House of Leaves

Do the words meta, post-modern, or experimental make you cringe when used to describe books? Then turn back now. I feel the need to say that up front because many people seem to go into this book expecting a horror novel and wind up wasting their money. Just take a look at the genres that goodreads lists this as. Horror, fiction, fantasy, and mystery. With inapt labels like that, it's easy to see how people could get the wrong idea. This is not a horror novel, nor is it a mystery novel or a fantasy novel. This book is, among many other things, a personal story about the author's parents presented as experimental literary fiction that's thinly veiled as a horror novel. Confused? Good, stay that way for now, and don't think too hard about what I just said. I'm not that into horror novels, and I generally like post-modern and experimental stuff, and I knew what I was getting into when I bought this. Know what you're getting into, that's all I'm trying to say. Here's the basic concept as clear and concise as I can tell it. There are essentially three narrators that will be addressing you, the reader. 1) Zampano, an old blind man 2) Johnny Truant, a thirty-something druggie 3) The "editors" Johnny's friend, Lude, knows Zampano because he lives in the same apartment building. The old man, ominously, tells Lude he's going to die soon, and does. After the body is gone, Lude and Johnny sneak into the apartment to take a look around at Zampano's things. They find a crazy manuscript, which Johnny takes home with him. The manuscript is a non-fiction book/dissertation about a documentary called "The Navidson Record." The Navidson Record is about a famous photojournalist named Will Navidson and his family moving into a new house that is bigger on the inside. When I say non-fiction, I mean it. It reads like a textbook. On every page there are footnotes about other articles and other books that reference this documentary that, by all accounts, doesn't exist (I'll get to this in a second). It starts out simple at first. After the family returns home from vacation they notice a hallway on the second floor connecting two bedrooms that wasn't there before. They track down a blueprint of the building and see that there is a space between the walls, although it's not supposed to be a finished hallway with doors. Okay, no big deal, maybe they didn't notice the doors before, it's a new house after all and they had just moved in before going on vacation. Then comes the realization that measuring the house through that hallway results in an extra inch that shouldn't exist, and that can't be explained. Then a new door appears, on the first floor this time, that should lead to an empty back yard but instead leads to a long, dark hallway that extends into an endless labyrinth of cavernous, thousand-foot rooms that leads to god knows where and contains god knows what, and the exploration of this door is the main focus of the documentary. So Johnny finds this manuscript, reads it, edits it, adds his own footnotes relating to research he's done on Zampano's life and the manuscript contents (translations of foreign phrases, for instance), but also personal tangents about his own life and stream of consciousness ramblings. In the prologue where he explains how he found the manuscript, he also says that The Navidson Record doesn't actually exist. Johnny's editors also appear in footnotes and in the first say they have never met Johnny Truant in person, only communicating via letters and rare phone calls. Weird, right? What follows is 528 pages of an interwoven, multi-layered story. On the one hand, you have Zampano's non-fiction book about this fictitious documentary, which simmers as a slow-paced "found-footage" horror novel that can be unsettling, thought-provoking, but is likely to disappoint hardcore horror fans looking for adrenaline-pumping scares. Then you have Johnny's story, told through long footnotes, which is more vague and slow to reveal itself, but the basic idea is that although he knows the manuscript is fiction, the act of reading it causes him to lose his marbles. Whether the manuscript or Johnny's brain chemistry is to blame is up to the reader. Whether Johnny is even telling the truth is up to the reader. And, to be honest, Johnny's parts can sometimes be hard to read because he's just pitiable and depressing and the stream of consciousness prose can wear down your focus. It gets Joyce-esque at times, though only for short stretches, because Danielewski is a nice man who wants you to have a good time, unlike Joyce, who hates you and hates fun. Then the "story" part ends, and you have 130 pages of appendices (which you should read) which include things like: Zampano's writings which are not a part of The Navidson Record The obituary of Johnny's dad Childhood letters from Johnny's crazy, institutionalized, long dead mother Poems So what does it all mean? Well, it means a clever and perhaps over-educated man named Mark Danielewski decided to write a novel that experiments with the format of the novel, that pushes the boundaries of what a novel can be and what it can do. While much of it could quite fairly be called a gimmick, and it won't be redefining how all novels are written going forward, it's a gimmick that works, that is unique, that is stimulating, that is discussion-worthy, that makes the world more interesting by existing, and isn't that what good art is supposed to do? It is an unmitigated success at being singular, and because it is singular it will inspire intense love and intense hatred from different people. It means that while there are answers, you will have to work for them. I mean this both figuratively and literally. On the literal side, there is a letter in the appendices that is written in a simple code, which you will have to translate into a coherent message with pen and paper. And that's a code that is plainly said to be a code. There are other codes that are truly hidden. Many sections have weird, cluttered layouts that make the act of reading them hard, and make tracking down the right footnote a scavenger hunt. You'll be presented with footnotes that make no sense until you realize the text is broken up over several pages and presented backwards. There are a lot of elements to the story, little throwaway lines and facts that you need to remember, or write down. How did Johnny's dad die. How did Navidson's dad die. Stuff like that. While it's not absolutely necessary, I'd recommend having a notebook handy starting on page one. I have an amazing memory, took notes here and there, and still wish I'd taken more. Like I said, this book is work. It's fun work though, depending on your tastes and personality. I'm an INTP and I loved it. Your mileage may vary. On the figurative side, the book still won't hold your hand and spell out what it all means in flashing neon. That's up to you to figure out by gathering all the evidence together and deconstructing the book on several different levels by asking yourself what's true and what isn't, what matters and what doesn't, what's literal and what's figurative, what's the metanarrative, what's the subtext. Ultimately it's up to you to decide when you're satisfied with your answer. While this is nowhere near as open to interpretation as most books you'd label as post-modern or modernist, it is still open to interpretation compared to a typical novel, which isn't open to interpretation at all. There are no easy answers, no definitive answers, but there are satisfying answers that I firmly believe are more or less what the author intended, if you're willing to put in the effort to discover them and have a flexible mind that delights in abstract concepts. Alternatively there are, of course, existing breakdowns of it on the internet that you can turn to for some help, although none I've read have gone far enough into speculation. They present facts and evidence, point out what's true or not, but none of them have drawn the kind of final conclusion that I've drawn. That's how it should be. You should decide for yourself. If none of this sounds like fun to you, I recommend giving this one a pass

What makes a good book is how much you put into it. Most good books don't tell you their meaning up front. You have to invest in the book to get something out of it. Mark Danielewski takes a radical approach in challenging the conventions of writing with this postmodern read. The very structure of the book creates visual experiences that convey meaning (even if it's small) in addition to the content of the book. This book explores structure and the style of writing, not just the content. The perfect blend of the two makes it a novel experience in enjoying both the challenging story, narration styles, and structure/form of the story to create a unique experience unlike most other novels you will read. This is not by any means even a moderate read - it is a hard read. But any good book is worth it if you stick with it and really try to understand it. Most people rate it poorly, even if they are avid readers, because it is not an easy read. It takes effort, but so does all good reading. Reading is not always so light and easy. There are books to enjoy that are more towards that end of the spectrum, but this is a highly rewarding text for its complexity. It is highly worth it if you understand that books don't always have immediate sense to it. That is what makes it a postmodern book, a book that challenges everything we know to be true and sensible in a "novel." I have read the entirety once and will do it two times again this next quarter in university and I look forward to it so much. Allow yourself to fall down the rabbit hole and discover a radical challenge to every convention of writing you know. An amazing book if you understand that you have to give yourself to a book in order to be impacted and changed by it. An amazing text if you approach it with an open mind. That is the only thing that is constant in this novel - open to the chaos, madness, and sheer beauty we find in Danielewski's vision of what is possible in a piece of written art. Art does not always make sense. Just as Oscar Wilde writes in his prologue to The Picture of Dorian Gray, "All art is rather useless." If you seek to understand the wicked truth in this novel, you will look into the abyss and the abyss will look back into you. There is beauty in the ugliness, there is peace in the chaos, and logic in the nonsensical rollercoaster of a ride this text is. It is a postmodern text that uses the conventions of the English language/syntax/grammar to break the conventions of English, showing its absurdity. It is truly amazing. So worth it if you allow yourself to be humbled and open to learning from a text as an intellectually honest person. A lot of people who read a lot of books become arrogant and lose their ability to have a growth mindset that can adapt and learn the value (or create value where you can't seem to find it readily) of a text that challenges what they expect or want out of a text. In school, college, university, and throughout life we learn to be skeptical, cynical, and rebellious to all things we encounter. While this can be useful and healthy, most everybody never learns to balance it out with an inquisitive, open, and empathetic side to it which helps you to not just tear down everything you don't understand but helps you to see the value in something novel. I feel bad for the other people who did not have a good experience reading this text and rated it poorly. A lot of them sound like they either gave up because it is a difficult text to read (not a very healthy way to read, which is to challenge and grow yourself while also enjoying the pleasure of prose and verse) or they were unable to see the value of something that seems immediately harmful because it challenges your worldview and assumptions as to what "good" (or what is safe) to read. Not all of them, but some of them are close-minded and do not allow themselves to adapt and change, to learn and grow from this text, even if it challenges everything you know to be true and good. Identify yourself with our amazing ability to change and adapt and to be smart, and you can't go wrong. Even "bad" texts can teach us something. Take the leap if you dare. With the right mindset, there is so much in this text to experience and to learn from. A truly challenging and amazing text to read. TLDR: it is so worth it. Open your mind to it, and let it break down everything you know to be true and good in our Western mindset, and in our limited English sense of grammar. Have the growth mindset and an inquisitive attitude and you will be fundamentally changed by the power of this book to restructure the way you think, freeing you from the captivity of our modern conventions of thinking. Radically changing book.

House of Leaves by Mark Danielewski is very hard to define in terms of genres. It is most often attributed to horror books because of the story's mysterious nature but House of Leaves can be classified as anything from fantasy, mystery, or even a nonfiction book if read through the right lenses. There are several reasons why House of Leaves is so difficult to define, but one of the most prevalent reasons has to do with the book's overarching narratives. Essentially, the book switches between a report written about a film called The Navidson Record and the perspective of a character named Johnny Truant. The report was originally written by a character named Zampanò. Zampanò is an old blind man who lived as a hermit, and through the use of transcribers has created a report on a possibly fictional documentary called The Navidson Record. Zampanò has died from unclear causes and his report was found by the character Johnny Truant. Johnny starts to edit the report back together and as the book goes on we start to see Johnny slowly fall into mental instability. Johnny is both the main editor of the book and the main protagonist. To convey both of these storylines simultaneously Zampanò’s report is written in times new roman and is the main focus of the book, while Johnny writes in courier and keeps the majority of his story in the footnotes section of each page. While this form of writing is unorthodox, it helps convey a sense of mystery, while also preventing the audience from getting disorientated. The Navidson Record, as described by Zampanò, focuses on Will Navidson and his family moving into a new home in Virginia. The house starts normally, but as time goes on, the house starts to grow in a way that defies laws of space. After a trip to Seattle, Navidson realizes that the interior of the house is larger than the exterior of the house (rooms of the house are larger on the inside than they are on the outside). At first, this phenomenon is confined to only a small portion of the house, but it soon grows. One day, the family finds a new door on an external wall of the living room. The door should lead outside, but instead, it goes to a cold, dark hallway that seems to go on forever. Navidson and his family hire a group of explorers to go into the hallway, to get a deeper understanding. Going into any further detail on the Navidson Record would lead to spoilers, thus, instead of going on with detail, I will go into detail on how parts of the book made me feel. The book is very confusing. The book asks plenty of questions and the book never answers the juicy ones and that can annoy some of the readers. Other than that, both of the main storylines will often invoke a feeling of intrigue. For example, as the Navidson Record progresses, I never got bored. There was always something that gave me the drive to read on. The same is true for Johnny’s storyline. The audience gets to see how Johnny’s mind is slowly degrading and how he starts to develop symptoms of mental instability, leaving the audience to wonder if he’ll be able to finish his work on the report before he loses his mind. All in all, I would recommend that you read House of Leaves. The book is by far one of the more interesting novels I’ve ever read and was one of the few books that kept me engaged from cover to cover. On top of that, House of Leaves is one of the few books that you can read multiple times and still discover new secrets hidden within the text. Secret messages and hidden meaning can be found throughout the book, making it one of the best bang for your buck books that you can buy. However, House of Leaves will leave you with more questions than answers, and you always be wondering about what happened at that house on Ash Tree Lane.

"The point of recounting these observations is simply to show how understandable it was that for Navidson the impendetrable sweep of that place soon acquired greater meaning simply because, to quote the Criteria directly, "it was full of unheimliche vorklänger* and thus represented a means to his own personal propitatiation." * "Ghostly anticipation" It has been a few days and I am still recovering from this novel. Really though, this book is more than just a novel-it's a mega-compilation of mini-mega works all tied in together through this film, called the Navidson Report, which didn't exist, but by the end of the book it might as well should have existed because of how believable it-and all the devised literature surrounding it-really is. This book, House of Leaves, a giant enigma that has an entire web-board dedicated to understanding it, solving its riddles, is highly literary. It takes from literary criticism, psycho-analytic theory, engineering, physics, and sound science, as well as philosophy and family relations-all subjects that intertwine with one another. At times the book feels like it's a post-college-graduation masturbatory circle, which may be true in that it's merely commenting on college writing and academia in general (just look at all the authors and publications that Danielewski concocts-pretty ingenious). Though it's hard to tell what the book is about without giving too much away or going too far into it (this book sucks you in and spits you out, makes you crave for more then makes you wish you hadn't taken that last bite), the book is about a film that's about a family that moves into a house that has different dimensions on the outside than on the outside, and has a strange hallways that leads off into nowhere. Whether it's actually nowhere is part of the debate, which is one of many debates throughout the text. There are two other main plotlines in this book that deal with the writer of the book, Zampano, and the guy who finds the book in a chest after Zampano dies, ends up editing the book, and throws all sorts of creepy, disturbing, and graphic, youthful stories into the mix. Included, for example, are 60 pages worth of letters that this editor, Johnny Truant, received from his mother who was in an insane asylum (apparently these were published separately at one point in the form of the Whaestone Letters). The book really is massive at around 700 pages, but there are typographical avant garde-isms throughout that make for a quick read. For example, some pages have only a sentence or a sentence fragment on them. Others have text in the corner of the page, but it's upside down. The book ends up becoming a part of you-you carry it around, read it when you can, and are okay with it being a strange tome that demands more than your average book. While it's easy to say it flies right by, it doesn't-there's an emotional weight that is unsettling. Whether it's through the family's problems throughout the film's plot, or the mere disturbing concept of this writer, Zampano, living blind in a windowless apartment, or really any of the depressing sides of Truant's own life-there is something that will make your stomach turn, and apparently this is for the better. But days later when the book's opening message (in Truant's foreword, claiming you will not be able to stop thinking about this book) rings true, the masterwork of literature becomes a worrisome psychological probe that can easily become stressful. But that's what makes a book successful on the emotional level, and with its intellectual grit, fascinating main plot, engaging late 20th-century prose from Truant, and innovations, it's one that will, as a cult item or bestseller, the book is a success that many contemporary works of art rarely even aspire to.

This is such a great novel, there's nothing quite like House of Leaves. It's important to know that the best way to read HOL is the hardcover that I am reviewing here. There's a lot of symbology embedded within the pages of HOL and they way the book is written, there are secrets buried in the story. Some people say it's one of the scariest novels available, but I've never been scared by the story. It can be pretty unsettlingthough.

I’d read House of Leaves when it was released and loved it then, but after revisiting it now, I’m even more enthralled. It comes as no surprise that reviews for Danielewski’s weighty tome are rather sharply divided, but I think this perhaps says more about the reader than the book itself. As we witness the inevitable effects that technology, and the instant gratification and high stimulation that go hand in hand with it, have made the expectation in our lives, it can hardly come as any surprise that the way that we read, as well as our expectations and preferences from our literature, have insidiously changed, too. House of Leaves is not “fast food fiction” to be gulped down as a quick, tasty snack, but rather a luxurious “fine dining” experience that requires time to consume and digest. For readers who have an appreciation for a book that immerses them body and soul, and the patience to allow the story to fully develop, House of Leaves will be a deeply satisfying and fully immersive reading experience. For those who prefer more bells and whistles and a beeline trip to the finish line, the story will seem painfully tedious and slow. As always, books all have their target audiences, and the challenge will always be getting them into hands where they will be most appreciated. I also think that books can strike us very differently depending on what’s going on in our personal lives, so recognizing that simple reality is something we need to consider when we pick up any new book. Sometimes those quick, tasty snacks hit the spot! That, however, is not the kind of book that House of Leaves is. It is a book that requires your commitment and patience, and ultimately rewards the persistent reader with a unique and memorable experience. And should you find that it’s not connecting with you right now for some reason, set it aside and try it again some future day. It’s a challenge worth attempting again.

Frustratingly, annoyingly brilliant. The kind of psychologically-rich and profoundly affecting work of surreal psychological horror that (unfortunately for people like me) puts all contemporaries and successors to shame. I have never in my life read a book that leverages the particular medium so ingeniously. House of Leaves puts prize-winning literary and genre-fiction works to shame simultaneously. I cannot dive into the story in any depth without giving something of its genius away, save for what is already shared on the store page. It's probably better to go in "blind" in any case. I will simply say that it is far more than just a spin on the classic "haunted house" or "metatext" archetypes. It is also probably my favourite novel of all time.

This book came into my possession in 2003. I was stationed in Iraq, hanging out with a battle buddy. He and I were hanging out in the recreation tent at Baghdad International Airport (BIAP, aka Camp Sather) watching DVDs and perusing books. Sam, my battle buddy, hands me a battered copy of this book, and says, "I tried reading this-- but I think it's more your speed." We parted ways in November. I was headed home, he went to another location. I was on a layover at an airbase in Al Udeid when I started reading this book. And by "reading this book", I meant devouring it, like Bastian did as he holed himself in the attic of his primary school, surrounded by food, covered in a rough blanket, sequestered from the rest of the world, pouring through a mighty tome about a story without an end. I didn't put the book down save to sleep and trek out to the latrine to do what needed to be done every few hours or so. I usually burn through a book in a few hours, but this one demanded time and attention, lest I run over vital. I was taken by the unreliable narrator of Johnny Truant, and I was enthralled by the journey Navidson endured in reclaiming his life from the horrifying macguffin that was the house his family lived in (and people died horribly in). Navy and Johnny were two sides of the same coin, bound together by the mysterious scratches of a dead, Milton-esque man. Their stories were so disparate and yet so interconnected. The fabric between them was everywhere from rough and roughly hewn to diaphanous and metaphysical. The footnotes of footnotes were layers upon layers -- toying with the reality in which the contents of the book existed. Rules were set up and broken, and yet, everything was cohesive as long as the reader had the endurance to follow along. I've seen a LOT of the One-Star reviews complain that they weren't snagged within the first 100 pages. Pity-- Not everything is a slamming action-fast-paced piece of NASCAR fiction that grabs one by the genitals and rips them off in the first two pages. If you aren't in for the slow burn, then the first five words of the book ring true: This is not for you. House of Leaves became a seminal event in my life when I finished reading it. The darkness in my life, punctuated with walking away from a war with my life and body in tact, became that much clearer from the light-- and I somehow began finding awe and inspiration with greater ease. Some have said that it's a story about people coming to grips with loneliness and/or depression. Some have said it's a love story. No one is wrong in their discovery. The only wrong that may be done is to criticize a book unread. To that end, I've ended up buying different copies of this book, like a madman collecting any copy of JD Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" they could get their hands on, or a person who absolutely could not would not leave the house without a pair of gloves to shield their hands from the world. Whenever I mentioned the book to a friend, they usually ended up being the recipient of the copy I bought. The original copy I received, the one Sam gave me, is in a fireproof safe. Well-worn with a hand-written note scribbled on the front page, I refuse to part with it. But at this point, I'm considering buying a new copy so that I can read it again.

Its a bit complex to read at first, but It was worth the hassle, it was a pleasant read.

A mirror to the reader that presents the simulacrum of multiple stories, House of Leaves is probably the most subjective book I've ever read. I loved the experience of reading this book. And make no mistake: you must choose how to read it. More questions than answers or perhaps even a narrative, the book presents a multilayered facsimile of a few different kinds of fiction. So my review is as the book intends. Merely my own reading and far more reflective of what I saw of myself while consuming it, than of anything else. This book makes space for a plethora of different kinds of readings. And I studied the text as much as I was able, tabbing and underlining and making marginalia to see if it does support my reading. And it does, I think. I'm going to be brief because I'm doing a video review on my Youtube that will be much more in-depth. Borgesque in its "main" narrative, The Navidson Tapes presents itself as academic criticism of a cult film that does not exist. In its granularity, this reader found that there was a very meaningful difference between consuming a film and reading the piece about the film that retreads every shot composition and feeling, every visual perception, endowing it with something beyond the film could hope to convey in a viewing. As a visual thinker, the film was even richer and textured and my comprehension of it so augmented, that I think it's a far superior experience. If watching it even were such an option. We follow the Navidson's, Will and Karen, children: Chad and Daisy, put down "roots" in Virginia. Only their colonization of the property is inverted, and the house colonizers Will, the patriarch and famous war-time photographer that sets aside his exploration to be with his family. Only, after the family is settled, the house changes, given new space--altering its dimensions in a literal sense--growing to accommodate Will's primordial self. His maze. Or labyrinth. The journey is literalized just as he believes he's completed every journey and there is nothing left but to conquer being a father. The family finds a door to a hallway to a great foyer to a spiral staircase to a maze. This causes a rift in the couple Karen, who has claustrophobia and is too afraid to enter it, and Will, who sees the next adventure and finds it irresistible. What follows is the horror of a space reflective of the people traversing it, ostensibly, but I believe more of Will's internal selfhood, and by extension humanity. And from the wreckage of the horror of trying to navigate this maze, a movie is (fictitiously) created. The movie's critical evaluation is done by a man named Zampano, who dies at an old age after becoming obsessed with the film. Researching every thematic linkage and creating his own reading. Another horror that reflects himself, driving him literally mad, or so it would seem. Because the actual person who compiled Zampano's work is Johnny Truant. A fake name, fake person, steeped in fiction that obfuscates his own trauma hidden in the footnotes in the critical analysis Zampano had written. Literally interrupting and resisting the spiral of Navidson's narrative into the maze, as well as Zampano's dark and turbulent thoughts that similarly spiraled. Johnny's story is mostly of self-aggrandizement and sexual exploits and chemical debauchery. Generally interceding when we reach points in the Navidson narrative that trigger his trauma, though he is only aware of the metaphor he has created which haunts and dogs him, as he becomes more like Zampano. Reclusive and colonized by the reading of the Navidson story. Rather than process their trauma, see only darkness and are ultimately consumed by it. Depending on what you believe "actually" happens in the narrative, anyway. I think the key themes in the book are trauma and colonization. They're hit on the head the most, in every prose craft fashion. Metaphor, allegory, symbolism. Everything seems to me, to point to the idea of patterns colonizing minds doomed to trace the same doomed lines on every layer of the fiction, regardless of whoever and however they consumed them. Everyone needs other people to feed them information outside of their own darkroom to truly see themselves. And without outside intercession, I think we all wander our own internal maze, whether we are aware of it or not. More so for people who carry trauma, who seem to have more darkness and less light to navigate the labyrinth.

At first glance, horror for the thinking man, but ultimately no more than smut and pedantry.

Genial... no pensé que usado podía tener tan buen estado... Recomendable

Melhor livro que já li. A história extremamente interessante do início ao fim, porém, o livro é bem fácil de amassar devido ao tipo de papel em que ele é impresso, fazendo com que os danos já esperados (pontas amassadas, etc.) de uma entrega, sejam ainda mais evidentes.