll probably understand why.
"House of Leaves" is one of the most unique, enthralling, confusing, frustrating, infuriating, and rich reading experiences I've had in the last couple of years. With the former caveats in mind--it doesn't get itself over with quickly, it is often frustrating, the digressions are almost like non sequiturs in places, and it's very frightening-- I would still reccommend this novel to most.
Book Review: A challenge
Summary: 4 Stars
This may be the most complicated book I've ever read. There are layers upon layers and you can never be sure what's real and what isn't.I won't say it's the best book I've ever read, but it's certainly the most ambitious and creative. The way the typography was used alone is unlike anything I've ever seen. It could have been simply a gimmick, but it really reflects the story as well.
A quick hint to people who like to read while doing something else--this is NOT the book for it. I took it with me to the gym and tried to read it while riding an exercise bike. Not a pretty sight.
Book Review: A chaotic, wonderful ride; be warned, it flaunts its intelligence boldly...
Summary: 4 Stars
As others have pointed out, House of Leaves is the very definition of post-modern. The novel chronicles the story of a tattoo parlor employee, Johnny Truant, as he discovers the unfinished magnum opus of a dead man, Zampano, and sets about attempting to edit and publish this magnum opus (for Zampano's sake as well as his own). Johnny quickly becomes obsessed with his project, shutting himself off from the world and undergoing bizarre and surreal life changes as he pores over Zampano's epic work. The title of Zampano's unfinished literature? House of Leaves. On the inside of this novel, Zampano is credited as the author of House of Leaves, with Johnny Truant providing the edits and notes, and oh, lest I forget, there's also another mysterious editor who went over "the internet addition" of House of Leaves and cleaned it up before the book was published on a wide scale.
Except, of course, that this is Mark Z. Danielewski's novel, and it was never an internet cult phenomenon that later made its way into publication. ...Or is it? And if what I'm saying doesn't make a lick of sense to you and leaves your head spinning, then welcome to the trip that is House of Leaves: a book within a book, an author within an author, a reality within a reality. Huge, convoluted, dizzying, and altogether a pleasure to talk about -- indeed, describing the book is as enjoyable as reading it, if not more so.
Zampano's House of Leaves teeters on the line between a dramatic narrative and an academic essay, though it seems to be an attempt at capturing the latter; its subject matter is a fictional documentary called The Navidson Record, a film made by photojournalist Will Navidson, which is itself the story of Navidson and his family's turmoil and strife in a house that's constantly sprouting dark corridors and ever expanding dimensions. Zampano's work is loaded with (fake) quotes, citations, and footnotes. In places, text moves around the page in strange ways and Zampano rambles on and on; there are sections scratched out, upside down. Sometimes one word and one word only will appear on a page. The word "house" is always emphasized every time it appears (in my copy, it was in shifting grey text, though in some copies, it's blue). Johnny Truant's story takes place alongside the telling of The Navidson Record, and in some ways, there are parallels to be found between the two tales. Truant's story is told in first person past tense, whereas Zampano's book is mostly written in third person present tense. The two are distinguished by different fonts.
Make no mistake: House of Leaves is a difficult book. It's frustrating, and frustratingly self-aware.
Early on, Zampano all but invites you to give up on the book, to proclaim it "prolix" and needlessly confusing; the narrative echoes his words by stretching you to your limits on multiple occasions. Many people won't like this book, and I wouldn't recommend it to just anyone. But if you're looking for something different and off-beat, House of Leaves has a little bit of everything to whet your appetite: love, lust, loss, madness, horror, sadness, drama, satire and parody (caricatures of both Stephen King and Harold Bloom appear), and style. Lots of pretentious, shameless style. I enjoyed it. It infuriated me at times, as it wanted to, but it hit me hard in the gut and made me feel and made me remember and made me ache, and I think it's worth a look if you're up for a challenge.
But recall Zampano's words: they say literature stands the test of time, and he can think of no greater joy than if this book is proven to be found wanting. If you don't like this book, the book accepts your disapproval. As it says in the dedication, "This is not for you." But you never know. Maybe it will be.
Book Review: A chilling glimpse into the abyss...
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a story about a strange house. This is also the story about Navidson, a Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist who moves his family into the strange house. This is also the story of a documentary filmed by Navidson about his family moving into the strange house. This is also the story of House Of Leaves, a book written by an old blind man, a book about the documentary of the family that lived in the strange house. This is also the story of Johnny Truant, the person who finds and restores the book written by an old blind man about a documentary of the family that lived in the strange house, and does so at the risk of his own sanity. It is all of this, and so much more.House Of Leaves is not a book for the passive reader. With two major plot lines running almost simultaneously throughout the book, and several more scratching the surface at various points, this is a book that demands your full attention, both while you are reading it and for weeks to come afterwards.
There isn't much that can be said about the intent or message behind House Of Leaves, for there are too many to list, and the list is constantly changing. This is a book that demands to be read twice, with the threat of a third looming in the distance, and no doubt it will read differently each time. Indeed, this is the kind of book that reads you. As multi-layered as the house on Ash Tree Lane itself, it will earn a permenant place on your bookshelf, no doubt well in reach.
Book Review: A conventional thriller, buried under too much artifice
Summary: 3 Stars
Will Navidson, prize-winning photographer, and his beautiful model wife move in to a seemingly innocent house in suburban Virginia with their two pretty children. But the house seems to be bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Calling in his friend Billy Reston, UVA professor and quadriplegic due to a tragic accident, the professional explorer Holloway and his team, and his loving bear of a brother, Tom, he braves the freezing dark of a house that wants to destroy them all.Am I describing the new Dean Koontz? Nope. What I've just given you is "House Of Leaves" once you scrape off all the crap Danielewski's buried it under. Not what you thought it was, huh?
To be fair, Danielewski is an excellent writer. He makes a hideously pretentious academic discussion of a documentary (admittedly a highly unconventional one) gripping. This is a very well-written book, and he has a great future ahead of him. However, he needs to accept what he is; a thriller writer, not an artist. The Johnny Truant sections show he can write other kinds of prose, but this is a conventional thriller to the core, and he should own up to it.
That I kept reading "House of Leaves" in spite of the artifice slathered on is a testament to just how good a writer he is. But, along the way, he abuses brackets, decides to switch long S's for F's in one section, and occasionally his stunts even actually work. There are sections where he's trying to make the text mirror the action happening in it, and these actually work. But did we really need Borges, or at least a Borgesian character, as a narrator (he makes it pretty obvious that's who Zampano is, if you pay attention)? Did we really need all the quotes of everything from Rilke to the epic of Gilgamesh to child psychologist Jean Piaget? If his ending and appendices imply what I THINK they're implying, it does make sense, but it's still pretentious on his part.
I do recommend this book, but don't be fooled into thinking it's art. A novelty of a conventional thriller is really all it is. Hopefully Danielewski will wake up to this, or read his Stephen King and realize that he has some great footsteps he can follow.