WORST BOOK EVER

[meanhippie]

Ok, maybe not the worst book ever (that honor goes to anything by Bret Easton Ellis) but def. not a good book - it tries way too hard to be important - if anything i think the book is making fun of the fact that our culture tends to get obsessed with stuff - this web site is an example of that kind of ridiculous obsession (and yes I know that I am here guilty of this too) - would be a much better book if it was written as a regular novel - its like the wroter has to keep explaining to us why events in the book are so important. Let the reader think for themselves - the constant analysis of every step is just stupid and wasted words - and Johnny Truant isn't sympathetic - he's just sad

[cloudsurfer]

Hmmmmmmmm... so many angry things I could say, but you are right in the point that people need to think for themselves more often. But I also think you are wrong, or at least missed the point of the House. The House did not restrict anyone from forming their own analyisis, in fact it promoted free thinking and imagination. The House is a rare chance to look within yourself and find truth that you are an ever changing being that sees things differently from different points in life. Maybe come back to the House later and it will let you in. "They say truth stands the test of time. I can think of no greater comfort than knowing this document failed such a test."
-Zampano

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff ]

[Ardis_21]

I agree that people need to think for themselves more often. There are too many clones in this world for our own good. To me, that is what is good about this book. If Mark Z. had listened to your idea of writing it like a regular novel, then it would be just another book. As he stated at the first of the book, "This is not for you." If you don't like it, that's your right. Just keep in mind that your opinion doesn't matter to him. He's an artist--he expresses himself. He has created something different than anything else out there, and that takes real courage. He even had the courage to use his real name. My point is, we do need more people that think for themselves, like Mark Z. Do you think Picasso or Matisse should have stuck to the traditional styles?

[MicheleVR5]

Have you guys read through the negative book reviews at amazon.com? There's no need to get mad, IMO: it's fun (er...to me at least) to see people get unglued over the book images/smiles/icon_smile.gif and often what they don't like about the book is what makes it so compelling for me. It's like the point totally flew over their heads.

As Poe said when Haunted got trashed by some chick at Rolling Stone..."For that reviewer to be so mad about it, I must be doing something right!"

[Lost_In_Crete]

Anybody else feel like people shouldn't be so concerned with other people's opinions? Just because someone has an opposing view to one of your own, it doesn't invalidate your view. Nothing is for everyone, and it's supposed to be that way.

[cloudsurfer]

Good point Lost. Opinions are sensitive things though, especially when talking about something that touches as deeply as the House did for me. But contraversy and bad reviews are just as POE said, signs that we are doing something right. We are doing something that gets people compeled to think out of the box, to generate original articulate ideas.

[meanhippie]

Damn - didn't mean to touch so many nerves - just finished reading the book and i thought i would try and see what others thought about - thought this site was here to discuss the book not worship it - sorry my manner isn't as polite as yours but i seriously don't see what you get out of this book - it is an interesting read on the train to work but I do not think it is the groundbreaking bible you seem to think it is - and there is nothing NEW about the way it is written - ever read any David Wallace Foster or J.G Ballard or William Burroughs or Richard Brautigan or Robert A. Wilson? If this site is to truly discuss the merits of this book then lets do so - tell me WHY it is so deep and spiritual for you - tell me how the structure of the book lends itself to the point - tell me how the crosscutting between the manuscripts helps create the books environment - don't dog me because i have a different opinion then you - so i didn't dig the book - big deal - You know what? I didn't like American Beauty either and I thought DOGMA was lame. Think David Lynch is awesome but EraserHead and Wild at Heart sucked. There are good points to everything and bad points - stengths and weaknesses adn everyone defines things differently - You finished the book now leave the maze

[Bok]

Hi,

First of all, don't consider yourself to be dogged here. Youre opinion is appreciated, even if it differs from the general opinion on this discussion board. I think all of the reactions were quite polite (as they should be, of course images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ).

Second, I like to react to your comments and questions:

Q: it is an interesting read on the train to work but I do not think it is the groundbreaking bible you seem to think it is
A: Groundbreaking: to me, it was groundbreaking, but I'm not educated in Literature good enoough to make a comparison with other writers images/smiles/icon_sad.gif .
Interesting and fascinating: Yes, definitely. I was intrigued by it from the moment I read the first few chapters.
Bible: no, I don't feel the urge to follow the examnple of Johnny images/smiles/icon_smile.gif However, I do think this book is worth my attention.

Q: and there is nothing NEW about the way it is written. Ever read any David Wallace Foster or J.G Ballard or William Burroughs or Richard Brautigan or Robert A. Wilson?
A: No, I haven't. I just started Ulysses by James Joyce.

Q: tell me WHY it is so deep and spiritual for you
A: I think the book is deep. I've read it two-and a half times now (first time on the train on my way to work images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ). The reasing why I think its deep, lies in the fact that I keep discovering new things. These new things not only concern the "hidden messages" and "coded", but also new insights in the "why" of the actions of the personalities. In other words, the impression I got of the charachters changed quite a bit when re-reading the book.
The book doesn't have any "spiritual" meaning to me, but maybe someone else has something to say about this !?

Q: tell me how the crosscutting between the manuscripts helps create the books environment
A:To be honest, I think that the story about Navidson and the House would be quite boring on its own. The crosscutting with the story about Johnny adds a certain "impact" to the Navidson story. When reading the book, the Johnny-parts were always a thing to look forward to. However, without the Navidson story intertwined, the Johnny story would lack an environment that (partly) explaines the state he is in, his actions and his thoughts.

Q: tell me how the structure of the book lends itself to the point
A: Apart from the eye-candy, the typographic layout offers a certain sensation to the reader that corresponds to the state of the characters. For example, when someone is lost in a maze, the reader him/herself is kinda lost in the book.
When the apotheoses is reached in Navidson's <font color="blue">House </font>, the reader races through the book, resulting in an enormous sense of haste, speed, etc. When I first read the book I was not aware of these effects, but in retrospect, I recognozed them.

Remark: don't dog me because i have a different opinion then you - so i didn't dig the book - big deal - You know what? I didn't like American Beauty either and I thought DOGMA was lame. Think David Lynch is awesome but EraserHead and Wild at Heart sucked. There are good points to everything and bad points - stengths and weaknesses and everyone defines things differently
Reaction: Please, don't feel dogged. I welcome a reaction that differs from just praising the book. That you didn't dig the book is no big deal indeed. Others do like it, so it serves it purpose.

This ends my essay,
Jorrit

PS: I have to agree with you on your David Lynch remark, although I haven't seen the movie about the guy on a lawnmower yet.

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bok ]

[cloudsurfer]

My apologies meanhippie if you were feeling dogged. I think this book is very important to many of us in the age because it offers the reader what all good literature should offer.

1)A voice to the thoughts that were shadowed before, those we did not "know" were there, but rather felt as a truth.

2)A chance to rediscover the self. Mark gave voice to the many demons in his life and made himself vulnerable to the reader. He never explicitly states any of these demons, but you can tell the book offered a sort of therapy like Poe's album Haunted.

3)Most of us are writers and poets and lovers and dreamers that can never truly be what we want, but Mark's character Johnny offers a bridge to the literary world, a chance to be the writer and poet and lover and dreamer, and feel like we can create and achieve communication. The House offers a voice to the essence of life I think, it offers a voice to the humanity in all of us. I know that some of the characters may seem rather out of touch with the world, that Johnny might need to grow up or stop bullshitting, or just stop, but sometimes that is just how we are. Everyone of us has been out of touch with the world, everyone of us has denied the truth before us, and everyone of us has been obsessed with something anything. Personally I am a herendous book worm, I read everything around me, signs, ketchup bottles, magizines, books, words, symbols, long obnoxious lists that should be ignored, but can't be ignored because I am seaching in the madness, wandering though the maze for the truth, for the true essence of life.

4)I am sure by now I have wandered far from the path I intended, but sometimes you can not help yourself from writing. No one ever writes a great story, nor do they intend to unless they are of particular genius,rather great stories take hold of you, you can not help yourself from writing them. I first learned this from reading Stephan King and the Dark Tower Series. I know some of you might see nothing at all of use in the story, but I thought it was magnificent, a story that I will return to for years to come, because the story took hold of the writer. At the end of the third book Stephan King apologized to his audience because of the rather unnatural way he finished the book (he finished at a very climatic point and offered not resolution) saying that thje story had written itself to that point and would go no further, so he would go no further, because in matters of greatness nothing can be forced, ti just comes to you.

I must apologies now for writing so much. Take my opinion as you will. I see not the book as a Bible, but rather a chance for self discovery, an opportunity to touch greatness and see that we are not what we intend to be, but whatever we just happen to be. Curiousity rules me, it always will. I think that is why I like the House so much, because it seems endless in rewards for the curious. I guess I am a fanatic, shoot me then, I don't care. I will always be a fanatic whether I read Mark Z. Danielewski, Stephan King, H.P. Lovecraft or the standards of Michael Crichton, Tom Clancy, the classics of Chaucer, and Dante, and Homer. I am a fanatic, you could tell just by going into my room and looking at the hundreds of books, the the binders of papers and journals and reports. Maybe it all means nothing, but words mean eveything to me. God can be found in words just as easily as a measly little house can be found there. So be it. I am at the mercy of my weaknesses if you call it that.

[meanhippie]

I agree with your statement that you can find GOD in words - if GOD or meaning or anything exists I agree it must exist in words - i also agree with yu about the Dark Tower series - there is a good story and also a very deep story - it is everything House is trying to be but falls very short - again i am downing Mark - he is a good writer - but i do think the structure of the story still distracts from the fact that its just not that interesting of a book - the structure doesn't truely allow you to know or feel for the characters - it was and is a valid attempt but not very successful (in my opinion) - as far as exposing demons, anyone whoever puts pen to paper or even opens thier mouth, exposes their demons - so again, not dissing Mark or anyone else but I truely think the book is full of tricks and unoriginal styles to cover the fact that it realy is not all that compelling

[cloudsurfer]

Good point. I like to hear contaversy to opinion, I think that is how we reach understanding. Yes I do believe the book is confusing and at many points keeps the reader from forming a true understanding of the characters, but let me ask you this. Did the structure (the footnotes, the crossing stories, the fonts and word layout) give you a sense that (even for an instance) you could trust the story as true. I know the foot notes did that for me, that as much as I knew it was fiction, I wanted to believe it as real. Even the strike throughs and the bad layout made me think that this is how it should look, unprofessional, unstandarized, like you are reading something before it get published, like you are reading someones notes on life, thier journal. I might be coming from a totally different path here, that is why I want to hear your opinions on this meanhippie and anyone else willing to offer rational discussion.

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff ]

[meanhippie]

The structure was to contrived - to pat - to constructed - this is what made it feel unreal - again like the writer was trying way to hard to seem important

[cloudsurfer]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by meanhippie:
The structure was to contrived - to pat - to constructed - this is what made it feel unreal - again like the writer was trying way to hard to seem important<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I think that you are totally right on that point. There was a lot of thought put into the structure of the book, is some places it might seem as though he overstructured it or thought about how something should come across too much, but overall I think that was the intent. In Poe's cd her father says that

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote
Father:Communication is more than just words; communication is architecture. Because of course it is quite obviouos that a house which would be built without that sense...without that desire for communication, would not look the way your house looks today!

I think what much of this difference in opinions comes down to is whether Mark truly communicated to us effectively, whether his archetecture was with sense or without. I grant that in some chapters it was so contrived that it was without sense, but step back, look into the impression the book left on your mind and sometime you might find that desire Mark had for communication.

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff ]

[Marsha]

I thought this site was to discuss the book and mysteries of the book. I didn't realize it was to argue with members about whether they liked the book or not. Meanhippie, if you didn't like the book the leave it alone. Why spend your time writing about it? Yes Danieliewski is not the first to write about haunted houses, labyrinths, etc. But his style is new and innovative. This is my first post and probably my last, because I was greatly disappointed with this discussion board. It is not a place to insult or bash people or their ideas. I hoped to see some insightful, new research or ideas that people had, instead I found a board that was having an argument and was not helping anyone appreciate or learn about the book. I really hope these topics change. I will continue my research of the mysteries of the book, I hope you will do the same...

[paddybakermanchu]

SO what the hell? I tend to agree with all of you. Especially that last thing about talking about the book itself, not everyone's opinions. Opinions are typically meaningless. those of strangers anyway.

So. I haven't yet completed the book, but I will do so post haste. The form the book takes seems to help the reader relate to the characters struggles. I don't have the book in front of me now, so i cannot cite specifics, but when the footnote goes through the book, as though printed on a transparent base w/ a blue border, it seemed to signify how the explorers were going through some other realm. Obviously right? And then, the notes begin twisting and turning and mirroring and moving on and on with names and books and all. The whole place, the immense void of the maze goes on and on, changing, mirroring, and reacting to the thoughts and fears of those trapped within.

Further, I have been thinking the book was about the Navidson record. The NR was incidental. Truant's journey through his own life, and what precious little is told about Zampano himself are all strikingly similar. Understand, again, I haven't finished the novel so I may find that my subjectifications are in error. Please give some useful input. I eould love that.

[Eyes_Of_Ice]

Hmmm... I wouldn't go so far as to say that opinions are worthless, in fact... It's all feedback, and ALL feedback is good. Sure, Mark Z's not the first author to heap footnotes on top of footnotes, or cram intellectualism down our throats, but that's not what makes this book so innovative. It's the higher-education-meets-pop-culture attitude of the text (namely the Truant tangents). Yeah, Joyce, Williams, and more obviously Borges have written stories like this, and the Navidson Record is practically a re-make of the Fall of the House of Usher, but the actual spirit of the tale, the reflection on our over-medicated, self-important, bullying society is kind of what makes this book a "must have" for me. I've read it twice, and has already been echoed in here, I find something new every time I pick it up. The fact that four people can live in a house, but so much space be between them said more to me about the state of the American family than I think maybe other people realized. This book isn't about a house, or about a crazy aspiring tattoo artist, it's about how honestly horrific the lives within our four walls of home are. From Johnny Truant's lies to cover up the complete lack of a family to Will and Karen's close-quarters seperatism, and even the begrudging love between Will and Tom; Mark really shed light, for me, anyways, on how distant I am, both knowningly and not, with my friends, my loved ones, and my family.

::whew::
How's that for deep? images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[blazingdingo]

i've only read the book once(so far), but it immediatly became my staff recommendation at the Barnes & Noble where I work. To me, as a writer, the book(while amazing in itself) wasn't about the Navidson Record or a house or a tattoo artist. The book was an assault on the art of storytelling in itself. NOtice near the beginning when Johnny changes some of Zampano's words to reflect his own life. The book takes the mediums of film, fiction and non-fiction writing and causes us to think about each of these, their intent and their meaning in each of our individual lives. Anyway, my point is, I saw the book as an interesting comment on the storytelling process itself, since each of the main characters(Johnny, Zampano, Will Navidson, and even Karen (she made films too, remember)) is a storyteller.

[verismo]

POSSIBLE SPILIER ALERT!!!!!!

Meanhippie: a comment on the structure point, and MZD trying to seem important...Is Jonhhy who he says he is? Is Zampano? is Pelafina real? question the timeline chain between the three text bodies, the cross characters, e.g. Lude=Harry Callahan the photo journalist? check mark on Pg. 97 that was requested, and recieved by Pelafina in a letter to Johnny although it was placed in something she could not have had access to,i.e. Johnny's work on the Navidson record/Zampano text. Johnny changing heater to water heater in the Navidsor record because his water heater broke. He did this in Zampano's text, in his font, while the characters are in April with no heater? Strange no. About that time, the Editors inform you that they have never met Johnny. Hmmm. Z&mpano who did you lose? images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
This is a theory I am working on. You see, I think this is a wonderful, deep, and beautiful book, I, like many here, just want to share it with people. I am not dogging you, you are obviously intelligent,and well read; but I fear you may have missed something here. I would encourage you, to look at some of the "falsely important" of "strange" things and look deeper into them. Question all.
Happy reading.
Jon

[magnus_jor]

To Jeff: great posts (don't apologize for writing too much, I enjoyed reading it!) I basically agree with you in everything you said about the book (why it fascinated me, e.g.)

To meanhippie: good that someone dares to criticize it! I agree with you that the book seems to be almost sacrosanct to a few of the people of this site, and that it makes itself more important than it actually is (like the fact that it drove Johnny completely nuts, I mean, it was really creepy, and actually scared me at a few parts- something that rarely happens really, but I still have my sanity!!). I still think it's a great book, but nonetheless, I see no reason not to respect your opinions.

To Marsha: I don't think meanhippie's post was made to argue with other people of this site; rather, I believe he wanted to start a discussion out of a different perspective than most of the threads on this site. images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[in1ear&outyourmother]

My thought on people hating the book is this:
"Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes everyone liked, they left that to the Bee Gees." - Wayne Campell

-MZD doesn't write books that everyone likes, he leaves that to John Grisham.

[freakykittygoddess]

Meanhippie, my comment to you is...did you even really read the book? You seem to think that this is just some book that a man wrote and he expects people to buy it and not take it for what it really is...which (from my point of view) is what you did. Being a 17 year old, I took this book and understood what Mark was trying to tell the readers. First off, this is probably an impossible story, and Johnny's life is amazing. I mean, they probably would be boring if they were just separate stories, but it's the way that they were combined. Johnny is someone who seems to not have had any direction in life, or probably never will. I'm halfway through the book, and I am digging it. It may not the most interesting, but it serves great purpose. This book for me isn't a bible, but for some it may be. I believe that people need the feeling that this isn't all we have got, i.e. you escape the world by reading, or music, etc... But the point is this...for some, House of Leaves was a way to escape into a world of impossibilites, mixed in with what could really be someone's reality. I took this book, and made it my escape. I believe that is what alot of people did, and what they needed. And in my opinion, which probably doesn't count, I don't believe that you are/were REALLY reading the House. Well, I know that my words don't many anything, but I just thought that I would put in my thoughts on your comment.
P.S. Next time, if you plan on it, read into the book than what sees the eye. You might find something more meaningful to you. You may not realize it at first, or you may not even find it at all. But just look, search the book.
Freaky Kitty Goddess

[magnus_jor]

yes i like it. yes almost every at this site likes it. people who dont really like it should still be included here though. i dont think meanhippie disliked it out of narrow-mindedness; not by the way he (she?) writes his (her?) posts about it.

[delirium]

That's absolutely true Magnus.

It's almost not worth stating that every form of entertainment/activity has it's fans and critics. So it is ridiculous to assert that everybody should like a book/song/play, and it is equally ludicrous to suggest that nobody should like a porn film/graphic-novel/computer game.

I also think it's a little patronising to suggest to people who have stated that they did not enjoy HoL that they did not fully understand it and should revisit it with an open mind etc.

[Pulseless]

haven't been around this board much, but few things to insert to the hopeful end of this thread:

Bok, thank you.

i personally love this book, recommending it to friends and strangers often. to date, only one person of the four or so i've hounded about reading it appreciated it enough to develop an obsession. that alone taught me that this was written for the few and not the many. i find discussing this book and reading it every now and then tremendously satisfying. but given the statistics from my own research, finding someone else who can identify with me is a 1 in 4 shot.

also, just wanted to tell Marsha that this board is chock full of great conversation and original thought. you just gotta dig for it, or start a thread yourself. so stick around for a little longer.

-P-

[Pulseless]

P.S. on the David Foster Wallace tip, of what i've read of his work (Infinite Jest, Girl With Curious Hair) i think he's extremely gifted and clever but there is definitely something different going on in Danielewski's head. they're both versatile in their writing, as in getting into different character's heads and staying there convincingly.

[koneko]

Yawn ... Stretch Haven't we had this conversation before? My english professor loved the booked and recommended it to me, some of my peers couldn't even finish it, others were excited by it, etc. etc. etc. - liking House of Leaves has nothing to do with intelligence or intellectuality (surely the posts on Radiohead vs. the posts on Borges or Derrida, for example, can attest to that). Perhaps enjoying HOL has to do with, dare i utter it, personal taste?

[Scorpion]

images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

NO, NO, NO!

Liking HoL is clearly a sign of superior intelligence !!!!

We should campaign to have HoL replace pointless IQ tests!

images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[magnus_jor]

lol, scorpion images/smiles/icon_smile.gif people who do not enjoy HoL must be considered mere things, not worthy of this board at all images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

[Archontophoenix]

To me, what makes the book interesting (well parts) is that it seems to me to be a parody of academic writing. The copious footnotes, the use of various resources in order to analyze the film. I mean, wasn't MZD's father a lecturer at UCLA (if I'm recalling what i've read about his sister Poe)? As a college student it was amusing to me, because it reads just like one of my text books. Unlike those books however there is a deeper meaning.

Other reasons i enjoyed the book was because it in many ways represents the state of a huge section of my generation (early 20's to early thirties). Distant families, lives that aren't so comfortable and sane. Disenchantment with the world. Hell, the life Lude lives is very much like that of people I know.

It took me a looooooooong time to finish the book due to feeling burned out most of the time I had it (last semester), but i finished it recently. I realize there is much more to it than the surface. I'll have to read it several times to get a good grasp of the story.

[Eyepeice]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>koneko:
House of Leaves has nothing to do with intelligence or intellectuality (surely the posts on Radiohead vs. the posts on Borges or Derrida, for example, can attest to that). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, are you saying you can talk intelligetly about Borges and Derrida yet not about Radiohead? Just because it fits into pop culture?

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Earpeice ]

[koneko]

Earpeice-

I'm not suggesting that someone can't talk intelligently about Radiohead because it falls under the category of popular culture. I like popular culture. It's kept me warm on many a cold nite. In fact, in certain contexts Derrida & Borges can be considered aspects of popular culture as well.

I don't really know where you're going with this question. My initial post claimed that I didn't feel that appreciating HOL had anything to do with someones intellect (i.e. the fact that Meanhippy didn't like it did not necessarily mean that he/she was stupid). HOL is an ecclectic piece of work, that can't be denied, and if you're not into experimental styles then you're just not into them.

My comment on Radiohead was merely an observation stemming from my months reading the board that most people are far more eager to engage with posts with themes like "Radiohead" than "Derrida." I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone has read deconstructionist theory, or even wants to. I just find that to critique Meanhippy for not liking the book and attributing his/her dislike to lack of intelligence, or not having "understood" it, is strange in the light of some of the other less thought out and insightful posts that have appeared here in the past.

I don't think that Radiohead lyrics lend themselves to a vigorous intellectual debate. But at the same time i've always advocated different peoples reading of this book. I just dont think that you can call an apple an orange (and vice versa). Ruminating on Radiohead lyrics is unlikely to yeild the same type of argument that Borges might. But I don't think that either are wrong. That's where that thing about personal choice enters - and that's what I was advocating to begin with.

(And yes, I've been inadvertantly drawn into the very bickering that I was dissing ... images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[Recca]

Now part of me is biased when I say this but I want to address it. This book, unlike many that I have read, does not tell the reader how to think. On the contrary it stimulates the reader to think.

I have a degree in Psychology with a two minors, one in Computer Science and the other in Creative Writing. This book blew my mind on many different levels. First of all, we had a bunch of people who were being "experimental" with their writing. And well, the stories were not the best in the world. It is hard to do "experimental" writing well. This book does it well in my opinion.

I'm not going to say the book was bad, I liked it very much. I'm also not going to say that people who didn't like it just 'didn't get it' because well some people just don't like certain things and can understand it perfectly. This is where I will state my point (and my bias). The book is a masterpiece but will never be a Pullitzer. I don't expect people to like the book. I mean, most people like to sit down with a book and read a page, flip, read a page flip, etc. This book requires the reader to partake in the adventure. You have to flip the book around, decode messages, wander a maze of footnotes and actually feel like the walls are closing in on you. You can't just close the book and get it all either. Seriously speaking, how many of you actually know what Yggdrasil refers to in the end?

This book is not for all people and most people are going to turn their nose up. I have never made a book that has made me think like this one has. I am still running parts over and over in my head.

Simply put, this book is not for everyone but don't be so quick to call it bad.

[Eyepeice]

-

[Hart'sRules]

Erm, Laurence Sterne, would appear to be a good place to start! images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Zackistruant]

I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but i think it is wonderful that this many people even finished the book. If you went to your job tomorrow and did a survey, how many of your peers will read 10 books this year. How many will read 3?? I think that a forum to discuss a challenging book has no downside.

[crazygal]

Yikes, this is bumping up what appears to be a sore topic - I don't mean to offend, I just have some (in my opinion) insightful comments reguarding some of your comments. First, I wanted to point out that most people who are at this BB are people who like the book - if you didn't like a book, would you go to its website and comment about it? Probably not, at least I wouldn't. Not to say that you shouldn't have the freedom to do that - a little opposition makes for interesting conversation and insight into unexplored territory. Another is in respect to the comments made that Danielewski is original in what he does. House of Leaves is a postmodern text, and postmodernism is generally "breaking the mold." Doing something new, that others haven't concieved. In that, he isn't alone. J.G. Ballard uses multiple narrators (or are they the same?) and a psychological experiment as the background for Atrocity Exhibition. Irvine Welsh has commentary from a worm residing in the main character's belly in Filth. A mark of postmodern, or 20th century writing, is playing with canon, the guidelines set up before even Shakespear as to what is right and proper when constructing a book or story.

Now that everybody's eyes are glazing over, one more thing. This isn't a spoiler, because I haven't read the book. I have to admit, I'm not even halfway done. But about identity. Is Johnny Truant real? His name brings to mind the T names used in Ballard - Traven, Travers, etc. And can we trust him? He admits very early on to making up stories in bars. Is this one of his made-up stories? And Zampano. Who was this man? We (along with the characters in the book) know very little about this man. He could have made Navidson and the whole crew up. It could all be a flight of fancy. But isn't that half the fun, figuring out what is real and what isn't? I have to say that thus far, I'm doing a lot of questioning, especially about the character Truant. But anyway, you're probably all bored to tears now, and my rant is finished. images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[d1jezek]

I've read almost everything by David Foster Wallace (not Wallace Foster)William S. Burroughs and some J.G. Ballard and James Joyce too. Highly recommend all of them and definitely can see some influence from each of them, mostly Wallace and Ballard for the footnote chaos and psychological-horror type imagery. How about including Milorad Pavic and Vladimir Nabokov for the gimmickiness? I think if you look at this book and only see its basic plot you will be dissatisfied but if you look at its craftsmanship with the layers of narrators and voices, not to mention some really stunning prose when one or another of the voices chooses to dwell on some subject or another, you might find it a more worthwhile piece of work. Then there is the moment when you discover that it operates on another level with all the subtle interconnectedness and coded things and it becomes something else again. I think thats fascinating. But I wouldn't use words like 'spiritual' or 'bible'.

[poetrage]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paddybakermanchu:
SO what the hell? I tend to agree with all of you. Especially that last thing about talking about the book itself, not everyone's opinions. Opinions are typically meaningless. those of strangers anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that opinions are important to HOL. Especially those of strangers. HOL has a lot to be looked at and to see it from someone else's view point helps. I value the opinion of my friends but on some level we all seem to think alike that is why I value the opinion of strangers. I think that it is important for people to discuss HOL and anything that is said about is an opinion.

[Discordian]

Perhaps what's really to love about HoL is how blatantly tongue-in-cheek so much of it is. Am I the only person who sees the grin on MZD's face as he so blatantly mocks the tradition of "nontraditional fiction"? Doesn't anyone else notice the twinkle in his eye as he throws around formatting and footnotes and levels of reality and makes a terrific mockery of the self-important "genius" writers (Joyce, Wilson, Borges, Faulkner) of our century?

If anything, this is a stab at nouveau academia who bow down before "nontraditional" modern fiction.

PS. What's wrong with Bret Easton Ellis?

[girl2]

discordian:

how is mzd mocking the tradition of nontraditional fiction? i don't think i caught that twinkle in his eye... *wink* want to go into a little more detail about how this is mocking those damn academics who are "bowing down" before those damn "genius" writers? a mockery, i think, would ultimately be a really badly written piece of fiction that tricks us into giving it praise. and WOW wouldn't that be some sort of phenomena deserving some type of praise, itself?

errrr, ummm, yeah. *runs into the corner and hides to avoid rotten tomatos*

[delirium]

I think it's funny that Meanhippie hasn't posted any comments since June 27. I think we are preaching to the converted guys.

[shever]

i find it funny that meanhippie hasn't posted any comments since the first page...

you'd think all this enlightening conversation would spark the lightbulb.

[Hazel Motes]

Where meanhippie left off, I'll jump in.

I didn't like this book. I started out liking it quite a bit. And then it just got to be too precious. So I stopped reading it just after the section with all the mirror-image stuff.

I've spent quite a bit of time on this site, reading other opinions and all the "weird" crack-pot theories and I find that I hate the book even more all over again.

But I am not a poet. I'm barely a writer. And while I have an amazing singing voice when I am alone in the shower with soap in my ears I don't think I would ever apply the adjective "arty" to myself. And perhaps that's where the book and I fail each other. When something tries too hard to be "arty" (and come on, we've all had friends with crappy notebooks who call us late at night to read aloud yet another dumb poem about lost love and pain and vampires and despair and then some more pain and vampires and you wish that you could just set the phone down and run far far away from the friend with the crappy notebook and the too trite poetry) that's also a warning sign for "Here's someone who abuses eyeliner and likes to wear crytals and capes." I just don't have the patience for crystals and capes.

I don't think I can be converted. I don't know that I want to be. I just wanted to go on record as saying that I've had more satisfying bouts of indigestion.

And this book, in my opinion, sucks ass.

[Agrimorfee]

I'm not out to change your mind or start an arguemnt, but i am curious as to how this novel turned you off--precious and arty is a little strange for me, can you clarify that ?

assuming of course, you are not meanhippie.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: agrimorfee ]

[athena25]

adendum of little importance, its actually 9.16pm where I am...i feel very far away all of a sudden.

[athena25]

I wonder if meanhippie every really existed or just provided a suitable foil for creating a new topic?

Either that or got so upset that s/he committed suicide by swallowing own mouse and cable...

just a touch of sunshine to add to the discussion, i don't really care who else likes the book, its a moot point really but empahsises how people react when presented with something a bit different. as my dear grandmother (now senile) said, there's no accounting for taste.

[ECHOLALIA]

DEAR ATHENA,

DO YOU MEAN AS FAR AWAY AS AT THE END OF A 5 1/2 MINUTE HALLWAY?

I THOUGHT I HAD COMPANY......... images/smiles/icon_eek.gif


................ECHOLALIA

[Merlin]

Discordian, I am in agreement about the wealth of tongue-in-cheek aspects of the book. When reading it, I thought to myself, "If all these footnotes referred to real items, it would mean that the majority of the people in the world had written an in-depth study of some aspect of the Navidson Record." Really. I think that Zampano comments on some woman's scholarly work being 900 pages long and says that there is not one page too many in the work.

I loved the part near the end where Karen visits the real estate woman's office. The woman talks of the large number of people who have bought and sold the House. She says that one person's reason for selling was that the place was too "roomy". What a hoot.

Regarding the topic of whether people who don't like the book should bother to come here and say so: I think it is interesting, and of value, to hear thoughtful negative comments.

[MicheleVR5]

Someone actually came back from looking for Ash Tree Lane and didn't get devoured by the <font color=blue>house</font>?! images/smiles/icon_eek.gif Did you find it? Did anyone get PMs or e-mails back from the other people who looked?

[PValentine]

AAAA!
hard books are the best!!do you know how many sleepless nights i had with this book>??
and i actually went to looking FOR Ash Tree Lane...it's sad, i know::wink::
~Porcelina

[hello?]

Not that sad, since I've heard there IS an Ash Tree Lane in Virginia.

[white rabbit]

i will always agree that people need to think for themselves, but I think this book is an excellent piece of literature that not many can fully digest. I believe this book does make you think for yourself and leaves much room open for interpretation. The allusions throughout this book are imense, yet strangly satisfying, and sometimes, you can actually picture yourself in the lives of Karen and Will and Johnnny. I find myself many a night wanting to look over my shoulder for fear of someone watching me. So I guess in a sense it can mess tremendously with your mind...but what in this world doesn't? There are not too many things in this world that someone, somewhere will not get themselves worked up over. I will stick by my opinion that this literary work is amazing and highly recommended

[frigidformssell]

I can honestly say, this is one of the best books I've read so far to this day. As I read it for the 3rd time I stll don't understand half the stuff I wish I did. Maybe cause, i wasn't there. But at times like above said (didn't get your name) you do feel like your there. Sometimes, I feel dark. And it's strange that a book that "is the worst book" can make people feel this way. Or do things, like go to ash tree lane. I've gotten so far into this book, I look and read all the footnotes, like other people's posting. I'm just so fasinated with this book. Anyone here live in the vegas area, maybe we could discuss this more. I have a few friends who also read it. And it's just bazarr.. I donno? images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

[destination713]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marsha:
I thought this site was to discuss the book and mysteries of the book. I didn't realize it was to argue with members about whether they liked the book or not. Meanhippie, if you didn't like the book the leave it alone. Why spend your time writing about it? Yes Danieliewski is not the first to write about haunted houses, labyrinths, etc. But his style is new and innovative. This is my first post and probably my last, because I was greatly disappointed with this discussion board. It is not a place to insult or bash people or their ideas. I hoped to see some insightful, new research or ideas that people had, instead I found a board that was having an argument and was not helping anyone appreciate or learn about the book. I really hope these topics change. I will continue my research of the mysteries of the book, I hope you will do the same...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I applaud meanhippy and hazel motes for their remarks, what marsha fails to understand is that this is not an arguement, it is an intelectual debate, and it does make us think, that's why I applaud theim for their different point of view and stimulating views. For all the HoL lovers it lets us think about why we like the book and allows for further evaluation of the material. So the non-lovers didn't like it, it's their pov and perhaps they came here for a better understanding of the book, or to try and understand the opposing views, which is most intelligent. Sometimes one doesn't understand why they dissagree with something untill why they hear why others do agree, thus a better understanding of self.

I don't know about others but I think that the conversation was *for the most part* non-confrontational and non-argumenentative...I don't feel that meanhippy was bashed, and when he felt that he was there was an appology... I am also a new-commer to this borard I feel everything but dissapointed, I know that sometimes things may come across as harsh, but we have to remember that in typing there is no voice inflection/intonation to go off of so be more analytical of what is said and less defencive....nuff said

[blueeyeddevil]

meanhippie is free to engage in productive discussion, but i've failed to find any of it in this thread...

of course we're all entitled to our opinions, and different views are encouraged, but you're setting a thread up for needless negativity when you title your post with controversy in CAPS.

[nothingmuch]

Bluedevil, you do realize, don't you, that the last post on this thread is a year and a half old?

[DanSRose]

Really, the Search Function (http://www.houseofleaves.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=search&search_forum=1)is a dangerous weapon.
Like there is a thread somewhere, in there, that contains on an actual Ash Tree (or Oak Tree, maybe) Lane (but I think it was a Road)