Cloudhidden’s review of House of Leaves > Likes and Comments
731 likes · Like
You are SO RIGHT ON ABOUT THIS BOOK, COULDN'T AGREE MORE. iNTERESTING BUT A BIG WASTE OF TIME. i ENDED UP SKIMMING ALOT.
Oh man, you're so right. What a boring lump of a book. Total waste of time and absolutely not scary in the least. I love the people on here who are like "it haunted me! i couldnt sleep!" WHAT???? It was the dullest, most pretentious mess of a book I've ever suffered through.
I couldn't even finish the book. I found the writing dry and there was nothing scary about it. I did skim to the end, but nothing about it made me want to continue.
I waited and waited and waited for something to happen. First half of the book I was convinced something mind blowing would happen:bring it on. 3/4s I was beginning to become dismayed: time was running out for something to happen. And then: nothing happened.
Kristen wrote: "In order to "get" the book and its brilliance you have to read it as philosophy, metafiction, psychoanalysis, etc. The whole point is to challenge traditional narrative forms that focus on "things ..."
No offense, of course, but I think you just illustrated what he was referring to as insufferable pretension.
If you like a strong plot its not the right book for you. Nothing really happens. It's greatness is in the creativity of the narrative. Stop arguing.
One of the worst books in world history; a classic of pretentiousness. Oh, and I've read Hesse, Gide, Mann, Kafka and Lawrence, so don't talk to me about mindless bestsellers.
It is post-modernism there is no story it is about the ride.
I completely agree. I disliked every character except the house and when (SPOILER) it collapsed halfway through I just gave up. There are many books out there that are just "about the ride" - I'd recommend Murakami. But this book seemed to be all about the gimicky structure rather than substance. I found that to be true of his other book "Only Revolutions," of which I could only get through about 8 pages. If you can't write a compelling story without drawing people in with fancy looking pages, maybe you shouldn't be a writer. (It's why I'm not one.)
wow,such a shallow and pedestrian review .im sure you are both very deep thinkers.
I almost wonder if he wrote it to see if people would pretend that they "got it". People throw themselves into the art they see. If you're narcissistic enough, you can make a whole story out of a ramble of non-sequitors. In this case, a novel.
I realize I'm coming late to this thread but I completely agree with Lauren. I've often thought of what would happen if someone just went on an acid trip and wrote down their thoughts and feelings, and then went back later and sort of threaded a plot through it, and sold it as a book - would it become a bestseller? A cult classic? I mean the whole point of this book is experimentation, right, so what if it's been an experiment from the very beginning?
i'm about half way through this book and i'm so glad i'm not the only one who feels this way. i'll finish because i'm stubborn and like to finish things i start but it's becoming a chore. the book had so much promise but quickly became "look at all this cool stuff i can do with the pages" and johnny saying a bunch of garbage that is of no interest. i think if the story of the house had been written only as a novel is would be very good, because i actually like the story, it's weeding through all the other senseless garbage that is taxing. it seems like it's just a trendy read for trendy people or the kind of story for people who like to feel smart for "getting" something that really isn't there to be "got." that being said, so far, shakespeare says it best..."it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." i hope it gets better for my sake.
So... The dude didn't break into the old man's house. Sorry you are struggling to understand, but the reality is, if you think there's 2 story lines, you've got it wrong. If you think the primary story of this book is about a house, you're wrong. I can't help but think that people who gripe about it would like it more if the structure of it was more traditional... but I find it funny that people claim it "trendy" reading when it released over a decade ago. Danielewski has put out other stuff since.
Honestly I am a book addict, I love being lead astray and back around with plot twists and such. But this book really doesn't interest me in the slightest. I was told by friends that it was the most terrifying book they have ever read, that they had to take notes in the book and on paper, that it messed with their minds! I am so disappointed in it in general. I MIGHT finish it because I hate not finishing a book but I really don't feel enjoyment from reading it at all. :(
Perhaps I'm just not in the target demographic, but I had the same thought as Lauren partway through. "Is the experiment even more 'meta' than the adoring fans realize, and actually a joke on the readers who take it seriously?"
In the spirit of the book, I could come up with numerous words to describe the experience of reading it. Perhaps even several hundred words, separated by commas, in little boxes, running up and down the page, or even just one word on each page... But I'll spare you.
Tedious.
I made my husband gave this book to me, as a gift, because all the good reviews about it, but, OMG, what a bunch of pretencious waste, I don't care about any of the characters, I don't even care about the house. I only feel sorry, because my hubby went to a lot of libraries searching this garbage.
I find it hilarious the contrasting views on this book which I have just started. That's modernism for you. However, as Kristen said, I don't believe a book of 'ideas' qualifies as a novel. By definition there should be "some" narrative. But I've only just begun.
About halfway through this book I wanted to stomp on my kindle. I trudged through the rest of it and it didn't get better. The footnotes were just as boring or more so than the actual book. I was so hyped up to read this book. The premise seems great then I read it and damn it just sucked. I saw a message board for this book and so many say it's great...I don't get it at all. I gave it two stars but as I'm writing this I wish I could give it negative two stars.
Nikki wrote: "wow,such a shallow and pedestrian review .im sure you are both very deep thinkers."
THANK YOU!
Shallow because I dont like something you do?
Fifty pages in and you've expressed my feelings exactly. Can't decide whether to give it the benefit of the doubt, or chuck it.
Who is Daniel? I was under the impression the book was written by Mark…
If this book is about the psychology of love, interior spaces, and the personal myths we reenact, I would say it is about as successful as Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi is at writing about love. Which is to say, not very successful.
I agree with the point of view that it is a bit pretentious; I've read some pretentious books ( special topics in calamity physics , though not a horror novel , comes to mind ) that I actually like this one was just annoying and nothing scary really does happen. I was looking for a horror novel now The haunting of hill house is a super short to the point book where a few really frightening things actually happen ("who was holding my hand?" being one of them ) im rambling but there is a point , one scare , really good scare , to me is worth more than 600 pages of Blah blah .. Just sayin...
I agree with the point of view that it is a bit pretentious; I've read some pretentious books ( special topics in calamity physics , though not a horror novel , comes to mind ) that I actually like this one was just annoying and nothing scary really does happen. I was looking for a horror novel now The haunting of hill house is a super short to the point book where a few really frightening things actually happen ("who was holding my hand?" being one of them ) im rambling but there is a point , one scare , really good scare , to me is worth more than 600 pages of Blah blah .. Just sayin...
Oh god, I'm so happy I've found people who agree with me! This book is frigging TERRIBLE. So damn pretentious. They say it's style over substance, but frankly the style is just overblown. There's nothing there. I tried so hard to like it, but it's about as fun as reading a math textbook.
I don't think you are supposed to "get" this book, you are supposed to read it.
I don't think you are supposed to "get" this book, you are supposed to read it.
I have rarely not finished a book. Like many people, this book was given to me and I was told how "mind blowing" it was going to be. They should have said mind blowingly boring! I'm actually glad I did not waste the time to finish it. Call me shallow, but this book sucked.
I finally finished this book. Whoever called it tedious nailed it.
ZZZZZZZZ, so annoying, boring, full of itself. Did complete it, sidebars, footnotes, waste of time.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's a bad book...
What makes a book a "bad book". Terrible story...pretentious (oh, so very pretentious) layout, or as some have called it, style...annoying footnotes...
One comment said something about "style over substance". Is that what you really want in a book? I think that's pretty much the definition of shallow and pretentious.
it's experimental fiction, not meant for everyone. if you're not the kind that likes to dwell in the realms of literature that pushes the boundaries of narrative fiction then this book is not suited for you. some people claim that this novel fits into the genre of post-modernist works which tend to follow this same pattern of writing.
the author meant for this book to be a criticism (or satire) of academic writing, that's why some people find it boring. the structure of the words in the book itself is purposely arranged to parallel the descent into insanity. words are formed into art. that is experimental writing.
If I have to take notes and stress my way through a book that is supposed to be for leisure reading, it is not worth it. This book is like someone throwing several jars of paint at a canvas and declaring it is a masterpiece. But all due respect to those who actually understood and liked it.
I don't even need to write my own review because you've taken the words from my brain. I bought this because it's "the scariest...". It wasn't one bit scary. It was simply annoying and obnoxious.
Amen! I felt exactly the same way! You phrased it so well :) Can’t imagine what people like about this book??
Ditto to all these comments, I'm so glad it's not just me.
I this book is purely appreciation for the time the author put in. I didn’t find it spooky but I was just so impressed with the work. I love this book. It is one of my favourites.
Perfectly said. I am avid reader and this was definitely a bad book. I was so. Wry excited to read it but it went absolutely nowhere.
I’ve just started this book and I fear I’m having trouble getting into it.. it’s not pulling me in just yet. Do I need to read all the footnotes or can I just skip over? Lol
back to top
message 1:
by
Sheri
(new)
Sep 11, 2008 05:55AM
You are SO RIGHT ON ABOUT THIS BOOK, COULDN'T AGREE MORE. iNTERESTING BUT A BIG WASTE OF TIME. i ENDED UP SKIMMING ALOT.
reply
|
flag
Oh man, you're so right. What a boring lump of a book. Total waste of time and absolutely not scary in the least. I love the people on here who are like "it haunted me! i couldnt sleep!" WHAT???? It was the dullest, most pretentious mess of a book I've ever suffered through.
I couldn't even finish the book. I found the writing dry and there was nothing scary about it. I did skim to the end, but nothing about it made me want to continue.
I waited and waited and waited for something to happen. First half of the book I was convinced something mind blowing would happen:bring it on. 3/4s I was beginning to become dismayed: time was running out for something to happen. And then: nothing happened.
It's not a Horror book, it's a highly complex novel. It's about the psychology of Love, interior spaces, and the personal myths we reenact.
For some, I would not recommend reading further than the Dedications page.
For some, I would not recommend reading further than the Dedications page.
In order to "get" the book and its brilliance you have to read it as philosophy, metafiction, psychoanalysis, etc. The whole point is to challenge traditional narrative forms that focus on "things happening" rather than ideas. So much stuff "happens" on these more conceptual levels that I guess it goes over the heads of people looking for a mindless best seller.
Kristen wrote: "In order to "get" the book and its brilliance you have to read it as philosophy, metafiction, psychoanalysis, etc. The whole point is to challenge traditional narrative forms that focus on "things ..."No offense, of course, but I think you just illustrated what he was referring to as insufferable pretension.
If you like a strong plot its not the right book for you. Nothing really happens. It's greatness is in the creativity of the narrative. Stop arguing.
Lauren wrote: "Kristen wrote: "In order to "get" the book and its brilliance you have to read it as philosophy, metafiction, psychoanalysis, etc. The whole point is to challenge traditional narrative forms that f..."
So, encouragement to take the book as a whole combination of combating theories is automatically considered pretentious? Awesome. I'll try to use fewer big words next time and agree with simplistic and reductionist critiques of an interesting text.
So, encouragement to take the book as a whole combination of combating theories is automatically considered pretentious? Awesome. I'll try to use fewer big words next time and agree with simplistic and reductionist critiques of an interesting text.
I agree with your comment about Gravity's rainbow and Pale Fire. It's hard to compare something like House of Leaves with such epic classics, however. My admittedly bitchy comment was more or less targeted at the 5 or 6 reviews in which people just said "this book was boring and sucked and nothing happened." Its not a classic of epic proportions by any means but there are a lot of interesting theoretical things going on, especially if you're into Derrida or any post-structural psychoanalytic theorists. Hence my defense. Ca c'est tout.
One of the worst books in world history; a classic of pretentiousness. Oh, and I've read Hesse, Gide, Mann, Kafka and Lawrence, so don't talk to me about mindless bestsellers.
It is post-modernism there is no story it is about the ride.
I completely agree. I disliked every character except the house and when (SPOILER) it collapsed halfway through I just gave up. There are many books out there that are just "about the ride" - I'd recommend Murakami. But this book seemed to be all about the gimicky structure rather than substance. I found that to be true of his other book "Only Revolutions," of which I could only get through about 8 pages. If you can't write a compelling story without drawing people in with fancy looking pages, maybe you shouldn't be a writer. (It's why I'm not one.)
wow,such a shallow and pedestrian review .im sure you are both very deep thinkers.
I almost wonder if he wrote it to see if people would pretend that they "got it". People throw themselves into the art they see. If you're narcissistic enough, you can make a whole story out of a ramble of non-sequitors. In this case, a novel.
I realize I'm coming late to this thread but I completely agree with Lauren. I've often thought of what would happen if someone just went on an acid trip and wrote down their thoughts and feelings, and then went back later and sort of threaded a plot through it, and sold it as a book - would it become a bestseller? A cult classic? I mean the whole point of this book is experimentation, right, so what if it's been an experiment from the very beginning?
i'm about half way through this book and i'm so glad i'm not the only one who feels this way. i'll finish because i'm stubborn and like to finish things i start but it's becoming a chore. the book had so much promise but quickly became "look at all this cool stuff i can do with the pages" and johnny saying a bunch of garbage that is of no interest. i think if the story of the house had been written only as a novel is would be very good, because i actually like the story, it's weeding through all the other senseless garbage that is taxing. it seems like it's just a trendy read for trendy people or the kind of story for people who like to feel smart for "getting" something that really isn't there to be "got." that being said, so far, shakespeare says it best..."it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." i hope it gets better for my sake.
So... The dude didn't break into the old man's house. Sorry you are struggling to understand, but the reality is, if you think there's 2 story lines, you've got it wrong. If you think the primary story of this book is about a house, you're wrong. I can't help but think that people who gripe about it would like it more if the structure of it was more traditional... but I find it funny that people claim it "trendy" reading when it released over a decade ago. Danielewski has put out other stuff since.
Honestly I am a book addict, I love being lead astray and back around with plot twists and such. But this book really doesn't interest me in the slightest. I was told by friends that it was the most terrifying book they have ever read, that they had to take notes in the book and on paper, that it messed with their minds! I am so disappointed in it in general. I MIGHT finish it because I hate not finishing a book but I really don't feel enjoyment from reading it at all. :(
Perhaps I'm just not in the target demographic, but I had the same thought as Lauren partway through. "Is the experiment even more 'meta' than the adoring fans realize, and actually a joke on the readers who take it seriously?" In the spirit of the book, I could come up with numerous words to describe the experience of reading it. Perhaps even several hundred words, separated by commas, in little boxes, running up and down the page, or even just one word on each page... But I'll spare you.
Tedious.
I made my husband gave this book to me, as a gift, because all the good reviews about it, but, OMG, what a bunch of pretencious waste, I don't care about any of the characters, I don't even care about the house. I only feel sorry, because my hubby went to a lot of libraries searching this garbage.
I find it hilarious the contrasting views on this book which I have just started. That's modernism for you. However, as Kristen said, I don't believe a book of 'ideas' qualifies as a novel. By definition there should be "some" narrative. But I've only just begun.
About halfway through this book I wanted to stomp on my kindle. I trudged through the rest of it and it didn't get better. The footnotes were just as boring or more so than the actual book. I was so hyped up to read this book. The premise seems great then I read it and damn it just sucked. I saw a message board for this book and so many say it's great...I don't get it at all. I gave it two stars but as I'm writing this I wish I could give it negative two stars.
Nikki wrote: "wow,such a shallow and pedestrian review .im sure you are both very deep thinkers."THANK YOU!
Shallow because I dont like something you do?
Fifty pages in and you've expressed my feelings exactly. Can't decide whether to give it the benefit of the doubt, or chuck it.
Who is Daniel? I was under the impression the book was written by Mark…
If this book is about the psychology of love, interior spaces, and the personal myths we reenact, I would say it is about as successful as Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi is at writing about love. Which is to say, not very successful.
I agree with the point of view that it is a bit pretentious; I've read some pretentious books ( special topics in calamity physics , though not a horror novel , comes to mind ) that I actually like this one was just annoying and nothing scary really does happen. I was looking for a horror novel now The haunting of hill house is a super short to the point book where a few really frightening things actually happen ("who was holding my hand?" being one of them ) im rambling but there is a point , one scare , really good scare , to me is worth more than 600 pages of Blah blah .. Just sayin...
I agree with the point of view that it is a bit pretentious; I've read some pretentious books ( special topics in calamity physics , though not a horror novel , comes to mind ) that I actually like this one was just annoying and nothing scary really does happen. I was looking for a horror novel now The haunting of hill house is a super short to the point book where a few really frightening things actually happen ("who was holding my hand?" being one of them ) im rambling but there is a point , one scare , really good scare , to me is worth more than 600 pages of Blah blah .. Just sayin...
Oh god, I'm so happy I've found people who agree with me! This book is frigging TERRIBLE. So damn pretentious. They say it's style over substance, but frankly the style is just overblown. There's nothing there. I tried so hard to like it, but it's about as fun as reading a math textbook.
I don't think you are supposed to "get" this book, you are supposed to read it.
I don't think you are supposed to "get" this book, you are supposed to read it.
I have rarely not finished a book. Like many people, this book was given to me and I was told how "mind blowing" it was going to be. They should have said mind blowingly boring! I'm actually glad I did not waste the time to finish it. Call me shallow, but this book sucked.
I finally finished this book. Whoever called it tedious nailed it.
ZZZZZZZZ, so annoying, boring, full of itself. Did complete it, sidebars, footnotes, waste of time.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's a bad book...
What makes a book a "bad book". Terrible story...pretentious (oh, so very pretentious) layout, or as some have called it, style...annoying footnotes...One comment said something about "style over substance". Is that what you really want in a book? I think that's pretty much the definition of shallow and pretentious.
it's experimental fiction, not meant for everyone. if you're not the kind that likes to dwell in the realms of literature that pushes the boundaries of narrative fiction then this book is not suited for you. some people claim that this novel fits into the genre of post-modernist works which tend to follow this same pattern of writing.the author meant for this book to be a criticism (or satire) of academic writing, that's why some people find it boring. the structure of the words in the book itself is purposely arranged to parallel the descent into insanity. words are formed into art. that is experimental writing.
If I have to take notes and stress my way through a book that is supposed to be for leisure reading, it is not worth it. This book is like someone throwing several jars of paint at a canvas and declaring it is a masterpiece. But all due respect to those who actually understood and liked it.
I don't even need to write my own review because you've taken the words from my brain. I bought this because it's "the scariest...". It wasn't one bit scary. It was simply annoying and obnoxious.
Amen! I felt exactly the same way! You phrased it so well :) Can’t imagine what people like about this book??
Ditto to all these comments, I'm so glad it's not just me.
I this book is purely appreciation for the time the author put in. I didn’t find it spooky but I was just so impressed with the work. I love this book. It is one of my favourites.
Perfectly said. I am avid reader and this was definitely a bad book. I was so. Wry excited to read it but it went absolutely nowhere.
I’ve just started this book and I fear I’m having trouble getting into it.. it’s not pulling me in just yet. Do I need to read all the footnotes or can I just skip over? Lol
