House of Leaves

[Doink]

I prefer my books to be coherent. I put this book in the same lot as James Joyce "Ulysess" - it is so confusing people think it must be great if nobody can understand it.

True. If you're one of those people who likes every loose end to be neatly wrapped up at the end of the story, you're going to be sorely disappointed with House of Leaves. The same goes with people who like to read through a book at the speed of sound.

But coherent gets boring after a while, and it's always nice to have a change of pace after a while.

And by the way, some people do understand this book (to an extent). Those people are either literature experts or they have way too much time on their hands, but that's besides the point. I like to be scared once in a while, and being confronted with a piece of work like this certainly qualifies.

[Narnian]

I prefer my books to be coherent. I put this book in the same lot as James Joyce "Ulysess" - it is so confusing people think it must be great if nobody can understand it.

I prefer to read books like "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, "Parallel Worlds" By Michio Kaku, "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller, or "The Shadow of the WInd" by Carlos Ruiz Zafón.

[Doink]

Aw poo. I edited the first post with my rebuttal instead of adding a new post.

Anyway, just click that link and I think you'll get the gist of the book.

[Wayfarer]

I prefer to read books like "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, "

Oooooh! Ooooooh! I just finished reading that! Very, very interesting book.

As for House of Leaves... I think the review is enough to scare me! (If the book is going to have me yelling, "Stop it! What are you doing? What are you thinking?!" at the characters half the time... or if it's tense and scary... or, you know, both (and I would suspect one of those three scenarios from the review), it's definitely not a book for me.)

[Narnian]

Aw poo. I edited the first post with my rebuttal instead of adding a new post.

Anyway, just click that link and I think you'll get the gist of the book.

Not very coherent

I started to read it and it was one of the few books I decided not to finish.

I have several thousand books I want to read before I die and I am running out of time.

[Doink]

Well, there's nothing wrong with shying away from complex undertakings. The Elder Scrolls series of video games in particular has scared off a lot of people because of the enormous amount of depth in the games. And there is depth in House of Leaves, no matter what Narnian says.

Make no mistake, those who write long books have nothing to say.
Of course those who write short books have even less to say.

[Narnian]

Well, there's nothing wrong with shying away from complex undertakings.

Now, now. I have no trouble with complexity - I read physics and philosophy for fun.

And there is depth in House of Leaves, no matter what Narnian says.

I never said there wasn't depth - but I felt it was too murky to determine if there was any there "there" to make it worth the effort.

However, I am willing to be swayed - when I catch up on my outstanding reading I will look at it again this summer based on your endorsement.

[Doink]

Don't be intimidated by what you see if you flip ahead. House of Leaves actually starts out fairly simple, in a linear fashion with few footnotes, in order to ease you into its particular style. By the time the text starts getting screwy, you'll hopefully have some clue how to read it.

[UncleMonty]

Don't be intimidated by what you see if you flip ahead. House of Leaves actually starts out fairly simple, in a linear fashion with few footnotes, in order to ease you into its particular style. By the time the text starts getting screwy, you'll hopefully have some clue how to read it.

But, why? If someone vomits in front of me, I do not feel compelled to study the result.

[Doink]

Don't be intimidated by what you see if you flip ahead. House of Leaves actually starts out fairly simple, in a linear fashion with few footnotes, in order to ease you into its particular style. By the time the text starts getting screwy, you'll hopefully have some clue how to read it.

But, why? If someone vomits in front of me, I do not feel compelled to study the result.

Hmm. Much like the book itself, I'm not quite sure I understand your statement. If you're comparing the text of House of Leaves to some sort of word vomit, then by all means, drop the book and never look back if you're so inclined. But it was my understanding that something becomes much more enjoyable if you work hard for it, and reading House of Leaves is certainly more like work than most books.

Judging from the reaction of this forum, I'm getting the impression that most people don't like books that take a special effort to read. Me, I like weird stuff, and that includes books that I turn upside-down and sideways on occasion. I don't mind the extra effort, but apparently I'm in the minority.

Oh well.

By the way, I have read Catch-22, and it was hilarious, expecially the part with the military trial.

[Squeaky Bunny]

I strongly suspect that he had smoked some of those leaves before writing the book.

[Doink]

I strongly suspect that he had smoked some of those leaves before writing the book.

Actually:

The pages of a book are often called the "leaves" of a book, thus making the actual book a house of leaves.

But your explaination make just as much, if not more, sense.

[Narnian]

But, why? If someone vomits in front of me, I do not feel compelled to study the result.

I use to do that when I worked at the National Zoo in the animal hospital - I had to help figure out what made the animal sick

That was even worse than processing fecal samples for parasites.

[Squeaky Bunny]

But, why? If someone vomits in front of me, I do not feel compelled to study the result.

I use to do that when I worked at the National Zoo in the animal hospital - I had to help figure out what made the animal sick

That was even worse than processing fecal samples for parasites.

I imagine that you've found a lot of "foreign" matter in both. It makes you wonder if the wrong animals are in the cage.

[UncleMonty]

I've read Catch-22, I've read several versions of the Bible, I've read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica... What can I say. I like to read. I even admit a guilty weakness for science fiction.

But when a book seems to be purposefully written badly in an effort to confuse and depress the reader ... Like, say, a lot of the stuff Kurt Vonnegut wrote, or perhaps Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger", or George Orwell's "1984" (a simplistic overlay of 1948 Russia on top of British society, extrapolated into the future of continually extended WWII. ) the effort to create a logical pattern through the story that does not actually exist, simply isn't worthwhile.

Not to say that those who enjoy such tales shouldn't read them as they wish, but the condescending and superior manner in which you have answered those who's tastes don't match yours, Doink, led me to post.

[Doink]

Not to say that those who enjoy such tales shouldn't read them as they wish, but the condescending and superior manner in which you have answered those who's tastes don't match yours, Doink, led me to post.

I'd like to apologize to anyone I've offended or insulted in this thread. The reason I started this was to let people know about a book unlike anything I've ever seen. I was a bit overenthusiastic when starting the thread, and I suppose I was a bit miffed at Narnian's negative response, which may have led to my crass replies. It was not my intention to put down others, merely to defend the book. I like House of Leaves, but not enough to start a flame war over it.

[EdBecerra]

Quite simply, Doink, I read books to RELAX, not to be challenged to think. I get quite enough of that in my writing, and before that in my military career. I read books to be amused and entertained, and thinking doesn't entertain me, it's something that DENIES me entertainment.

It's why I dropped the Wheel of Time series - it's getting so complex, long-winded and multi-threaded, I can't keep track of the story without great effort, and that causes it to cease being fun for me.

[Doink]

Quite simply, Doink, I read books to RELAX, not to be challenged to think. I get quite enough of that in my writing, and before that in my military career. I read books to be amused and entertained, and thinking doesn't entertain me, it's something that DENIES me entertainment.

I blame my English classes. All they do is make me analyze books half to death when all I want to do is read them. "Well, cant I just read the book?" "I suppose thats possible, but write an essay on its symbolism anyway or you fail the class." Its as if you cant really enjoy a book unless you know exactly what the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg are supposed to represent. That makes me want to burn books, not read them.

Geez, all this hoity-toity analysis crap must be rubbing off on me. In the first post, which nobody can see now, thank goodness, I actually bragged about all of the symbolism and analysis in this book! What the hell was I thinking? I picked up this book because Id heard about it and its weird structure. I got curious, I wasnt disappointed, and now Ive moved on to other things.

(And before you say anything, my apostrophe key is acting up, so my grammar isnt at peak efficiency.)

[Narnian]

I blame my English classes. All they do is make me analyze books half to death when all I want to do is read them. "Well, cant I just read the book?" "I suppose thats possible, but write an essay on its symbolism anyway or you fail the class." Its as if you cant really enjoy a book unless you know exactly what the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg are supposed to represent. That makes me want to burn books, not read them.

Geez, all this hoity-toity analysis crap must be rubbing off on me. In the first post, which nobody can see now, thank goodness, I actually bragged about all of the symbolism and analysis in this book! What the hell was I thinking? I picked up this book because Id heard about it and its weird structure. I got curious, I wasnt disappointed, and now Ive moved on to other things.

(And before you say anything, my apostrophe key is acting up, so my grammar isnt at peak efficiency.)

You read a book that you found especially interesting and felt like sharing your discovery with your friends. I would have been disappointed if you had not. As I said your enthusiasm has encouraged me to give the book a second chance.

This book, by definition, is replete with symbolism and it cannot be discussed without it.