What a bunch of pretentious schlock

I liked it. It was different enough to be entertaining. The massive chapter on echoes notwithstanding.

>>9718557
Sucks for you OP
It was so utterly unique I couldn't not enjoy it

>>9718588
same here

>>9718577
Did you feel like it was saying the same mundane thing over and over again until you were frustrated, bored, and lost?

Because that's the point.

>>9719131
>it's meant to be shit, thats the point

>>9718557
Another poster who doesn't understand what pretentious means and instead uses it to say "I'm too dumb for this." Daily reminder that anyone who uses the words pretentious is to be ignored.

>>9719179
That's not what I said, and you're being reductionist.

It uses language to evoke feelings similar to what Navidson or the explorers would experience while inside the House.

Have you never read or studied any Steinberg? Using the sound of language as a component of literature is not something new.

>>9719191
>overreliance on gimmicks and wikipedia-like paragraphs to add "depth" to what reads as a Lovecraft fanfiction pulp story with literal pages and pages of useless masturbatory namedrops

I'd say the book is the definition of pretentious

>>9719201
Your examples tell me that anon is right and you literally do not understand what this book tries to do.

just finished it yesterday. johnny truant's plotline seems largely useless, except for muh juxtaposition of academic writing with its antithesis.

i did like the navidson record tho. and the idea is original but once you catch onto the gimmick, ie the inception levels of fiction and worshiping roland barthes then it's kind of like get on with it. i know the form is "revolutionary" and ergodic lit is all new and exciting, i just prefer to read "basic" lit - that is, the writer shows off his ability to write engaging, beautiful prose, not his penchant for formal theatrics

>>9719215
what does it try to do?

>>9719232
per your examples:

>overreliance on gimmicks
I'm assuming you're referring to the footnotes and the ergonomic typing. The former is to break up the narrative, just like DFW does in Infinite Jest. The ergonomic literature is to provoke a physical response on the part of the reader.

> wikipedia-like paragraphs to add "depth" to what reads as a Lovecraft fanfiction pulp story with literal pages and pages of useless masturbatory namedrops
and >>9719229
>johnny truant's plotline seems largely useless, except for muh juxtaposition of academic writing with its antithesis.

It's not a horror genre novel. It's a post-modern metafiction novel about the discovery of self and the horror of the unknown and where those two ideas meet. Johnny's narrative intertwines TNR - he tells you as much when he talks about the water heater - often in weird ways, like when his mom tells him to put a check mark on a page of his letter so she knows it's from him and the checkmark appears on a page of TNR. Or how her secret message spells out Zampano's name in one of her letters. It's supposed to blur the lines of the narratives. If you're going to compare it to anyone, it would be Borges, not Lovecraft.

The "mastubatory" name dropping is again part of the metafiction device. Many of the names aren't real and you don't know which is and which is not, and sometimes you are given incorrect information. In the beginning of the novel, Johnny tells you that a certain book by Hubert Howe Bancroft doesn't exist, however there's a picture of it in the index. In addition, that actual book with the graffiti can be found in the Santa Barbara Public Library IRL.

This mimics the idea of the labyrinth, as you're given twists and turns and false information, as if you were in the maze/House as well. The idea is that we build up these walls of information that are so overwhelming, that we no longer have to confront our own selves. Unfortunately, we then become afraid of ourselves and what we can't perceive, that it becomes crippling. This is why the monster is always with Johnny and Navidson even when they are alone. The passages in the books themselves mimic this idea and try to confuse you and overwhelm you with uncomfortable passages, like noted with the Echoes passage, or the Labyrinth passages, or the strikeouts, or any number of things.

If you just want to read Steinbeck, that's fine. But just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean there isn't anything to understand.

>>9718577
>different enough
Yikes. Read more.

I really enjoyed this novel, it gave me a sense of dread and unease while reading it. I felt uncomfortable sleeping with it in my room, having read it quite quickly I felt worn out by the end and skipped the appendix. Are the extras worth a revisit?

>unironic house of leaves defenders

jfc the r/books invasion is real

>>9719323
The main thing that I will really recommend you to read would be The Whalestoe Letters. The book points you to read them but if you skipped them you should go back.

anyone know any good "found footage/journal" type books like this?

i liked the idea

>>9719333
wow you got them. someone lays out an argument with textual evidence but you post le reddit meme. clearly yours is the superior mind.

>>9719340
>>9719340
liking house of leaves is a sure sign of someone who has read fewer than 200 books in their entire life

read more

>>9719335
Thank you, I should check them out soon, or perhaps I should go for a complete re-read.

>>9719337
I'd be super interested in reading something in a similar style aswell.

>>9719276
Yeah, I get what he's trying to do with the layout, but I don't think it accomplishes the point for the reader to feel like he's in the maze by confusing him with an overload of information. With this book I have the same problem I have with most pomo literature: it never stops feeling like the author (Danielewski, ignoring his mouthpieces in the narrative) is all over your face with his antics, smirking each time he writes a three word page or redirects you to a footnote. It takes me right out of the book and instead of feeling disoriented or confused makes me just feel like the book is a big fat joke and the author is just wasting my time with a fairly simple discourse being beaten over my head in ways each time zanier than the previous. Furthermore, since the author is so present, I feel like it renders that blur between the narratives useless. Therefore, for me, the book fails to accomplish all that sets up to do for conveying the meaning (which is easy to get) in an effective way. Anyway I understand why you might like it, but I feel that if you have a good story there's no need to hide it behind layers of meta self congratulation.

This (>>9719340) was not me (OP), by the way

>>9719348
not an argument.

the inability to form an argument based on actual evidence is a sure sign of someone who is still in high school or a brainlet.

Just saying your opinion over and over means nothing. A 3 year old can do that.

>>9719276
? never said it was a horror novel. it's pretty obviously "about" fiction; i know danielewski said it's a love story and all that but that seemed secondary to the metafiction bit. i understood all that about the book (didn't research each footnote and look into the lore, because why would i? point taken, i don't know what to trust). everything you mentioned isn't super hard to grasp at all, don't know why you're on your high horse about it. i understood the book, still thought it was gimicky - not the parts, the whole.

>>9719369
if you actually need someone to lay out why hol is derivative drivel it's just further evidence you're not qualified to make any statements on literature

fuck off back to r/books, they actually like shitty genre fiction there

>>9719373
>never said it was a horror novel
You said it was a pulp Lovecraft story, a horror author.

>isn't super hard to grasp at all
If it isn't super hard to grasp then why did you not reference any of those things except saying they were useless and wikipedia-like? I'm not on my high horse, you were just making a stupid argument without any evidence to support it. You asked me to tell you what it tried to do, so I did, and now you're attacking me for answering your question.

>>9719393
you still aren't saying anything worthwhile. why are you here if you don't want to discuss literature? you are a fucking retard.

>>9719367
That's fair. I don't necessarily see Danielewski as masturbatory as all that but I can understand. The metafiction levels are what makes the narrative more compelling for me. To each his own.

>>9719367
dude thank you, said what i >>9719373 did a poor job of. it's like danielewski took the joke too far. that's why i made my comment about liking "basic" literature. the good post modern writers do what danielewski attempted, without resorting to actually changing the appearance of the novel. delillo, gass, pynchon et all do the same shit - "hey look the writing itself is getting confusing, and the sentences are long, just like the plot is becoming chaotic and meandering!"

The more i think about it, house of leaves is kind of like a postmodernism for dummies book. whole thing is so plainly obvious and far from nuanced its offputting. it's impressive only for the scale and amount of work the dude put in

>>9719393
lmao go have a nap mate

>>9719402
yo, you got me mixed up. i'm not the guy who called it pulp lovecraft or wikipedia-like, but i did ask you what it tried to do, and said johnny's plot was useless (dumb to say, you're right, it weaves through the navy record too).

besides that, you basically confirmed i didn't miss anything. i got the whole bits about metafiction, just didnt enjoy it

>>9719404
It does have a few more levels than most Delillo books but I don't think many people, including myself, would make the argument that MZD is better than or at the same level as any of those authors.

HoL isn't the greatest book ever or anything but it isn't just a zero.

His other books are pretty bad and go WAY overboard with "gimmicks."

>>9719418
ah, I was just throwing your post in for the Johnny being useless part.

That's fair, not every book is for everyone.

>>9719276

Oh fuck me, the check mark.

>>9719393
Funny, last time I was on reddit it seemed to me like they hated it for being too difficult, so maybe you're in the wrong place friend.

File: 05d.jpg (30KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x451px

>>9719430
>That's fair, not every book is for everyone.

>>9719433
The Hubert Howe Bancroft one was more of a mindfuck for me. Like he specifically says it doesn't exist but then not only is it in the back of the book, but the actual copy can be checked out at the library.

>>9719450
BUT HAVE YOU READ HITCHHIKERS GUIDE?

>>9719451
lol the objective of my post wasn't to make everyone like HoL. It was just to show that those things are there on purpose and not for just pretension.

If I'm thinking of someone who likes to shove in meaningless crap just to show off how smart and clever he is, Dave Eggers is who comes to mind.

File: tumblr_mlto1hBAC81sp31omo1_500.jpg (29KB, 500x331px)

29KB, 500x331px

>>9719461

You bloody numpty.

>thread full of redditors

/lit/ is truly lost

>>9719471
fuck i forgot about that.

you got me.

>>9719472
>someone posted something other than Dostoevsky or Bulgakov on muh precious site that moves so slow that 30 reply posts are up for days.

>muh site

In the appendix there is a photo of one of Zampanos scribblings where it says something like "fuck it, why don't I just kill off the kids to up the stakes near the end".

Whats that all about? Why bother making a full colour print for a throwaway "zampano made it all up" bit?

>>9719583
Not sure. A lot of the appendix stuff is pretty meh. I guess the diorama is ok.

I think the part you're referring to is actually on the front flap of the book, so maybe it's supposed to show that the book is scary to potential readers? idk.

All metamodernism is shlock.

>>9719561
It's not the fact they're posting about a shit book. It's how they're posting about it.

>>9719637
pls elaborate.

>>9719561
holy shit you really are a redditor arent you, is that why you're so buttblasted?

>>9719720
>buttblasted

read more.

>>9719734
read more

>>9719737
ok dwight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uDrJ9AxNa0

>>9719762

you need to go back

>>9719769
back where? wtf are you even talking about

It's a fun book, nothing incredibly deep or meaningful like many /lit/ users have been lead to believe every novel should be, but nonetheless a fun, quick read that stimulates the mind a little bit more than something like David Patterson. Anyone who says that it's a masterpiece has likely only started to read books, but anyone who says it's garbage has probably only started to read books as well.

>>9719348
making a declaration such as this is dispostive that one hasn't read at least 2,000 books.

dunning kruger, keep reading

it's a creepy pasta with a rip off pynchon subnarrative and it is actually kind of good

>>9720147
Ex quo patet quod post eam - Et legit in paucioribus quam xx libri

File: oh fuck yes.jpg (48KB, 390x390px)

48KB, 390x390px

>tfw you're a casual reader who does not consume serious literature in any kind of meaningful amount and house of leaves is your favorite book

You can't stop me

>>9720835
Owner of that bird must be black.

>>9720835
Then why the fuck are you even on /lit/?

>>9720876
I bought the first four volumes of The Familiar and then saw a House of Leaves thread and got nostalgic

>>9720896
How is the Familiar? How does it compare to House of Leaves if at all?

>>9721072
I'm gonna find out when it arrives senpai

All I know is it has about 9 perspectives so it's probably a bit confusing

>>9719820
>has likely only started to read books,

What did he mean by this?

People read books their whole lives, do you live in the third world?