Connect
Sponsors
Currently Reading
-
Terms
The Book Lady's Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Reviews and articles posted here are property of The Book Lady's Blog and are not to be posted elsewhere without permission. Please contact me if you wish to post any of my work, or any excerpt thereof, in any other location or format.
Miscellaneous
Meet Bookrageous!
Technical Stuff
Design Credits
Feb
18
Pulling the Plug on HOUSE OF LEAVES
2010 at 10am Posted by Rebecca Joines Schinsky
Okay, so I’m feeling a little guilty about bailing on this 660+ page beast of a book because I was the instigator of the “hey, let’s read it together” conversation that led to getting Jenn and Jill on board, and poor Jill actually finished the book! But not guilty enough to keep going.
I’m a serious subscriber to Nancy Pearl’s “Rule of 50,” and I generally make no bones about stepping away from a book that just isn’t doing it for me. Life’s too short, you know? But I’d heard a lot about House of Leaves, and I really wanted to like it, and I even gave it 100 pages because I figured that since it’s about twice as long as most books I read, I should give it twice as many pages to get my attention. And the main premise did: a family moves into a house and soon discovers a hallway that wasn’t there before. The hallway grows and changes shape, making the inside of the house impossibly but undeniably larger than the outside, and the thing gets positively huge. So huge that the family hires a team of explorers (of the ilk that usually climb glaciers and explore jungles) to plunge into the darkness and map the tunnel/cave/mysteriously shifting hole that eventually extends for miles and miles.
For reals, people. At the 100-page mark, the explorers are gearing up to spend four or five DAYS inside the thing.
In the frame story of House of Leaves, Will Navidson—Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer and owner of the crazy ass house—documented his family’s experience in a series of videos which came to be known as “The Navidson Record.” The text of House of Leaves is comprised of the academic-style analyses of “The Navidson Record” and the supporting primary documents provided by an old man named Zampano. At the beginning of the book, our narrator, Johnny Truant, receives a 3am phone call from his friend Lude inviting him to a recently abandoned apartment. The apartment was Zampano’s, and in it, Truant discovers a trunk filled with Zampano’s writings about “The Navidson Record.”
After this initial scene and Truant’s introduction, we begin reading Zampano’s analysis, which is itself rife with footnotes (and footnotes of footnotes), supplemented by Truant’s footnotes (which are often pages long), and which directs us to explore the many documents included in the appendix. Make that two. That’s right folks; one appendix isn’t enough.
I love the concept of this book. The main story line is fascinating, and I get what the author was trying to do: the reader’s experience of winding through footnotes and supporting materials and ending up not knowing which way is up mirrors the experience of the Navidson family and the explorers and gives readers insight into what Zampano felt as he analyzed the film. Since Truant also tells us that his mental state is deteriorating and that he finds himself experiencing moments that bear eerie similarity to those depicted in “The Navidson Record” and Zampano’s writing, we know that this is something that happens to people who encounter the hallway/cave, which, apparently, has some kind of power or reach that extends far beyond its expanding walls.
But a great concept does not a great book make, and I just couldn’t shake the feeling that House of Leaves was trying too hard. I want a book to be smart and clever and challenging without nudging me and asking me to notice how smart and clever and challenging it is. I’m willing to invest time and thought in a book, but the book has to be worth it, and since it took me a full six days to find the motivation to get through a mere 100 pages of this monster, I’m calling it quits.
I know there are House of Leaves superfans out there, and I’m happy for them. I was talking with a friend about it, and he said reading this book was compulsive for him, that it just fit with the book receptors in his brain (that’s a great image, isn’t it?), so it’s not that this is a bad book (this post would be much snarkier if it were). I wish I could get into it. But it’s just not happening. We are not a match.
Sorry, House of Leaves, but I’m just not that into you.
Hey, FTC: I bought this one with my hard-earned dollars, and man, do I ever regret it.
If you click a link to buy House of Leaves, I’ll receive a commission from IndieBound. You won’t be throwing your money at Amazon, and I’ll feel a little better about reading this book.
Related posts:
- Book Review: What the World Will Look Like When All the Water Leaves Us by Laura van den Berg
- Just Read It: THE HOUSE OF TOMORROW by Peter Bognanni
- Kathleen Grissom at Fountain Bookstore: Win a signed copy of THE KITCHEN HOUSE
- Book Review: Interpreter of Maladies by Jhumpa Lahiri
- Book Review: The Fates Will Find Their Way by Hannah Pittard
It sounds like something I would like on paper, but I’d be likely to struggle though it as much as you did.
You are right, the premise seems kinda cool, in a funky Stephen King kind of way. Way to give it a buzz kill though. Death by appendices. Too bad, but with over 600 pages, you do have to be into it.
I read this and I did struggle through all of it. My husband liked it well enough to try and get me to read it, and he really didn’t want me to quit. I actually thought the book would have been far more interesting had the part about the house been the sole focus of the book. I got what the author was trying to do and it was clever, but that didn’t mean I liked it.
I tried many years ago. I just couldn’t handle the footnotes anymore. It’s the kind of book that I want to say I like. It’s the kind of book I do appreciate. But I’m just not that good with picking up the story after reading two pages of footnotes.
I know how you feel – I just gave up on *whispers* Lord of the Rings. I know, horrible right? I feel badly about this but I really wasn’t into the book after 100 pages. So… I so get it.
I’ve had several friends recommend this book to me, and it seems to be popping up on my radar more and more these days. I’m a bit apprehensive, given the mixed reviews I’ve seen, but I think I’ll still give it a try. That being said, I like your commitment to Nancy Pearl’s rule of thumb – with a stack of books as large as mine, I just can’t give the time to something I’m hating. And I like your decision to give it twice as many pages, as the book itself is twice as long as most.
I still commend you for giving it a go. Many people pick it up, flip through it and balk at the layout without exploring further.
It’s certainly an acquired read, more so structurally than thematically. I feel that Danielewski over-egged the pudding a little bit, but it does reward the reader who manages to persevere. Like your friend said, your “book receptors” do have to be wired a certain way; it’s definitely a more non-linear reading experience than many may be used to. (I think I remember once reading that HOL had its roots in a hypertext narrative experiment.)
Having said all that, I’m still trying to attune my receptors before plunging into Only Revolutions, which is even more of a structural head fuck than The House of Leaves.
If you gave it 100 pages, you gave it about 70 pages longer than I did! I agree with you completely – the story there had such great potential, but just got so lost in its language and form issues. But at least you gave it a good attempt!
They layout didn’t bother me…I actually liked that part. But the information overload in the footnotes bugged the crap out of me. I’m still wondering if I can say I read the book, when I only read the main text and Johnny’s story and most of the appendices. But really, is it necessary to read pages of footnotes that consist only of names of photographers, or parts of a house?
I tried to read this a while back. I think I actually made it like halfway through and then just gave up. I kept hoping it would get better.
You capture my feelings about this book exactly. Except I slogged through the whole thing. I spent the first half of a vacation forcing myself to finish HOL because I felt guilty about abandoning it. The worst part? I read A Prayer for Owen Meany right after HOL. I raced through it, and then I was bitter that I had spent so much time on HOL when I could have been reading something that I liked so much better. Owen Meany is now one of my favorite books. There are so many good books out there. I no longer feel guilty about dropping a book that just isn’t a good fit for me. And for that, I have House of Leaves to thank.
Owen Meany is one of my all-time favorites (and one of the only books I’ve read 3 times) as well. It’s too bad you had to suffer through HoL to get to it, but I’m so glad you did. And learning to let go of the guilt for ditching books that don’t do it for you is totally worth it!
Truly a tough read–did it a few years ago. Left me feeling a little used actually–a very indulgent novel…why was this published? I wonder,…certainly not for the masses, or even the “highly literate”, created for a very specific audience–the author himself!
I must say I’m a little surprised that no one here came away from HOL having enjoyed the experience. In the bookish social circles I’ve previously inhabited the book’s been a very popular read.
Here’s a question for you all: Has anyone here had any experience of computer-based interactive fiction? (Be it from past masters such as Brian Moriarty and Steve Meretzky, or contemporary authors like Adam Cadre and Elizabeth Short.) The reason I ask is that HOL is very popular within interactive fiction circles. I’m wondering if some prior experience of non-linear fiction may be a prerequisite for getting the most out of HOL.
Sorry you didn’t like it! It didn’t match my brain receptors exactly, but I like seeing the ways people can play around with narrative, and I enjoyed it for that reason. But I can definitely understand how it would prove hard going!
I don’t think this book is for me … I decided that after reading Jill’s review BUT … the premise sounds like a recurring dream I have about how I found all kinds of rooms I didn’t know about in my house.
[...] Pulling the Plug on HOUSE OF LEAVES [...]
I think you did the right thing. If it’s not working out, move on. I’ve been a lot better about that this year than I ever have been in the past. Why try to make things work when they won’t?
I’m glad you had the courage to ‘fess up. I was given HOL as a gift and tried hard to like it, but wound up putting it aside after about 70 pages. (And I rarely drop a book once I start reading.) Like you, I was overwhelmed by the footnotes, detail and plodding pace. I may give it a try again, but the pace will have to pick up for me to stay interested.
It’s such a shame, isn’t it? The plot line was very intriguing, and I GOT the function that all those “extras” were supposed to serve, but it failed in execution for me. I’m more than willing to deal w/ footnotes when they serve a purpose, as in OSCAR WAO.
Ah, too bad you gave up – though, I understand. This is one book that fits the mantra “not for everyone.” It’s funny to see this book pop up occasionally on book blogs and read about the WIDELY varying opinions. I actually loved it, but I certainly don’t hold it against those who hated it.
I actually wrote briefly about this book on my blog – it’s one of the best literary “gimmicks” I’ve come across, IMO: http://thenewdorkreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/2010/02/plays-thing-look-at-literary-gimmicks.html
Hey, cool blog, too – I just found you and will be stopping back frequently to read what you have to say.
“Not for everyone” is so right about this one! Thanks for stopping by.
[...] House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski: From the TBR: unfinished [...]
I completely agree with your review. I actually made it pretty far in the book (about page 350), but I just couldn’t take it anymore. The Navidson record storyline was absolutely fascinating. I was engrossed in every word of it. But like you, the overwhelming amount of footnotes drove me nuts, as did Johnny’s long-winded parts of the book.
I believe there’s a level of neuroticism that has to be reached to fully enjoy the book. If you’re knowledgeable about mythology, religion, and literature you’ll get a lot out of the imagery and wordplay used in the footnotes or otherwise. It’s almost a satire of literary review and English majors should enjoy it thoroughly. Yes, it’s complicated to read – but if you can settle into the neurotic references and typographic imagery you may find yourself being absorbed. It’s meant to be difficult to read, meant to be agoraphobic and claustrophobic, and the ending will mean a lot more to you if you find yourself sucked into the pages. It’s definitely one of my top 10.
I get all of that….it just didn’t work for me. But I was intrigued enough that I think I might give it another shot sometime.
The author comes off as overly pretentious and trying too hard to be smart. Lots of people claim to love this book for various reasons but none being the actual story itself, which is slow and meanders off into pages of BS footnotes that separate the few exciting parts by several hundreds of pages.
I suffered through this book at my friend’s urging and ended wishing I could have those hours of my life back.
The author tried something different, bravo but sadly it was off the mark. People who zealously defend this books “style” and “uniqueness” like to toss out words like “you didn’t get it” or “you need a better understanding of (insert random school of knowledge/thought) to appreciate it”.
This sort of book is for the pretentious, ego-stroking mental masturbator who thinks they get it or just pretends to appreciate it more than ” the common book reading rabble”