Weird Fiction discussion

I created this topic for our discussion of House of Leaves. This book is a modern day classic in the genres of Weird Fiction, Horror, and as one member previously indicated perhaps Postmodernism as well. This means many members here have already engorfed it, the result being they love it or hate it. Not many people who have experienced the reading of this novel come away with difficulty making up their minds to which camp they belong.

I have never read it though I have heard about it, mostly from brief mentions in the Literary Horror group, few of which were positive. Undaunted, I realize we here in the Weird group probably have greater tolerance for innovation and non-linear narrative than is found in other groups. I predict this book will thrill most of us. That's why I nominated it. That and I'm trying to read more classics of our genre this year. Our first year as a group stretched into a lot of border area books, I felt. There's nothing wrong with that. We might get back to doing that. I just thought we should have some classics on our bookshelf so passersby realize we truly are Weird.

So why are we reading two books over a two month period this time? We've never done that before. Well, I sort of felt this book had the best chance of winning, and it's really long. Some of us, maybe including me, will need both months to do it justice. But all the three other books were really good choices too. Since many have already read this book, and some of those who haven't are determined not to read it, believing the textual tricks the author engages in are too gimmicky for them perhaps. I wanted to give these members another choice for reading so that they would not have to sit out a month. I realize, then, some of us will only be reading one of the winners. However, I hope most will do as I plan to and read both. I am starting with this book and hoping I will have time to get to the other book when I finish this one. This one is quite the doorstop, and may require all of the two months, so I make no promises other than to try to read the interesting collection of short stories that comprises the other selection I placed my tie-breaking vote upon at the last minute.

I can't wait to read here in this topic what we make of this book. Please remember to be polite and use spoiler tags if you're giving away important plot points, especially in July. Let's read!

OK, I got a decent printed edition at our library (if you are still thinking of buying - be sure to get the edition with full color and everything) and started. It is a long book and will take me a while.
I read the introduction and the first 10 pages of Zampano's story.

*Thoroughly* loving it so far (granted, it is before all the weird pages) . It is extremely well and cleverly written. It is actually a bit scary. It piles dread on bit by bit, while practically not being cheesy.

The King in Yellow, the Evil Dead and many others already taught us - if you ever find a wicked looking book in a strange place, do not read it. Do not even pick it up. Somehow, that admonition went past the man, who found it and published it. His life will never be the same. Now - our turn. (No spoiler alert on this, since this is what you read in the very beginning of the book; if you think I should anyhow - let me know).

My copy arrived June 30. I am attempting to find the courage to read best the covers blurbs and into the text. Congrats on making your start Zina.

OMG
just occurred to me
So I teach Statistics, among other things.
What does reading a good Statistics textbook do to you?
Well. Actually - the same thing the dread item in the House of Leaves does! (At least, judging by the first 10 pages). You will never again be sure of your world! Statistics Textbooks are an incarnation of an Evil Spirit Book!
No wonder I like weird fiction.
I am a priestess of the Nameless, even if all my formulas depend on the Euclideanness of space.

Zina wrote: "OK, I got a decent printed edition at our library (if you are still thinking of buying - be sure to get the edition with full color and everything) and started. It is a long book and will take me a..."

Oh, don't even hesitate, it is great! Don't look past all the dutifully added citations footnotes too! For example, At some point, Navidson's fashion-model wife is standing with a look of love and concern, and a footnote is "100 Looks", Glamour magazine. I love this sort of little play. The model wife is standing there with one of the looks from Glamour magazine on her face. Or, in the text, "To quote Rilke, "Wer?" and the footnote says "Neatly translated as "Who", which I find in this poem..." - well, since German exact word for "Who" is "Wer", this whole discourse around it adds a whole bunch of delightful layers, from getting us to think about Orpheus and trips to Hades - to making light of critical theoreticians. My German is not that great [yet!] I am sure there's more amusement in the quotes from Heidegger and others.

Navidson is an interesting name. In my mind, it sounds to me like Christmason - a weird concatenation of a Jewish name and Christmas; but there is also a farsi word navid that means best wishes.

Also, my brain did a weird little hiccup: (view spoiler)[ When Karen told Navidson that the heater was on the fritz, I was SURE that there was a similar dialogue between Molly and Leopold Bloom. Checked it; no there was not. (hide spoiler)] I guess my brain really wanted to make the connection to Joyce's Ulysses one way or another.

Look, look. Don't do anything vital while you're reading this book. "But why?" you might ask, and I wouldn't hear you, because I'm in Texas and y'all are wherever y'all are. So I'm going to pretend I heard you and post something from my review here on Goodreads. Okay? Here starteth the review, with a very light spoiler:

Alright. There have been a lot of really good, really thorough reviews here about why people loved it or hated it or couldn't finish it or threw it at their friends, permanently scarring them.

So, instead, I'll tell you about my reading of the book. Not even the first reading, but the fourth. That's how good this book is, and how dense, that I felt alright to read it a fourth time, in case I missed anything.

I re-read House of Leaves while on an offshore drilling rig, being towed from the Gulf of Mexico to Brazil. My crew's stop to get off was Trinidad, and the tow was supposed to take five weeks. (I think it was five weeks... it's been over two years, now.)

(NOTE: It's been eleven years now, and my memories are no better.)

As the rig tow progressed, we all kept track of how fast were going, our projected arrival date, storm conditions, et cetera. And I was reading this book, this goddamn book. The rig I'm on is a big one, and we don't go very fast. I think the top speed we hit was four knots. And as the currents pushed against us, our speed dropped off, slowly, a little bit at a time.

I was reading this book.

Right around the time, early on, when I was describing to someone else on the rig what the book was about, I'd just gotten to "...and then the house was bigger on the inside," they interrupted me to say: "Well, that's peculiar. It's like us."

What?

"Well, we're going slower, but they keep moving our date closer. They keep saying we should arrive early."

What?!

"Go see for yourself."

So I did. I went to the plot and checked our speed, and looked at the emails with our arrival date, and I knew right then, right fucking then, I had to finish this book, or we'd end up dead in the water but somehow at Trinidad. And I didn't want to be responsible for the mindfuck of everybody on board, so I tore through the rest of the book.

I haven't picked it up since.

I'm just posting to +1 Thom and Zina and Dan's comments. It's so interesting to hear what people think of the book.

I read it recently (maybe 2 years ago now? Pandemic time is both smaller and bigger on the inside), and don't have the heart to read it again yet.

The book fascinated and compelled and frustrated me. It definitely sticks with you afterward.

I read weird fiction hoping for wonderment. House of Leaves instilled boredom for me.

I don't think it has to do with the post modernism of the novel. I think I'm more accepting of "experimental" fiction than the average reader.

I'm glad that others are getting more out of the book.

"I understood that reference" - is a thread I'd like to start here. Everybody, if you see some other work referenced in the House of Leaves that deserves mentioning - add it. I just spied with my little eye "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" by Jorge Luis Borges, a super fun story about a guy who wrote Don Quixote. Out of his own head. Incidentally, word for word, it coincided with the Don Quixote by Cervantes. In many ways, the House of leaves actually reminds of that story, with all the references and careful exploration of another's work and all. http://hispanlit.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu...

What is it doing in the context here? Is it just an additional evidence of the thoroughness with which Zampano approached his research? Or simply a playful homage?

I take the reference to Borges in House of Leaves as an irrelevant detail. A weakness of post modern novels is that it has stuff that is irrelevant to the story. Post modern novelists should heed William Faulkner: kill your darlings.
Also, Mark Danielewski is not fit to stand in Borges’ shadow.

I've begun my reading of House of Leaves and like what I've read so far, which is only a few pages past Johnny Truant's opening prologue. The "catch that reference" game sounds like a fun idea, Zina. I'm in!

We get that you didn't appreciate the work, Ronald. You have posted to that effect a few times. You're in a distinct minority, however. Mark Z. Danielewski is an impressive, award winning writer for this (and other) books. It took him the entire 1990s to write it. Stephen King, for example, is on record referring to House of Leaves as "the Moby Dick of horror." Does that make Danielewski Melville?

So back to Pierre Menard: the reference along with the two quotes about history and reality, one echoing the other, popped up in a footnote rounding up the conversation about the Echo as obtaining its own meaning and significance. It fits the narrative perfectly there. (In its own turn, the conversation about the Echo is important to set up the scenes with the house)

Unrelatedly, the little verse on p. 86 "aber da, in diesem schwarzen Felle wird dein stärkstes Schauen aufgelöst" which is left with no translation, means "but there, in this black fur, your strongest vision is dissolved". The quote fits the narrative, even though I am left wondering if we were supposed to know that.

Also, I Googled up the list of names in footnote 75 on p. 64. This presentation came up: https://occultclassics.files.wordpres...
Apparently, if one were to write out the first letters of each last name, amidst meaningless bits there'd be ALONGLIST[o]FVISI[o]NARIES ...
SHESAIDMEMORIESMEANALLBUTTHEYAREALLDEADWHOYOU....
IWAITNOWFORONLYTHEWIND

That Rilke quote about black fur is from a poem "Black Cat." http://www.paularcher.net/translation...
The idea of being lost in a completely black void and suddenly being trapped with certain menace is quite befitting the mood of these pages as they early-explore the house

So - was Navidson completely made up by Zampano along with his movie and all?

Up to p. 522. This is a remarkable book. I can't believe I didn't know about it. I have a truckload of things to do, and it annoys the heck out of me because at this moment, all I want to do is to continue reading the book. I think I rather dislike the crazed junkie Truant, and still I HATE to put down the book documenting - partly- his navigation of his own house labyrinth in his mind. And there's more Navidson story coming up too!
Freaking Truant. What's up with him free inserting German phrases into his diaries when before he needed Kyrie every time he saw one in Zampano's writings?

On a separate note that whole Labyrinth thing makes me think of the later books in the Princes of Amber series, that whole crazy Dworkin's brain labyrinth.
'
I hate to have to put this book down.

Glad you are enjoying it, Zina. Your experience is making me look forward to when I can clear my schedule enough to do the book justice when I can devote time to it.

Zina wrote: "It's shorter than the declared 710 pages. Or rather, it has less text than full 710 pages. That's how I got to 522 so fast. There are dozens of pages that contain only a small amount of text. Its regular pages are dense and it takes me an hour to slightly more than 20 pages. After all these years, my English reading speed is still low."

Sorry for accidentally deleting your post, which I have now found and placed above in quotes.

It's good to know the number of pages does not correspond to the amount of text to read. Makes the idea of really starting to go into it less daunting.

‘Zina So - was Navidson completely made up by Zampano along with his movie and all?‘

I think we’re dealing with an unreliable narrator. It’s an aspect of the novel I didn’t mind. An unreliable narrator can be an effective technique in horror fiction, the more I think about it.

Dan wrote: "Glad you are enjoying it, Zina. Your experience is making me look forward to when I can clear my schedule enough to do the book justice when I can devote time to it." No biggie! Unfortunately, I don't think I can restore what I wrote. It was quite late at night and my own mind started labyrinthing :)

If I remember, I will post!

At least, you got the most important practical thing - that it is less reading that it looks.

Dan wrote: "Zina wrote: "It's shorter than the declared 710 pages. Or rather, it has less text than full 710 pages. That's how I got to 522 so fast. There are dozens of pages that contain only a small amount o..."
*Two*! Two unreliable narrators! Truant is making sense of the notes he found (in quite a disarray, too!) that Zampano wrote. There is an interesting and pretty horrific implication in how their stories diverge - and that is, whatever horror the house inflicts on every person who touches its story - the effects are deeply personal, unpredictable and unforeseen.

Back to narrators - so there *might* -*might* - be another narrator, really (view spoiler)[ So, Pelafina. Some folks argue that she is as or more likely to have written all that than Zampano did. Some folks claim that each one of the three might have made the other two up. (hide spoiler)]

I am super grateful to whoever suggested this awesome book. I want more books like this one. Any suggestions welcome.

Zina wrote: "Any suggestions welcome."

The nearest thing I can think of is Nabokov's Pale Fire.

I am still working on this novel, reading a part, and rereading another part to try to make sense of it. It took me almost a year to make my way through Perdido Street Station, though I was sure glad I read it when I finally finished it. Looks like this might be another one of those books for me.