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.
Too post modern for me tbh
Younger me would have liked it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Have you read it? I'm not sure if I agree that "post-modern" is an accurate way to describe its style.
I think personally it's written in a way to immerse you and make you claustrophobic and scattered, almost.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Post structuralist ish
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Anything that plays with the form of the text as opposed to offering just a narrative is meta and post modern imo
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Id agree if it was jist done for aesthetics, butt the crazy text and stuff created a whole additional dynamic and really added to how the story is expwriwnced. I dont think the book would even work with standard text/writing.
!slots111
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think I just don't want to be challenged intellectually anymore tbh
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
unironically that attitude is like sooo post modern
!slots222
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