CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Books and Magazines › House of Leaves
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

House of Leaves

post #1 of 40
9/22/09 at 2:37am
Thread Starter 
So I hear this horror novel is the shit and all post-modern and wacky and I should read it because there are nerdy people who've read it and I'm nerdy, too.
Reply
post #2 of 40
9/22/09 at 11:14am
Somewhere buried in its 709 pages of digressions, framing devices and artfully rendered pages, there is a pretty damn good post-modern horror novel. I'll be damned if I can find it, though.
Reply
post #3 of 40
9/22/09 at 11:27am
It's worthy checking out from the library.
Reply
post #4 of 40
9/22/09 at 11:30am
I'm not looking but there's a massive thread about this book from back in the day.
Reply
post #5 of 40
9/22/09 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata View Post
I'm not looking but there's a massive thread about this book from back in the day.
Is it this one?
Reply
post #6 of 40
9/22/09 at 11:39am
Read a couple hundred pages of this while home alone for weekend.

Had a nightmare that all of the floorboards in my living room ran north/south instead of east/west.

Stopped reading.
Reply
post #7 of 40
9/22/09 at 11:48am
Something about this book creeped me out deeply. I don't know if I could put a finger on what that something was, but reading it was a really disorienting experience, and not simply because of the book's layout.
Reply
post #8 of 40
9/22/09 at 12:19pm
Worst thing about this book was working a job laying floors at the time. I'd go to square off a room and one side of the room would be slightly off by an inch or so from the measurements on the other side (a pretty common thing in retrospect), and I'd kinda freak out a little.
Reply
post #9 of 40
9/22/09 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
Something about this book creeped me out deeply. I don't know if I could put a finger on what that something was, but reading it was a really disorienting experience, and not simply because of the book's layout.
Well, Danielewski does a great job of borrowing elements that, in other works, function as disorienting narrative tricks not necessarily designed to scare (the commentary, uncertain authorship, and academic gamesmanship from Pale Fire, the impossible geometry of the house and possibly imaginary texts from Borges, the relentless footnotes from Infinite Jest, etc.), but he uses them to deliberately unsettle. It's a wonderful trick, because most deliberately postmodern literary fiction writers seldom wander into straight-up horror and horror novelists are typically not this formally experimental.

It's probably a chore for horror fans who want payoff, because so many of the "scary" elements work only when you consider their implications. Thus the more attention you pay to the details, the more it works.
Reply
post #10 of 40
9/22/09 at 12:47pm
I think the novel works at its best when its detailing both the Navidson Record and Zampano's journals. It falls apart, however, when it runs too far afield with Johnny Truant's adventures. For all of that, I will admit that the 5 and 1/2 minute hallway kind of freaked me out.
Reply
post #11 of 40
9/22/09 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
It falls apart, however, when it runs too far afield with Johnny Truant's adventures.
Yeah, I rolled my eyes hard at the part where he and the two chicks were snorting coke off of the CD case and playing spin-the-bottle. I just wanted it to get back to Navy and Zampano.
Reply
post #12 of 40
9/22/09 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
Well, Danielewski does a great job of borrowing elements that, in other works, function as disorienting narrative tricks not necessarily designed to scare (the commentary, uncertain authorship, and academic gamesmanship from Pale Fire, the impossible geometry of the house and possibly imaginary texts from Borges, the relentless footnotes from Infinite Jest, etc.), but he uses them to deliberately unsettle. It's a wonderful trick, because most deliberately postmodern literary fiction writers seldom wander into straight-up horror and horror novelists are typically not this formally experimental.

It's probably a chore for horror fans who want payoff, because so many of the "scary" elements work only when you consider their implications. Thus the more attention you pay to the details, the more it works.
All really good points, and you've put them much better than I could have. Thanks, Dave.

This thread has me thinking about re-reading the book but I'm not sure that I will - it unsettled me that much.
Reply
post #13 of 40
9/22/09 at 1:36pm
So our library (the Quebec one) doesn't have the book. So, worth buying or not?
Reply
post #14 of 40
9/22/09 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
So our library (the Quebec one) doesn't have the book. So, worth buying or not?
I'd say yes, Martin. Get the 'full color edition.'
Reply
post #15 of 40
9/22/09 at 1:41pm
Yes.

ETA: What Jesse said. I only have the 2nd edition and am seriously considering a re-buy to get the Full Color Edition.
Reply
post #16 of 40
9/22/09 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
I'd say yes, Martin. Get the 'full color edition.'
Got it. Thanks!
Reply
post #17 of 40
9/22/09 at 8:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
Is it this one?
Oh, fuckdammit. I've got to stop using the board's search engine instead of Google.
Reply
post #18 of 40
9/23/09 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
Is it this one?
Jesus, talk about overhyping something. This book is a pretty creepy, enjoyable ride, but everyone in that thread is treating it like Shakespear. I'd suggest reading it if you're into horror, but if you just want something good to read along the same post-modern lines (the only comparison between the two being the footnote formatting), go with Pale Fire first (credit to Dave B for the mention). Now that's a brilliant book./tangent
Reply
post #19 of 40
9/23/09 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post
Jesus, talk about overhyping something. This book is a pretty creepy, enjoyable ride, but everyone in that thread is treating it like Shakespear. I'd suggest reading it if you're into horror, but if you just want something good to read along the same post-modern lines (the only comparison between the two being the footnote formatting), go with Pale Fire first (credit to Dave B for the mention). Now that's a brilliant book./tangent
Here's the thing, though: It's very possible that a person into horror would never have heard about/would never think about picking up "Pale Fire," but would read a buzzed-about book that's partially inspired by it. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with being excited about something that you've genuinely enjoyed? Or individual taste, for that matter?

People getting excited about any book as ambitious as House of Leaves ought to be encouraged, not put down.
Reply
post #20 of 40
9/23/09 at 4:34pm
No, nothing's wrong with it, and I'm not trying to bit a lit snob saying people should know about Pale Fire, just that everyone in that previous thread is going on about how it's the greatest book they've ever read, it's an undeniable masterpiece, etc. I'm just saying it's good, but not that good. The Pale Fire recommendation was not in regards to that so much as the fact that it was already brought up in this thread, and since the first post was kind of a recommendation request, I just thought I'd suggest that one. Nothing wrong with anyone liking, or even really liking this book, it's just those early reactions were kind of the same type of over hype as people saying the Dark Knight was one of the greatest movies ever made.
Reply
post #21 of 40
9/23/09 at 4:47pm
Also, Shakespeare is spelled with an 'e'.
Reply
post #22 of 40
9/23/09 at 4:52pm
I misspelled something? In that case please disregard anything I said and cancel my account.
Reply
post #23 of 40
9/23/09 at 4:58pm
All that's fair enough, Z, I just think that faulting people for saying a book is the best they've ever read ignores the fact that, for those people, it may be the best book they've ever read. And unlike, say, Angels & Demons, House of Leaves isn't a bad book to choose to shower with excited accolades.

Thanks to you and Dave I'll definately be picking up Pale Fire. I appreciate the recommendation.
Reply
post #24 of 40
9/23/09 at 5:02pm
No doubt. I'm not even trying to fault hose people, just putting my opinion out to PMR to maybe not set his expectations to that particular thread (though he may well react the same way). And yeah, it's good to see excitement for any half-way decent book these days. Definitely check out Pale Fire, and, also mentioned in his post, any and all Borges, which has really great, disorienting geometric descriptions, and focuses a lot on mythical texts (if you haven't, I don't want to be presumptuous).
Reply
post #25 of 40
9/23/09 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post
No doubt. I'm not even trying to fault hose people, just putting my opinion out to PMR to maybe not set his expectations to that particular thread (though he may well react the same way). And yeah, it's good to see excitement for any half-way decent book these days. Definitely check out Pale Fire, and, also mentioned in his post, any and all Borges, which has really great, disorienting geometric descriptions, and focuses a lot on mythical texts (if you haven't, I don't want to be presumptuous).
Not presumptuous at all. Where would you recommend starting with Borges?
Reply
post #26 of 40
9/23/09 at 7:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
Not presumptuous at all. Where would you recommend starting with Borges?
Ficciones has most of his big stories, but there's also one volume of a nice three volume series that collects all of his essential short fiction (arranged by original collection). The other two collect non-fiction and poetry.

I'd say that House of Leaves has a lot more in common with Pale Fire than the footnotes. The way that questions of authorship are handled is highly influenced by Pale Fire, not to mention the riffing on literary scholarship, the easy-to-miss textual puzzles concerning identity, a (possibly) deceased central narrator of sorts, etc.

But the fact that Nabokov uses these devices to play postmodern games with the reader and to introduce ambiguous points about authorship and Danielewski uses these devices to engender a sort of existential dread shows is significant - they're not really going for the same effect at all. Pale Fire is not really a good replacement for House of Leaves, even if it is, admittedly, a superior book, overall.
Reply
post #27 of 40
9/23/09 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
Not presumptuous at all. Where would you recommend starting with Borges?
As far as short stories go, I'd go with "The House of Asterion", "The Circular Ruins" and "The tale of two kings and two laberynths"
Also, for a good read, Julio Cortazar's collections "Endgame" and "The Secret weapons".
Reply
post #28 of 40
9/24/09 at 2:18pm
My thanks to the both of you. I'll pick up the short fiction collection Dave suggested to start, and try the stories that ryoken recommends.
Reply
post #29 of 40
9/24/09 at 2:37pm
Just started reading this. It's pretty fucking amazing.

But I can tell I'll probably have to read it at least twice. I look forward to it.

Poe's "companion piece" album Haunted is a nice listen too.
Reply
post #30 of 40
9/24/09 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
I'd say that House of Leaves has a lot more in common with Pale Fire than the footnotes. The way that questions of authorship are handled is highly influenced by Pale Fire, not to mention the riffing on literary scholarship, the easy-to-miss textual puzzles concerning identity, a (possibly) deceased central narrator of sorts, etc.

But the fact that Nabokov uses these devices to play postmodern games with the reader and to introduce ambiguous points about authorship and Danielewski uses these devices to engender a sort of existential dread shows is significant - they're not really going for the same effect at all. Pale Fire is not really a good replacement for House of Leaves, even if it is, admittedly, a superior book, overall.
It's hard to compare these two because Nabokov was an actual professor and genuine intellectual when he wrote PALE FIRE. Danielewski, on the other hand, was more an excited college student who hadn't fully invested the years of thought and study Nabokov had. Nabokov had a literary background, while Danielewski is really telling just a haunted house story.

I read it once four years ago, but when I tried to re-read it earlier this year, I remembered the amounts of Truant B.S. I had to wade through, and give up after page 7. The first time through is great though, because all the fun page layouts and plot twists are genuinely surprising and creepy. That's why I'd recommend the library (though my full-color copy still sits on the shelf.)
Reply
post #31 of 40
9/24/09 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetManX View Post
It's hard to compare these two because Nabokov was an actual professor and genuine intellectual when he wrote PALE FIRE. Danielewski, on the other hand, was more an excited college student who hadn't fully invested the years of thought and study Nabokov had. Nabokov had a literary background, while Danielewski is really telling just a haunted house story.
I really don't want to come across as a rabid defender of House of Leaves (it's been years since I read it and what I'm really drawing on here are my memories of reading it), and as I've proven quite nicely I'm in no position to talk Nabakov, but I think you're selling Danielewski short. It's really not 'just a haunted house story' any more than, say, Sartre's No Exit is just 'a spooky room story'.
Reply
post #32 of 40
9/24/09 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer View Post
I really don't want to come across as a rabid defender of House of Leaves (it's been years since I read it and what I'm really drawing on here are my memories of reading it), and as I've proven quite nicely I'm in no position to talk Nabakov, but I think you're selling Danielewski short. It's really not 'just a haunted house story' any more than, say, Sartre's No Exit is just 'a spooky room story'.
Plus, we have to keep in mind that Nabokov isn't just an intellectual/scholar/what-have-you, but one of the greatest novelists of the 20th century. There's plenty of room for House of Leaves, the first novel by a new voice, to be pretty fucking impressive even in the shadow of Pale Fire, one of several career-defining mid-period pieces by a guy who'd written a bunch of Russian novels of varying quality* before hitting his stride with his English works.

* Ever read Invitation to a Beheading or Laughter in the Dark? They're fine, but they're not exactly Lolita or Ada.
Reply
post #33 of 40
9/24/09 at 3:54pm
You guys are beginning to make me think I missed something the first time around. Damn it, I don't want to have to re-read "House of Leaves".
Reply
post #34 of 40
9/28/09 at 3:31pm
I never actually finished the Johnny Truant sections, eventually skipping everything in a Courier font. Was there a payoff in relation to the Navidson/Zambrano stuff?
Reply
post #35 of 40
9/28/09 at 4:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt M View Post
I never actually finished the Johnny Truant sections, eventually skipping everything in a Courier font. Was there a payoff in relation to the Navidson/Zambrano stuff?
It's not a traditional narrative, so not in a super obvious way. But all of the sections are related, and there are even some arguably very important, but hidden, things in the letters from Truant's mother in the appendix that call the authorship of the whole damn thing into question.
Reply
post #36 of 40
9/28/09 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
It's not a traditional narrative, so not in a super obvious way. But all of the sections are related, and there are even some arguably very important, but hidden, things in the letters from Truant's mother in the appendix that call the authorship of the whole damn thing into question.
Truant's mother... I was decoding one of her letters out loud in bed when my girlfriend told me to stop because it was giving her nightmares.
Reply
post #37 of 40
9/28/09 at 4:24pm
Yeah, Pelafina's letters are nuts. Great, great addition.
Reply
post #38 of 40
9/28/09 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
Yeah, Pelafina's letters are nuts. Great, great addition.
Has anyone read 'The Whalestoe Letters'?
Reply
post #39 of 40
9/28/09 at 4:40pm
I thought the letters included at the back of the book were the Whalestone Letters.
Reply
post #40 of 40
9/28/09 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetManX View Post
I thought the letters included at the back of the book were the Whalestone Letters.
Sorry - yes they are, but Danielewski released a companion book that apparently elaborates on/expands on the Appendix at the back of House of Leaves:

http://www.amazon.com/Whalestoe-Lett.../dp/0375714413
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Books and Magazines
CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Books and Magazines › House of Leaves