House of Leaves

Of course I did. Why anyone would skip anything in a book like House of Leaves is beyond me.

I posted this in the other thread, but while I was playing Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, I came across this:

"I should sue the bastards who designed this house," Reston shouts after him. "Haven't they heard of handicap ramps?"

Just finished the part where

Tom dies.

I'm in tears.

Although on a side note, as inappropriate as the idea of a film adaptation might seem (and when I'm finished reading I'd be interested in hearing about people's opinions of this idea and whether it'd be good/bad, possible/impossible, etc.), if a film adaptation of this book (essentially perhaps being just a film rendition of The Navidson Record itself) were ever made in like ten years... I would fucking DIE to play Tom.

I would at least enjoy the part of the film involving the endless staircase.

I still think a film version of The Navidson Record is a cool idea.

I remember looking up five and a half minute hallway on youtube and there are a bunch of fanmade renditions, but I haven't brought myself to watch any of them

Me too. I think it'd be awesome. (Granted, I haven't finished reading the book yet, but so far I'm like, "I WANNA SEE THIS MOVIE.")

The problem is, there's something about the book that makes me think that trying to film such an adaptation is almost blasphemy in terms of what the book is trying to do.. or something. I dunno. Like, the author would probably be dead-set against it.

I had those exact same thoughts while reading

I'd like to see what David Lynch would do with it.

So I'm sure this has been discussed before, but this book HAS to have provided some inspiration for Lost. I've thought this a few times before while reading (I forget the exact instances), but then there's this on page 414:

"...there are some places in this world which no one will ever possess or inhabit."

Can't wait to finish this book and start reading about what other people think. Fuck.

it has to have provided inspiration for a shitload of things. I've had that kind of thought tons of times (and also vice versa where I spotted an earlier work where I couldn't figure out or not if it influenced House of Leaves in some way)

Finished this today. Will write more later.

So yes. Loved it. I'd give it either a 4.5 (well, 4.75) or 5/5. The reason for the slight hesitation on the 5/5 is that for all its brilliance, I didn't actually quite find it consistently brilliant. While I loved everything about Zampano's narrative/narration of The Navidson Record and found it exceptionally arresting and horrifying on a number of levels, Johnny Truant's narrative faltered at points for me. While I appreciated his downward spiral into madness, I sometimes felt like I was wading through sub-par language/imagery. I understand that that might just be "part of the character," but some of it (really only bits and pieces here and there--can't remember any examples) just seemed like lazy prose that even I could muster up after smoking some pot and freewriting for 30 minutes. I guess I just found myself wishing that Johnny's sections were more piercing in what they revealed about his madness. (I also didn't feel quite as much of a pay-off with his madness that I was expecting, given the gruesome and mysterious details surrounding Zampano's death--i.e. the dead/disappearing cats and the gouge marks on the floor. I was expecting something a bit more along those lines to happen with Johnny... which arguably it did, but it didn't feel like it to me.)

AT ANY RATE... fucking loved it. Loved how the form of the text mirrored the journey(s) into the labyrinth on several occasions by becoming labyrinthine itself. That kind of experimental approach to literature might seem gimmicky, and it makes such demands of the reader, but if the reader acquiesces it's such a more harrowing and fulfilling reading experience. You start getting into the mindset of someone in a labyrinth, you start feeling vaguely lost/overwhelmed even while the characters themselves are lost and overwhelmed. Really fuckin' brilliant.

This might make me stupid, but I was confused when Navidson pulled out House of Leaves to read. I mean, sure, Zampano made up the entire film... so, what, he just decided to defy reality even more by imagining that the very text he was writing (ostensibly AFTER the events of the film) appeared in the film itself?

I totally skipped a lot of Johnny's rambling. I read mostly everything, but there were times where I knew it was just him going on about dumb shit that I wouldn't miss, so I'd just skip it. I do think it's part of the character, and in fact I think it's one of the awesome things about the book. You're not supposed to read some of his shit, you're supposed to roll your eyes and go "what a nut job."

lol. I don't even know where to start, dude. Why should such "skippable" writing be hailed as a positive aspect of the book? hell, I'm the one expressing some criticism about it and I didn't even skip it.. in fact, even the parts I was "meh" about were still relatively pretty great. go back and read that shit, dude. fuck.

your perspective is so weird that it actually made me defend the one thing I had to criticize. goddamnit.

though it's probably the deconstructionist work, I don't like to point to certain sections and say they are less good compared to the rest of the work. though it's true I may have enjoyed a certain part less, I refrain from calling it objectively "worse" or even thinking about such comparisons in the act of reading; I prefer to take the whole of the book as it is. removing any so-called "less good" portion would be taking away from some of the power the book has as a whole. I'm not going to choose to appreciate a book less because of some rough-around-the-edges parts if the book affected me in a profound way that no other book has.

and something I've been thinking about a bit lately: one way the book changed my perspective is that I now fully appreciate "mistakes" in art

Interesting perspective, Nommet, and I appreciate it to an extent. But it comes dangerously close to completely ignoring the value and importance of critique.

I agree that sometimes the greater overall quality/effect of a piece of art can be and often is more significant than the quality/effect of its various components--the total being more than the sum of its parts and all. But does that mean we shouldn't even be aware of those components and their shortcomings in the first place?

I dunno, I can't really just ignore or turn off the voice in my head that says, "Meh, this part is kind of lacking." And if that voice goes off enough times while reading or watching something, it's invariably going to affect my judgment of the piece as a whole. Although fortunately in this case it wasn't that bad--but I still felt the need to point it out. Felt more honest that way.

No but I was looking through the thread on my iPhone yesterday and saw some discussion of it. PM me a link and I'll grab it the next time I'm on my computer.

it's good stuff.

yeah I see what you mean curb. I can be a bit too serious about the whole being better than the sum of its parts. I probably have a few other posts saying the exact same thing.

If I recall correctly I skipped everything after about p. 548. How much of a douchebag am I?








But really, I have difficulty with poetry. I did read some of the letters.
I didn't really detect what further contributions this was making to the general feel of the book, but it's quite possible I was just burnt out.
What did I miss?

the pelican poems were a bit hard to get through, I admit. the whalestoe letters are completely essential though. speaking of which, my friend told me that the separate book with the whalestoe letters actually includes more than is given in the back of House of Leaves. anybody know anything about this?

Didn't read through all the threads about the book on here so forgive me if this idea has already been brought up but I read an interesting quote on it earlier:

ya i agree with that for the most part. dont know about anything else, but most of the footnotes in particular didn't really provide anything useful to the storytelling. yea you could say that to skip some of them is to miss out on the point of the book or to not completely experience what the author intended or whatever, but if i were to re-read the book i'd definitely skip all the references to made-up books and whatnot. there's nothing wrong about going through all of them, but to me they serve a purpose of just being there to prove a point and to be accessories.

My favorite book. That's all I have to say here.

Sounds good, but it looks like it'll never come out.

Also an idea for me to do one day: (Re)Read this in the dark (w/ nothing but a booklight) while listening to Heresie on repeat.

Slacks says he read it in two days (though he said he skipped the whalestoe letters because he said he heard that the standalone volume of it included more material which is what I asked about on the last page and nobody fucking answered my goddamn question )

I read this book recently. Very good. Yes, I read everything, however, there were two things I skipped. While I actually read the entire blue box of text, I skipped the entire sections where he names only places and the other where he names only artworks and their artists. Sorry. I know its purpose, but I got the idea halfway through and said fuck it.

Good book.

I'm sure someone's asked this, but I don't want to read the whole thread and risk getting spoiled. Does it really matter which version you get?

The store I work in, Chapters (like a canadian Barnes&Noble), sells the full colour edition. I've seen the red text, but I have not seen the braille because I couldn't remember what page it was on. But that copy does exist.

I know it at least had the blue text, the purple is only when house is scratched out in red though, right? Either way, it's a good read. Get whatever copy you can find. It really doesn't make a huge difference, considering its biggest proponent on our forum has read it in the blue version.

This book is so amazing.

I hope this isn't too obvious; it wasn't to me so I'm going to assume it isn't.

anybody that was interested enough in this book to click this thread owes it to themselves to get Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges immediately.

Agreed. HoL makes direct references in a few cases, sometimes comically (e.g. footnote 49).

Borges is most definitely my favourite author of short fiction.

seriously. I'm almost inclined to say that those who have only read HoL don't even know the half of it. I'm ready to call Borges' collection of short stories one of my favorite books over it.

I'll check it out.

I read this book last year after searching for a '(psychological) horror novel', and reading that it was the scariest book ever by some people. I went in expecting a straight out horror novel, came out with soooo much more.

I do think that a movie (perhaps short film) focusing entirely on the Navidson Record, or 5 1/2 min hallway would be cool to watch. People who havent read the book could enjoy the movie, and then read the book and get a whole other story.

Has anyone read http://www.dionaea-house.com/ ? Apparently greatly inspired by HOL. I still havent read it, perhaps after a HOL re-read. Also the book 'City of Saints and Madmen' by Jeff Vandermeer is apparently a similar book, haven't read that yet either. I think I found both recommended on the HOL forums.

This book is not scary AT ALL.

I really don't get the people who claim it to be such massive horror novel?

I thought it was a beautiful book.
When lost had those beautiful peace, universe, understanding moments i got this awesome feeling, I got the same feeling from this book.

I'll also say again that reading this book in a dimly lit room with Bohren and der club of gore - Black Earth on a surround system, fucking destroys you.