Horror is probably my favorite genre of literature. I'd say more than half of the books I read and have read are horror. After seeing a few reviews and recommendations on the House of Leaves I was very intrigued.
House of Leaves is a very challenging read. The story follows the main character Johnny Truant who finds an incomplete manuscript written by a recently deceased man named Zampano. The manuscript is a documentary of a photojourn*list by the name of Will Navidson and his wife Karen who have purchased a house which they soon find is larger on the inside than the outside.
House of Leaves has footnotes. It has footnotes of footnotes and appendixes of footnotes and footnotes with appendixes. It has footnotes from both Zampano and Johnny Truant.
Its writing style is difficult to follow, often makes you turn the book upside down or on its side, and is overall kind of fricking boring. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool book. The concept is incredible and such a unique experience. Unfortunately, so often throughout this book, I found myself wishing it would stay on track and continue the main story of the Navidson Record (the storyline I found most interesting)
More than half of this book is about Johnny Truant slowly losing his mind as he compiles Zampanos manuscript, Truant's heavy drug abuse and s*x addiction, and chapters long mind numbingly boring descriptions of the meaning and origin of words by Zampano.
With that said, would I recommend a new reader altogether skip Johnny Truants storyline? I can't say that I would. It does round out the novel and serve a deeper meaning. Understanding Truants state of mind while he is compiling House of Leaves is essential to understanding the house in itself.
Overall I'd give the book an 8/10. I finished in a week and even with its boring parts I could not put it down. I would recommend anyone who enjoys literature read this book. This book is more of an experience than a story. Its ability to drag you in and immerse you is truly unmatched.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Has anyone done the ebook? I refuse to do footnote heavy ebooks after terry pratchett because that gets exhausting and his footnotes are pretty mandatory if you want to get half the jokes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I read the physical copy and I'm not sure how an e-book could ever possibly come close to replicating the experience.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I figured. I'll be fricked before i carry around a book ever again though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I personally can't stand e-books so I may be biased. Nothing comes close to feeling the words on your fingertips and the hand cramps you get after reading for hours.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've done both a lot (a stupid amount) and they both have their avantages and disadvantages. Being able to read absolutely anywhere when you have a free minute and not dealing with trying to get light to shine on your page at night are what seals the deal for me.
I feel like a lot of the people that fetishize physical books haven't read enough to realize how inconvenient it is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The main thing for me is I get nauseous reading any screen, which is never the case for physical copies.
It's certainly more inconvenient but most of my reading happens in my couch or bed anyway.
I'm not the type of reader who can just read a few pages and set it down either - I need to commit at least an hour or two.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context