>It's not a horror story, it's a love story! >*tips

I could never get into it. I read the first few chapters and stopped. I'll finish it one of these days.

I don't really get the whole "remastered full-color" stuff. As far as I know there's only like 2 editions.

>Years ago, when House of Leaves was first being passed around, it was nothing more than a badly bundled heap of paper, parts of which would occasionally surface on the Internet.
Why? Why go the Blair Witch route with your story? Is Danielewski afraid that it won't stand on its own unless he does that?

>>7691410
Hey anon, to be fair, he most likely did it because its cool.
Making something rare doesn't make its content inherently moreso.

>>7691384

It's OK. I enjoyed the parts about the house itself. I think it gets more praise than it is really due, though. Much of its construction is too clever for it's own good, desu.

File: nothing.jpg (58KB, 500x492px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x492px

Liked this book, and the other one- the fifty year sword. They're both decent stories but awesome aesthetic objects, they're excellent books even if they're not always excellent novels, and house of leaves is a pretty good book considering it's a 700 page book about nothing.

>>7691384

If you really want to know the answer it's because Circa Survive championed it around 2005. Their fans never never grew up.

>>7691384
It's YA postmodernism. It makes them feel smart without them having to be smart.

>>7693268
There's no reason to hate on YA. Let the kids have their fun

>>7693268
do you think you're smart because you like rill postmodernism?

KEK

>>7692214
I think you mean The Fall of Troy, friend

>>7694996
you thought wrong
Juturna came out first
https://youtu.be/sgdf0gqzfos

>>7691806
>>7691410
You cannot gauge how much you like this book by the first few chapters, trust me. At about chapter six, the narrative gets into full swing.

And the 'found footage (manuscript?)' structure is necessary. The book would literally be unable to function had it not been presented through that gimmick. It's not even a gimmick, desu. I mean, you can't read HoL and tell me that Danielewski was trying to scam us for forty dollars. You can just feel that so much love was put into constructing it.

>>7691806
>they're excellent books even if they're not always excellent novels
Is this like /tv/'s retarded film/flick thing? go back there.