House of omgwhyamIturningmybook Leaves.

[Jesse]

Only Revolutions isn't House of Leaves, it's still incredibly written and coded and played with, but it's an epic poem and if you're into that kind of stuff it will entirely blow you away. But if you go in expecting to read House of Leaves again then there's no point.

[Sir-Taco]

After finally some of my friends finished it, we agreed that its probably the only book that's just weird and harmless until you finish it, then you just don't go down dark hallways for a while. I really hope he releases something like House again, Only Rev. was good, but I want more Truant/Z/Navidson!

[Jesse]

You will never, ever get that. And it pleases me.

[Midnight]

I've gotten around to starting into House of Leaves, but the style of the book has prompted me to ask you fine people a question about it. Do you think it would be better to read it straight through, page by page, or to read the manuscript and its footnotes first, then go back for Truant's story?

Also, has anyone read Only Revolutions? If so, how is that?

it's a book. it's meant to be read straight through, page by page. everything on each page, in sequence. it all hangs together better that way.

[Rowadanr]

I just finished this... And as I noticed from the end of my last session of reading it, that book is an f'ing state of mind. I find it quite hard to describe how I feel after finally closing it. I wouldn't describe the book as horror at all, even if the house is intensely creepy, it's just... It. An experience. When I closed the book and went to make tea, everything in my house looked somehow different. I've been paying more attention even than I usually do to relative scale and the exact shape of things, the way they're placed relative to me. "Things". "Placed". For the first time since I reinvented myself nouns have seemed to have real meaning, as opposed to just convenience labels. Things seem to be things. I've tried meshing this sharpness with my 'usual' worldveiw and found an interesting contrast, which tells me more about the two concepts than they do on their own.
My mood after putting it down is... clear. Sharp. something like contentment spliced with focus. Happy, but not in any way as messy as my normal ecstatic state. There's so much to think about couched inside those pages.

Interesing... but I'm drifting.

I generally recommend this book to anyone, especially other self-styled philosophers. It's both beautiful in itself and a useful seed for something greater.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I'm probably going to reread it this summer, might want to snag a copy of Introducing Semiotics while I'm at it, for reading comprehension. I saw the house as being sort of a psychoanalytic take on the Norse/Celtic/Hungarian/Vedic/probably a bunch of other cultures as well "world tree" myth that reflects the inner, as opposed to the outer, universe of everyone in it, sort of a "collective unconscious" if you will.
I had a bunch of other theories, but I haven't read them in so long that I kind of forgot them...
I love how easy it is to create blue and red text on these forums... House of Leaves was the first thing it made me think of, too.

[Woopate]

Mmmm. This sounds like a gorgeous book for me to pick up for these late night shifts at my closed mall, with all of it's dark dusty twisting service basement coorridors, many of which are sealed up resulting in bizarre things like staircases to nowhere and patches of drywall exactly the size of a door, with no possible route to what's on the other side. This book sounds like it'll be a very delicious read for work.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

You just made me envy your job.

[Woopate]

I know. One day I'm gonna bring a crowbar and open up some of the trap doors and take a look around.

[Ivor Zozz]

One of my favorite books. I haven't read anything else quite like it.

[Bassoon]

I'm rereading it a second time, and I've already picked up on some things that I missed last time. This is so exciting!

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I'm rereading it for the first time, and this time really geeking out with all the linguistics/semiotics.
It's fun¹.


FOOTNOTES
1. Though it does make me cautious of my very house, and drive me closer to madness.

[Asleep or Wrong]

I got it a few weeks ago but I want to read everything else ever written as introductory material before it. I know people coming in with less than me still get a lot out of it but I can't shake the ridiculous idea. It's like raising a child or something.

edit: can anyone give a shorter list of recommened reading/watching/experiencing?

[Jesse]

Read Labyrinths by Borges. It's a great collection of short stories and one of the main inspirations for House of Leaves.

[ian]

I just started reading this, 60 pages odd in. It is night time here (or was, now early morning). My bedroom is at the end of a dark narrow hallway with no windows and doors at each end. FUCK EVERYTHING.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

FUCK EVERYTHING.

That reminded me of Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet.

Also, when the minotaur of typography comes to devour all your children, know that it has been House: Blue Text.

[Woopate]

Found myself a copy of the book (took some bookhunting fu, apparently not that easy to find up here in Calgary, Alberta.). I liked it instantly when I opened it and the front page was a collage that included a sheet of paper listing helicopter signal shapes that I'd been trained in years before. Then I turn a few more pages and am confronted by "This is not for you." Which immediately made me laugh out loud. I'd deliberately read what little of this thread I did very quickly and vaguely, so that I understood the book to be about a house that suffer from TARDIS syndrome and little else. When I discovered it was a review of a non-existant movie written by a blind dead guy and edited by some dude who found it, and then further edited by "the Editors", I was hooked. Then I realized I had just read a 4-page long footnote without realizing it, and laughed out loud again. Thus far: This book I like.

[clpm]

Just finished it. There are a couple of things that I didn't quite get and couldn't find any info online:

Spoiler:

One, the Pelican Poems were written in 1988 (and 1990), when Johnny was 16 or so. They're fairly well written, if a bit confusing/ed. House of Leaves seems to have been edited around 1998. So how come, in the early footnotes, Johnny's vocabulary seems smaller and he still makes very basic mistakes such as writing "should of" instead of "should have"? Did I miss something?

Two, the word "House" isn't in blue in the Credits (p. 708). After seeing it colored for the entire book, this really creeped me out. Is this just an oversight, or does it have some meaning?

[Jesse]

Mark Z. Danielewski has claimed that there are no mistakes in the book. If it is there, it's there for a reason.

[djkjr]

This is the only book that has ever sent shivers down my spine. The only one that scared me to the point where I had to close it. The only one that made me turn the lights on.

I've read the beginning a hand full of times, but only the entire thing once. I think I was more focused on finishing it and being able to say that I completed it than actually enjoying it from front to back. (side to side, upside down, this way and that) House is truly an undertaking that I'm glad I managed. I can't wait to go back to it though and read it more slowly.

Honestly, I can't even think of what to say about it anymore. There was just so much to it that trying to place my finger on a moment or an event is dizzying.

Has anyone else heard that the book was originally an alternate reality game? That it began on a website and the pieces of it were given out slowly. The footnotes in the book were references to actual things that, if you were to go and take the time to find them, meant something pertinent to the story.

There are hidden messages in the book. The long list of names. There's a message there. I got really into the research of the book for a little while, but again just became so dizzy by it that it was like trying to look at the entire world for what it was. Too many cogs...

Anyway else have this difficulty or experience these things? Or know about the book at the same capacity that I do, if not more?

[GhostWolfe]

I am fail at being intellectual. This book really disappointed me. I wanted to be scared, I tried to be scared, but I found the book so boring that it was such an effort to get through. Now I am sad, cause I think I'm too dumb to appreciate it.

But I think that the book is about obsession. I've been watching this thread on and off and it gets inside people. Navidson was obsessed with the house, the narrator was obsessed with the film of the house, and the readers become obsessed with the essay of the film.

/angell

[djkjr]

...and the readers become obsessed with the essay of the film.

I like that, a lot. I've never found anyone who has read it who hasn't obsessed with it or otherwise just put it aside to forget about it. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. Now I really want to read it again! lol

"This is not for you."

[Jave D]

I just finished reading. Here's some thoughts I'll spoilerize just in case.

Spoiler:

Zampano's blindness and the consuming blackness of the house. Was he born blind, or did he become that way? For that matter, much like Perafina's (and Johnny's) declining states of mental health. The horror of every day, your mind and health deteriorating while you are helpless to stop it. Dwindling sanity, dwindling ability to self control, dwindling ability to cease drugs or halt an obsession...

Spoiler:

House of Leaves. A book houses leafs of paper. This is a book whose title is a metaphor for a book. Much like "The Bible," whose name you imagine carries some secret, hidden One Meaning - until you remember it just means 'book.'

I like it, but my mind remains unblown. I've got more infinite darks between the covers of my own house to cope with.

[djkjr]

I just finished reading. Here's some thoughts I'll spoilerize just in case.

Spoiler:

Zampano's blindness and the consuming blackness of the house. Was he born blind, or did he become that way? For that matter, much like Perafina's (and Johnny's) declining states of mental health. The horror of every day, your mind and health deteriorating while you are helpless to stop it. Dwindling sanity, dwindling ability to self control, dwindling ability to cease drugs or halt an obsession...

Spoiler:

It is presumed that he was not born blind. Most especially evident to that claim is the fact that he wrote "The Navidson Record" after having watched the footage. How could he have written that if he was blind? Zampano went into great detail about the footage in his records. I think it's safe to assume he had his sight. Perhaps the knowledge of the House blinded him?

Spoiler:

House of Leaves. A book houses leafs of paper. This is a book whose title is a metaphor for a book. Much like "The Bible," whose name you imagine carries some secret, hidden One Meaning - until you remember it just means 'book.'

I like it, but my mind remains unblown. I've got more infinite darks between the covers of my own house to cope with.

What you're saying here is basicly the purpose of the book, in a way. The book is a puzzle. The only difference with this puzzle compared to conventional ones is that most people will feel a different way about it. I really enjoyed the book, perhaps just because it was so daringly different. It's the only book I know of that too the medium of literature and transformed it into something new and exciting. The story there, there's just so much history in it. A lot of that history, is true. (at one capacity or another)

[Coyote_Truant]

I first read HoL many years ago when it was first released. This summer, mostly on a whim, I picked it up again. The experience of rereading the book was both surreal and wonderful - I felt almost as if I had never read it at all, that's how little I remembered (aside from the mood.)

I shamelessly revive this old topic, as discussion is something I want. This book eats away at you as eagerly as the wyrms eat away at the roots of Yggrdrasil.

Firstly, P/Z/J?

Spoiler:

There was a lot of interesting discussion regarding the actual writer of the book. It's been mentioned earlier in this thread that Johnny may not exist. While I don't have a copy of HoL or Whalestoe Letters with me to cite the sources for such, I do find the notion of the Pekinese narrative supporting this interesting.

On the HoL forums they have discussed the idea of Johnny as an invention of Zampano and Pelafina - a way for them to cover up an affair or something similar. This notion is supported, in a sense, by the choice of using the Courier font for Johnny's writing, the encoded messages to Zampano, and the overall use of the house as a metaphor for the attempts of the male to understand the female.

Ideas? Discussion?

Secondly, the Minotaur:

Spoiler:

Although there is ample discussion about Johnny/Zampano as Minotaur/Minos respectively I've found discussion regarding the beast as corporeal (as the claw marks suggest) strictly lacking. Have any of you considered that take on it?

I hope this begins some renewed discussion.

Slán leat!

[djkjr]

@ Coyote_Truant :

Spoiler:

I've never considered the idea of the house to be a metaphor of men understanding women. I really want to go back and read it again with that in mind and see how I feel about it. It's in storage right now, I'll be getting it out in about 20 days and I hope that it'll shed an interesting perspective on my perception of the book.
I also had never considered that Truant (Hey! That's you! lol) may have never existed. There seems to be such a parallel to him and the Navidson Record that I guess I just took it for what it was. I suppose though that is not the intention of the entire book and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that I was tricked into believing something that wasn't true. Mr. Danielewski is a tricky SOB.

[dbsmith]

Bought it, will read it this summer.

[minkis]

I've gotten around to starting into House of Leaves, but the style of the book has prompted me to ask you fine people a question about it. Do you think it would be better to read it straight through, page by page, or to read the manuscript and its footnotes first, then go back for Truant's story?

Also, has anyone read Only Revolutions? If so, how is that?

it's a book. it's meant to be read straight through, page by page. everything on each page, in sequence. it all hangs together better that way.

In my opinion, you should read it through, and as you come onto footnotes, read them.

[Izawwlgood]

I recently ordered a copy of this book from amazon with the hopes of rereading it.

When it arrived, I was overjoyed to discover it was in fact a used copy (as I prefer most books to be), the spine showing mild signs of wear, and the corners a bit blunted. I lifted the book and rifled through it, and a couple post-it's buried within the pages caught my eye, so I flicked back and examined them.

Some were mine. I remember writing them and slapping them in the second time I read through, about 4 years ago. There were more, a dozen or so, and more margin notes, notes on my notes, and a few crossed out and rewritten by a strangers hand. I was pleased to see people had added to the seal I had doodled near the front, expanding and elaborating on the vain attempt to keep the Bad at bay.

And most frightening of all, written in deep blue in the back cover, a url linking to a .gif. I don't have the courage to see what it's to.

Spoiler:

Just kidding. I did reorder the book, was dismayed to get a shiny new copy. I want my old copy, with the post-it's and liner notes from various peoples. Lost during college. Oh well. Totally think about this happening every time I pick up someone else's copy though.

[pseudoidiot]

I recently ordered a copy of this book from amazon with the hopes of rereading it.

When it arrived, I was overjoyed to discover it was in fact a used copy (as I prefer most books to be), the spine showing mild signs of wear, and the corners a bit blunted. I lifted the book and rifled through it, and a couple post-it's buried within the pages caught my eye, so I flicked back and examined them.

Some were mine. I remember writing them and slapping them in the second time I read through, about 4 years ago. There were more, a dozen or so, and more margin notes, notes on my notes, and a few crossed out and rewritten by a strangers hand. I was pleased to see people had added to the seal I had doodled near the front, expanding and elaborating on the vain attempt to keep the Bad at bay.

And most frightening of all, written in deep blue in the back cover, a url linking to a .gif. I don't have the courage to see what it's to.

Spoiler:

Just kidding. I did reorder the book, was dismayed to get a shiny new copy. I want my old copy, with the post-it's and liner notes from various peoples. Lost during college. Oh well. Totally think about this happening every time I pick up someone else's copy though.

Spoiler:

Goddammit, I was really hoping for a gif URL under that spoiler.

[McCaber]

My girlfriend just received this book in the mail. It was ordered via an online seller under her name, only she has no account with that store and was not charged for it.

If any book deserves that method of acquiring it, it's House of Leaves.

[Jorpho]

I'm about halfway through this at the moment, at the point where it starts getting kind of weird, though casual flipping reveals it's not yet at the point where it starts getting really weird.

I'm trying to avoid spoilers so I haven't looked over this thread yet, but I just felt compelled to state that I kind of hope it turns out that Truant is some ugly loser who has but hardly known the touch of a woman, and who draws like Napoleon Dynamite. (Heck, I think it might be an entertaining Youtube project to take clips from Napoleon Dynamite and overdub them with a dramatic reading of some of Truant's monologuing.)

[Jorpho]

Welp, all finished. Mostly. Still got the Letters to go through. (I probably should have skipped the spoilers for those, but I doubt I would have caught "Who have you lost, dear Zampano?" or whatever it is on my own.)

If nothing else, I've got to say that it's an impressive work, I doubt it was any kind of small effort to produce it, and it seems unlikely that I'll come across something like it ever again.

If anything, it reminds me of the process of writing in itself. It brought back memories of writing my thesis and of writing English and Humanities papers long, long ago - the desperate, obsessive hammering through sources and compiling of references, trying each day to drive closer and closer to some kind of deeper meaning. The idea of the book as a "satire of academic criticism" makes sense to me that way.

One thing I'm a little surprised no one has commented on: there's this one bit where Tom is unambiguously referred to as me. ZOMG Tom is Zampano! Or not.

If a movie is ever made, it shall probably have to be released with an audio track and some sort of regular book alongside it, all meant to be used simultaneously.

[Jorpho]

Huh. Guess I missed the boat on this one.

I just wanted to add that this is vaguely amusing, if you've read the book:
http://www.freewebs.com/torchingleaves/Leaves01.htm

[no-genius]

One thing I'm a little surprised no one has commented on: there's this one bit where Tom is unambiguously referred to as me. ZOMG Tom is Zampano! Or not.

I noticed, but it just makes it even more confusing really. I was thinking that maybe when

Spoiler:

Tom got nomm-ed by the house, he'd somehow ended up in a different universe, where TNR is fictional, and maybe became Zampano? Doesn't really make much sense.

[lu6cifer]

Actually, I think the character of Zampano is based on

Spoiler:

Jorge Luis Borges, an Argentinian author who also wrote about labyrinths and dreams and things within things and whatnot. Plus the fact that Borges apparently loved a woman named Beatriz (Like Zampano), and Borges was also nearing blindness in his old age, and Zampano at some point says he's been blind for the last two decades. Borges was also a reclusive kind of guy. Finally, if Zampano "is" Borges, then it would totally make sense that Zampano would write a film review of a film that does not exist at all, because that's exactly the sort of thing Borges did.

[no-genius]

Did I post in here about how the description of how the house is now

Spoiler:

(boarded up and with a fence around it) is pretty much exactly what the whalestoe(whose tale?) institute looks like when Johnny goes to visit it

[Proginoskes]

that has a tendency to of will, ornithopters race klaxons' lightning, infinite kamikaze evermore--this heinous inscrutable style.

Let's take the first letters of each of those words ...

"that to work like this"

***

Anywho ...

I guess I wasn't as impressed by the book as everyone else on the planet. Having read Lovecraft and The Illuminatus! Trilogy beforehand probably spoiled it for me.

[Jesse]

Not really, considering I studied Lovecraft and read Illuminatus! and it just allowed me to enjoy this more. It's fine if you didn't 'get it' or whatever, but I doubt your prior knowledge of those works was the cause.

[Proginoskes]

Not really, considering I studied Lovecraft and read Illuminatus! and it just allowed me to enjoy this more. It's fine if you didn't 'get it' or whatever, but I doubt your prior knowledge of those works was the cause.

It wasn't so much the knowledge, but just having read some mindfucking books beforehand probably deadened some of the shocks that other people got.