Yeah agreed. It wasnt scary at all, but was very suspenseful and psychologically disturbing at times. The book reveals itself so well through the different layers, and its just like WHOA, and it really is quite a sad story (on many levels). The Whalestoe letters are crucial, skipping those (or reading them at the end) and you miss out on alot. Its a pretty good story on its own as well. Although this is my favourite book ever, some of the JT sections near the start I felt were a little bit long. Apart from that it is an amazing book that I definately need to re-read soon. I got the remastered full colour version fresh waiting to be read (1st read a library copy)
This is splitting hairs, as far as I'm concerned. People say stuff like this all the time about horror movies; "Oh so and so movie wasn't scary at all! I mean it creeped me out and everything but it wasn't scary." Scary, creepy, suspenseful, psychologically disturbing, etc - maybe these aren't all direct synonyms but they're very similar and the main thing is that the book or movie or whatever you're talking about had that type of effect on you.
Hmmm yeah good point actually, but its a different feeling. I wouldn't call it a scary/creepy book, it didnt affect me to the point I felt unsettled and i guess 'creeped out'. I'd recommend it as a mysterious/suspenseful/psychological thriller/drama about family/love and life/anxieties in a sort of mockumentary/biography/diary format.
The time for a HoL re-read is long overdue! It's good as fuck. Also look up Ted's Caving Page. IMO a lot of the best "Horror" nowadays is not in books or movies but on the internets in various forms.
it's not "scary" like horror movie scary, it's an extremely subtle, psychological scary that slips in and takes hold and doesn't let go. however, i can totally get behind this FAKE EDIT: yeah what they said.
Because there are no horror movies that are scary like that? That's exactly the kind of dumb shit I'm talking about.
Yeah, it's a silly distinction in my opinion. I mean, are there really books that are "scary" in the sense of shocking/startling you and making you jump out of your chair? If there are, I haven't read them. Instead, just like the best "scary" movies, scary books give me goosebumps and make me widen my eyes and shit.
Nope, still different. I mean, its not like book made me scared of my closet or open spaces or something like that. Nor did I get goosebumps, but did get some elevated HR due to the suspense (you can have suspenseful debate, doesn't have to be related to scariness). I'll stand by that its not a scary book, but I would agree it has that sort of atmosphere during the Navidson Record portion of the book, while the Johnny/rest portion was more a thriller, and looking at his psyche, with some sad/shocking memories and realisations. Depends how it affects the reader I guess.
it's scary like Rosemary's Baby or The Ring is scary, not like Grindhouse or SAW or whatever is scary. you fucking know what we mean.
Starting a fourth read of this because my friend is interested and wants to read it -with- me. Down the rabbit hole I go
Going to dip into this year-old conversation. Oops. I agree on a lot of your Truant stance, but for the wrong reasons. I think the language/imagery is pretty spot on but it drags on for too long. If Truant would've been a little more concise (okay, that's out of character, but if MZD would have made him a little more concise) then we probably would have appreciated the hit he takes a little more. I didn't skip anything, but I definitely found myself skimming through the latter parts of his ramblings - not because they were poorly written, but because there was just too much. I think it's great language/imagery that just gets diluted/runs out of ideas. As for Navidson pulling out HoL, that explains a lot. Part of the point of deconstruction is to not make sense, a lot of times. It's a copout but it's just the style. Paul Auster will do this with his characters all the time. John Q will be on the train and he'll run into John Q, who's reading a book written by John Q. John Q happens to be the protagonist in the book. When I read Auster's works I thought it was silly and stupid, but in the HoL scene it worked for me because I bought into the power of the House. My first impressions of that scene were that at that point in time, Navidson was so disillusioned from reality that he may not have been pulling out a book at all; I feel like that shot/scene tapped into Will's psychological state on a closer level than anywhere else in the book. My mind has always been made up that him pulling out his own text was nothing more than hall(lol)ucination. I completely agree with this.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/periodic-novel-coming-soon/ The Fifty-Year Sword will be republished this Halloween. Danielewski is writing a 27-part periodical novel starting release in 2014. Everybody cum.
I have tried to only skim this thread/pages about this guy so I don't spoil anything, but it sorta seems like this guy is just trying to force himself as a modern Joyce. Is the quality of material actually there or is it just "whoa" because it's different?
I don't know what he is trying to do. I just know he writes in a very beautiful way and I find it highly engaging. Will pick up The Fifty Year Sword without a shadow of a doubt.
Any writer with a strongly experimental/unconventional stylistic approach is gonna catch some accusations of "trying too hard." I'm a reader who is bored easily when an author does absolutely nothing to break the mold, but this being said I'm very sensitive to gimmicky work or literary blowhards who write for the sake of dickwaving. I can't tolerate it. I can say in full confidence that House of Leaves' style compliments its substance, which it has in spades. The book deals with the theme of the labyrinth and Danielewski has made the text physically reflect this theme. Portions of the prose heighten the claustrophobia of their scenes because of the way everything is laid out on the page. I can't recommend it enough. Go to a bookstore and pick up a copy, read the first few pages and if it isn't grabbing you, buy it anyway because jesus christ.
I think House of Leaves works because the writing compliments the environment, and that's the only environment it can work in, period. The Joyce comparison (trying too hard to be him) is definitely valid when you read Only Revolutions, but it shouldn't take away the fact that he found possibly -the- most perfect niche for the style and exploited it. That said, I'm really excited for the new work. Edit: I thought more about this on my way into work today. In retrospect, stating that MZD "trying to be like Joyce" is too harsh. His writing (moreso in HoL than OR) does hold a certain degree of humanism that Joyce never really got onto. Yea, HoL is a challenge sometimes and OR is a complete mindfuck, but if you open the books and start reading from any given page, you'll still feel human emotion - and that's not the same with Joyce (I haven't read his poetry though so I could be way off). So while the style can give nod to Joyce, MZD has his own voice and works within the structure in his own way.
This makes it sound like they won't be more than 200 pages, but I could be mistaken: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/11/mark-z-danielewski-serial-novel-the-familiar.html
I'm with you. I fucking love Haunted. Edit: For some reason the official music video cuts during the fadeout at the end which is fucktarded so I posted this one.
