What did you think of this book? Why did it work so well? Why

Danielewski is a talentless hack who stole his gimmicks from Kolsti Nguyen

>>8829747
Who is this?

>>8829759
Danielewski? He's the writer of the book the OP just posted wtf

>>8829786
No Nguyen of course.

>>8829813
He's like 18 or 19 now? Last I heard he's with Montea. Incredibly influential in certain internet-based post-alt-lit circles but hasn't "made" it yet.

>>8829759
Your favorite writer's favorite writer's favorite writer's favorite writer

File: are you for real.png (11KB, 841x190px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 841x190px

>>8829747
>>8829851
Ok, that actually made me laugh.

>Like two hours til I make my live rapping debut on Longhorn LateNight as the musical guest.

I hoped this was a meme, I cannot get behind this cringe. This is on par with house of tumblr.

>>8829873
His actual writing is good. I don't know about rapping because I only listen to Schubert and friends.

>>8829732
>>8829732

This book is a weird one for me.

I found a significant percentage of it a chore to get through - most of the stuff with Johnny in Hollywood/LA or whatever involving drug raves and stuff in the '90s got pretty stale after one chapter of it.

His story line during the main novel was actually the one I was least interested in, and when the novel would abruptly jump to his I was a little bummed out, especially if it was during a part of Navidson's where I was super immersed.

I think the disjointedness of it was intentional, but sometimes it didn't play well for me.

I will say though - I find myself thinking about this book more than anything I've ever read, which is pretty heavy. The part where Navidson is lost in the hallway, and all he has is his flaregun, and he feels himself get to a point where there's no ground in front of him (like the edge of a cliff), but then feels behind him and there's also none there, as if he's standing on a pillar somehow, but then also tries to knock just below where he was standing and hits nothing, so it's like he's just falling or floating comes to mind super often, like almost every night.

I don't think I'll be re-reading it anytime soon, but I think it also gets a lot of undeserved shit.

I didn't enjoy reading it. I didn't hate it, I just didn't get much out of it, which is probably a result of it just not being my kind of book.

When I talked about it with the people who (highly) recommended it to me, they all said that I read it wrong (since I read the whole thing like normal book), and that you're supposed to skip over parts. Danielewski has apparently said things to a similar affect, and that the book is something the reader is supposed to manipulate to get something meaningful out of. I can see how some people would like that, and how it would mean they would connect to the story more, but I would rather a book had a compelling narrative instead of relying on cheap gimmicks to hold my attention (or make me feel like I was part of a special club for "getting it" and skipping over the right things).

>>8830251

What were you supposed to skip? That's retarded

>>8830184
I had this problem with the book too. I couldn't stand all the fake commentary you had to slog through to get to the story.

Ha cocaч, быдлo!

It's a genuinely good book, albeit gimmicky at times.

>>8829732
I enjoyed it, but everything else the author has written has not been enjoyable.