House of Leaves
discussion
I REALLY want to read this, but...
date
newest »


House of Leaves also has some actual puzzles in it that require some work outside of just reading to figure out. If you commit to the experience of reading the novel then you will probably notice them right away. They aren't difficult puzzles, if you notice them you can solve them. By committing to the book I mean that you need to think of it as more than just a novel. You need to suspend disbelief and think of House of Leaves as something that you found and are unraveling the mysteries of.
The central conceit of the novel is that it is a printed version of a website that someone compiled and published. On that website someone was writing about a mysterious manuscript that they had found. There are three stories to follow: the academic essay analyzing a documentary, the documentary itself, and Johnny's comments on both that he writes as he reads the novel.
TL;DR - House of Leaves is not particularly challenging, but it is certainly more complicated than your average novel. It requires a certain amount of reader commitment and is not a casual read. You should probably be familiar with the concept of an "unreliable narrator" before reading it.

I've seen pictures of the footnotes and those are some footnotes! Clearly never read anything with tons of footnotes like that. From what I've read, some people (like you) also said that it's okay to skip the footnotes and appendix but I don't think I'll be able to sleep doing that. When I read I need to read everything cover to cover (unless the book is truly a bore that I decide to just skip till the end). Give me a sense of satisfaction.
I'm pretty excited to start this book and I guess I'm going to view it as a journey instead of a simple reading experience.


What puzzles were you referring to? I don't remember having to do this, but it's been a while since I read this. Great explanation of this book's style, by the way.

I am hesitant to give them away here. I don't want to spoil things for people that haven't read it, even if I'm only giving the general area of where the puzzle is. Part of the fun of them is that voice in your head that says, "Wait, this is a little weird. I wonder if... wow!" I'll PM you a little more info.
My suggestion for anybody reading this book is that if you notice something and wonder if there might be more to it, there probably is! Grab a notepad and try playing around with it. Just remember that the format of the book mirrors events happening in the book. Keep that in mind as your starting place when you notice there might be something up.

Most of the footnotes are pretty boring, to be honest (which is kind of the point). House of Leaves is, at times, critical of academia. The way footnotes are used in the book is one of the ways it tackles that theme. I wouldn't skip the appendix, though. At the very least make sure to read the letters from Johnny's mother as he gets them.
I don't think this book will hit you as hard as Murakami's work. House of Leaves is really interesting the way it plays with the medium (use of colour, formatting, appendix, etc.) and it is an engrossing story with some great moments, but it doesn't have the emotional or philosophical depth of Murakami's best novels.

I have a feeling I'll spend many hours reading it, and equally many hours browsing through forum boards and such after I'm done with it.

You're making me want to read this book again (last time was 2008).
Originally, I stuck with the Navidson Record, because I found Johnny Truant's story to be unremarkable (typical junkie/f*up-fiction fare, but that was of course the point). By the time I reached the appendices, I was pretty burned out.
I'll chuck it on the stack for summer reading, when I am more relaxed and give it a bit more attention.

all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I found this title from a link Chuck Palahniuk's Facebook posted and I immediately Googled it. It's so different than any other books that I've read that I was immediately interested. I know that this is a book that demands your full attention. Will it have a clear 'instruction' as to what section to read next or do we have to like, guess?
There's the matter of this book being so widely popular also. From past experiences it seems like I tend to like the non-mainstream titles better. Ex: I loved Beatrice and Virgil, but I couldn't even read half of Life of Pi.
So, is this really a complicated book?