A curious and lazy mashing together of literary theory and architecture.
Don't get me wrong, I love to look at buildings. But the authors are trying really hard to force-feed the idea that so-and-so architecture is 'sinister' and 'horrifying'.
Lots of connections just don't make sense - till the point I am at, the flow is basically: 'here is a potentially horrifying idea -> here is a movie or book where it was deployed -> and here you go a building that superficially uses that idea'.
For example, in the chapter on clones and doubles, randomly some movies were thrown in where twins were used to 'sinister' effect (and the Winklevoss twins from social network were thrown in too ... but they are ... real people ... just existing??), and then, boom - a building that has two sections that look similar or identical. WHAT is the connection here? And why are you repeatedly trying to tell me the building "looks" sinister? Per what standards? It just looks bland or cool as hell to me.
And - I am not the only litmus test here: technically, you should have a long explanation of what it is in the building that causes horror, right? What do people say or feel about it? What does the lighting look like, inside? How are the temperatures in there, the acoustics? What do objects look like in scale next to it? Is the building horrific purely based on how it "violates" some dusty white man's idea of "unity" and "beauty", or is there literally anything more to it? The answers to ALL of these questions are missing.
Till the point I have read, the only truly scary architectural plans I have seen in this book are those cookie cutter houses that get endlessly repeated, Vivarium style. There I can understand the terror - endless repetition, evoking feelings of being trapped alone amongst strangers.
The standards of architecture are *super* Euro-centric, communal living buildings are called "horror-inducing" (and I just don't understand why, they looked fun and homely to me??), and jesus, I'm only just starting the second chapter (exquisite corpse), but I am sure there's going to be a lot of shoddy analysis in there talking about how "a grotesque limb or a missing body part 'induces' horror" and then boom-"here's a building (superficially) mimicking that."
I am so sorry I am incensed in this review. I read glowing recommendations of this on Tumblr, and I am mad at myself for trusting them. Waste of my time. I might slog on a little more because I genuinely *do* love looking at buildings and there are some interesting recommendations in here, but theoretically, this book is extremely weakly put together.