Glad I'm not alone. Funny story about House of Leaves if you have the time to read it: I was in a modern literature class in university, and HoL was the book of discussion for like two weeks, meaning I had to pay for a copy as a textbook... But I didn't do that. A friend of mine had told me about it and showed me excerpts before, so I knew I'd loathe the waste of paper. It reeked of pretentiousness. So I mooched off a classmate's copy, reading just enough and picking out enough key phrases to squeak by in our discussions. However, it then came time to write a paper on HoL. The professor told us to connect some referenced imagery or allusion within the book to classical mythology, and how that allusion elevates the text. The example she gave, that she was happy for people to use, was that of the Minotaur in the Labyrinth. Sure, whatever, some pages were set up like a labyrinth. Easy enough. But for some reason, I got it in my head that if I were to follow that prompt, it would be obvious I didn't read the fucking thing. So I went and made it harder on myself. I flipped through my classmate's copy, looking for some other reference to myths or legends, and then I turned to one of the last pages, and there it was: Yggdrasil. In high school I was a big Mighty Thor fan and became obsessed with Norse Myth, so I had a lot of experience with Yggdrasil. I asked the professor if that could be my reference point, and she gave me the go-ahead, seemingly doubting that I could find enough to work with. Constructing the essay was pretty easy though. Just had to find the page that mentions Yggdrasil, and a few studies on old Icelandic that teased out the meaning of the word. One convenient point was that the titular House was situated on "Ash Tree Lane," and what is Yggdrasil traditionally described as? An ash tree, of course. So I wrote nearly twenty pages of bloated, speculative nonsense about how Odin hanged himself from the World Tree to gain knowledge and how that connects to the Navidson record or whatever. All total bullshit. I probably only read about a page worth of material from HoL. And I got a 98% on that paper. The next year I found out she showed it to that semester's class as an excellent example of what she wanted from the assignment. And I never even bought the fucking thing.
I don't know where you came from, but I am glad you were in my feed today. You are hilarious. "Pickled in Pretentiousness" will be my next phrase to share at the office.
I want to start off by stating: I 100% get your point of view. I'm not trying to dismiss your arguments. I think your review has a good level of quality in it of itself. Everything you said is valid. But I would like to give you my - vastly different - experience with this book: I bought it because I was intrigued by the same aspects of it as you. Here's perhaps the only thing we have in common. Read the entire thing without giving it much though in 2 weeks. Didn't think about it for 2 months. (weirdly enough, the book mentions almost this exact approach to be expected from the average reader) Remembered the book, browsed it again, then things became absolutely wild, and for the next 6 months I caught myself thinking about this book and studying as many aspects of it as I could. Not in an obsessive way, mind you (I will elaborate below) but the experience is something that showed me this book is not just a good book, it's - i am subjective, of course - an incredibly complex literary work. Masterpiece? I don't like using that word, but it's a piece I hold to very high regard. Point 1: I do not get the weird cult around this book. I am saying this now just to make sure we're all on the same page. The 'underground' 'cool' 'secret' community that acts as though they opened the gates to some other dimension through this book is very weird to me. But I guess it's just another layer under which this book hides what it's actually trying to do. Point 2: Here's the absolutely impressive narrative exercise that this book pulls off: This is a weird manuscript written in the form of an academic paper, referencing real articles and people talking about a documentary that never actually existed about a house that is bigger on the inside than on the outside, written by a blind man over the span of 40 years, found and compiled by a tattoo artist with a shitty personality (which POV is entirely questionable), that it then picked up by a weirdly anonymous editorial that also adds to the footnotes of the book (for some reason) and which uses the name of the real-life author to publish it, so that the book eventually end up in our hands. If this is not insane, remember this barely, BARELY scratches the surface. The fact that the author can switch narratives so easily from academic (original author) to barely coherent (Johnny) to the plethora of other contributors to this book is impressive in its own right. Point 3: Johnny sucks. 100% agreed. Actually, if you get to the end of his contribution to the book, you will end up hating him even more than you did in this video. But that is also the point. You see, Johnny is a compulsive liar, he hides behind his intention of picking up this fascinating story in order to simply push forward his own shitty stories (which I guess he finds cool). But - due to a lot of reasons I won't get into - he cannot be trusted with anything. We don't know if his tragedies we're supposed to empathize with are real, we don't know if his stories about strippers and drugs and parties are real, we don't even actually know if the now dead blind man that compiled the original document is real. The way in which this crappy narrator subverts everything in this book is brilliant in its own right. Point 4: The most fascinating thing about this book is the fact that the structure of the book is itself a representation of the house mentioned in the documentary. It's a labyrinth in the layout of the pages, in the narrative structures, stories from the documentary echo Johnny's stories (real or not), and the comparisons are accentuated by the original author. It would take another book for me to give you even a few examples, but once you start studying it, it turns your stomach upside down. It did for me. Point 5: With the above in mind - and I know this sounds pretentious as shit - everything in this book is, from the words, the frustrating structure, the shitty parts that are actually not enjoyable to read (because yes, there are a lot of those), is intentional. They're all pieces of a huge, huge puzzle that does not answer a single question. TLDR: Do I recommend this book? Not at all. Is it a masterpiece? Is it post-modern ergodic literature with no actual purpose? Is there an actual story behind all the layers? Is this book just making fun of academia? Is it deep? I don't have the answers. I don't think the book does either. But for me, this book changed the way I look at art. Art isn't always made to be enjoyable.Sometimes it's hard to stomach. Sometimes it's dangerous, sometimes it's subversive, sometimes it's meaningless. I guess the only way to reach a point in which you can say this book was at least worth your time is the moment you realize the Navidson Record (the only thing in this book that everyone almost unanimously agrees is fake) is perhaps the truest part of the whole damn thing. Especially the thing that it points towards: something (in fiction and the real world all the same) is terribly wrong. That's when the real horror creeps in, and it gets under your skin when you start seeing glimpses of that wrongness with the corners of your eyes. - wrote that so I can end on a pretentious note, because I am a pretentious fuck. Not part of the weird fucking cult surrounding this book, as I said. Lol. It's just a book at the end of the day, not some sort of second Bible. If you read all this, you're deranged. And cheers!
Read some of your points. I got the book. Tbh Johnny's introduction was intriguing, so as the first article. But whenever I pick up the book I feel like having read it and the talk surrounding the book is actually far more interesting than reading House of Leaves as of right here, right now. Which makes me feel like it's a waste for me. There is an itchio game that is times and times shorter and has just strong punch with the same theme of a paranormal house. It's called ANATOMY by Kitty Horrorshow. I really suggest playing or watching an LP, it doesn't take long and will likely unlock a new fear.
I've been inspired to get the book from outside sources. I wanted to study it anyways, I don't mind spoiling it here and there. The positive reviews are a little monotonous, so I look at the negative ones. Okay... ultra pretentious. That does kill it for me. I do get your point, you've dedicated a lot of time into trying to believe parts of the story, yet people on the outside have shined a light on how everything in the book is potentially false. I've had that level of a trapdoor fall beneath me, making me more paranoid of myself and others. It feels like I am weaker, but no, I am stronger because I can now identify the meaning of words better, the way they're said. This trapdoor cannot fall from beneath me in the same way again.
As the book begins: this is not for you, especially when you review something you have not finished. Loved this book, and the brilliance of the book. A lot of people miss the nuance to it, but that’s plus of opinions.
I thoroughly enjoy this book but the edgy, pretentious crowd that I found it through detract from it. I never thought it was incredibly deep or mindbending in any way but I did think it was an original idea and engaging in a way that no other book has ever been. Not saying that validates it at all but everyone who talks about this book acts like it’s an ancient manuscript with the secrets of life in its words if you can decipher them. It’s obnoxious. I think this is a fair review. I suggest you finish it honestly.
I loved the book. Not because the story is anything out of this world, but I found the approach very interesting. I think it fits a lot with how conspiracy theories are prevalent these days and imagining a world where something like the Navidson records would surface. I also liked the multi layered stories and how they are layered. I liked the academic part and how the problem of the house was approached in the book. I also liked the ''non-linear'' approach where you have to go a bit back and forth to know what you are reading, but i might come from my love from the ''books where you are the hero'' I used to read when I was young. All that being said, I have never really been exposed to the pretentious crowd that is being talked about as I found this book from a Doom 2 Map called myhouse.wad that was released about a year ago lol
@@TheLoucMthe crowd that he talks about in this video. I read this book in 2005 and was hanging around places described in this video where ridiculous people acted like it was some rebellious thing to read this book. I bought it at Borders lol. I think I liked it because it mirrored some of my life at the time as well I always have a thing for strange fiction like this.
I found it quite readable, including physically. Then again, I practiced reading by reading the labels on LPs. While the records were playing. I’m probably not a good reference point.
And i think that's what's charming about the book. It takes boring mundane stuff from real life and turns it into art and fantasy. Art is supposed to be pretentious and playful, we have kind of forgotten about it which is sad. It shouldn't always be down to Earth, come on
I'm currently on chapter 15 and severely struggling to find the will to continue. But also, I'm falling prey to the sunk-cost fallacy because not only was this book FORTY DOLLARS, but I've been reading it for A WHOLE MONTH. ;--; I just want to be DONE with it already so that I can say definitively that I hate this stupid book and I'm mad that I fell for the hype, but I'm afraid that if I give up now, it'll actually get ridiculously good and things will make sense.
I picked up the book expecting the house story everyone was telling me and at first I was annoyed that most of the story seemed to be abt these two other annoying people. But when it turned out Johnny was lying I’ve never felt so sick to my stomach from only just reading something. I can’t stop looking at stuff abt the book and it’s driving me crazy. I can’t pick up my copy bc it’s in my car which is at a mechanic and my worst fear is I’ll wake up and the book was never real. I wish I never read it
I’m currently reading the book and yeah I’m pretty disappointed. I think a lot of the hype is just because the author wrote the text in such a weird, unconventional format. And then in an effort to justify why they like the book beyond “the words are upside down and it made my brain do an uh-oh 🤤” they pour in some bs symbolism or “hidden truth”. The Navidson story is awesome. If they did a book just on that or even a movie, it would be an amazing horror. But the Johnny Truant story is just awful, especially since he constantly lies and is on drugs so I honestly can’t take anything he says seriously. You can easily read just the Navidson stuff and miss next to nothing
In his conceit at his own supposed cleverness, the author has forgotten that at its core a novel needs to actually develop a *story* The book ultimately doesn't say much and the main plot is thin and never goes anywhere or explains anything. People say it's a difficult read, but TBH the litany of jumbled info and obfuscation ends up being a frustration. The difficulty in reading wasn't in understanding, it was more of persevering with the preponderance of dislocated ideas which distract from the narrative. Certainly some asides in a narrative can keep it interesting, but in this case the book is 90% asides which have little to do with the main plot. Worse, as noted in this video, the characters are absolutely vaccuous and can't be empathised with in any way. The character development is legitimately retarded. All that said the caveat is, I have to admit it has a super intersting style and is filled with fascinating snippets of information and mystery. If the main plotline and characters had been better developed and the info more relevant and coherent it could have been really *quite* brilliant. It's strange to say following what I have just summarised, but it's definitely worth reading because it's certainly original and refreshingly different. The frustrating thing is it makes me feel that it could have been so much more.
I have got a copy and do plan to read it but I was definitely not willing to buy new... I waited for a reasonably priced second hand copy to come available haha :) Eventually I will read it when I'm in the right headspace to tackle this journey haha
Very much agree, couldn't stand Johnny or care about his 'edgy' life. I'm relieved to finally see this book being fairly criticized and not gushed over. Subbed and now am a proud 420th subscriber.
I am currently reading this book and yeah I do totally hate "johnny" I think that's his name. The young dude who is drugs, sex and rock and roll. But I think he is meant to be hateable. He is just a generic douchebag who descends into madness right? I am only at like page 60, and yeah I LOATHE his sections, but I know his shit is annoying by design. If anything it feels very lovecraft to me. The annoying narrator who writes down their own descent into madness. Even his stupid poetic style reminds me of it.
New subscriber. I really enjoyed your review. I actually read House of Leaves about 3 years ago. I suppose I fall in the minority that fell on middle ground with this book. Was it the scariest book I ever read? No. Did I still have fun with its pretentiousness? Sure. Looking forward to more of your videos
I had the same experience. I started this book because so many people talk about how great and scary it is. A writer I like a lot has it on his rec list too so I had to try it. I could not even get to the halfway point. I really wanted to like this book but I could not engage with it at all. So many people raving about this book made me feel like I was in the twilight zone lol I don't get it though it's cool if other people love it but I cannot understand why. I am glad to just find someone with a more critical take. It did intrigue me for a little bit then it faded as fast as it happened. And yes, Johnny sucks. When readers finally get a break from the academic drawl it then switches to enduring Johnny being obnoxious. Especially with his rants/tangents. I noticed the run on sentences too, one was like a page 1/2 long. I turned back to see where the sentence started to see if I wasn't imagining there wasn't any breaks. I think I'd have tried to endure more of this book if Johnny was absent or just had a different personality/cut some of the fat off that bloats the book.
Commenting to say while I disagree for the most part (Johnnie is annoying, but crucial to the totality of the book - I'll get to that in a second), your honesty about not finishing, coupled with the quality of the video and your rapier wit, made me a subscriber. And the first video of yours I watched after this one is your review of The Ring - which gave me an idea. The way you described the video tape in The Ring is exactly how House of Leaves gets described, even down to the dumb meta-narrative that the manuscript was shared in bars and tattoo parlors (which actually gets addressed in the book itself eventually!). It's not gory, there aren't jump scares, but it messes with you and actively lies to you beginning with the text on the JACKET, and the more you understand of that, the more connections you make, the more patterns you think you see (because are they there? does that thing you noticed actually matter? WHO KNOWS!) - the more disturbing it gets. Like you said, it isn't for everyone, and I don't say that in a valueistic way, but to say everyone is allowed to enjoy what they want, and the complexity of a piece of art is not necessarily proportional to its quality - because quality is inherently subjective. If you still own the book and want a taste of the emotional experience, read the descriptions of the events in The Navidson Record in the main body of the text. Ignore the footnotes and indexes, ignore the fact that the book itself concedes the documentary isn't real. Just power through what happens in the house and its aftermath on the characters. That story reads like it was written by Mike Flannigan - something I get the impression you'd appreciate. Themes of family and trauma and self worth and relationships, hope and love and bravery - his bread and butter. Granted, the rest of the book heightens, complicates, and even subverts those themes (making it an absolutely wild ride), but that narrative at least and what can be pulled from that, I bet you'd enjoy.
I appreciate your review. I thought I would enjoy it too because I read a lot of absurdist plays. I thought something was wrong with me for hating this book.
Truant WAS irritating, but sometimes these types of characters make for a good read, like the hitman Vinnie Nasco in Koontz's "Watchers." I recommend "Watchers," "Strangers," "Intensity" and "Midnight." The scrambled text and footnotes were okay-but only this once. One worries this might start a trend like the found footage in films.
You're missing the point of the first paragraph of the jacket. It's actually part of the story. You find that out at the end of the story. They're referring to House of leaves by zampano
To each his own I guess. I think its pretentiousness comes more from the fans than the book itself. Like if one were to take the jacket seriously even after reading it I could see how someone could think it's pretentious. The book is just really experimental. I enjoyed it although I must agree with whoever called it a "700 page short story." Mainly, I don't understand all the people claiming it's somehow hazardous to read or gives them nightmares/insomnia. All that stupid "cursed" hype can definitely give one higher expectations. Those fans remind me of Tool fans or something. Sure the book is really uncomfortable to read at times, but that's more because of the countless pointless footnotes and confusing order some parts are written in. But the short story at its core (the Navidson one, not Truant's word salads) is pretty entertaining imo.
Not hating or anything. But you found out jhonny annoying... Because you didn't finished it. I read a lot of people saying they would skip jhonny footnotes... Well spoiler free as much as this can get, jhonny is the protagonist. Its his story. Navidson record really doesnt matter much. But dont force yourself, this book can be frustrating and disorienting. The books doesnt want you to feel safe and confortable. This book is not for you
Jfc bro, you missed the whole point. The word that is always in blue is house. That’s because this book is not about a house at all. That’s why the “blue” is the same blue they use in movies so that they are able to edit in a new background. Chromakey
The Navidson Record was excellent-something Peter Straub would have written. I think you'd like Straub. Dig "Ghost Story," "Shadowland," "Floating Dragon" and "Koko." I think at the end Truant's mom is implying an ending like "Identity" or the final ""Twilight" film. I hate those kind of endings. By that point I'd lost interest in this book.
I can't tell you how many times I've yelled "THANK YOU!!" While listening to this video. Pickled in pretention is the best way to describe this book. I wanted to read it, the premise sounded cool, but the bonkers way it was written made me realize I wasn't having any fun. I have too many other books I want to read to slog through something that feels like an assignment. P. S. I only made it through about 50 pages. Some parts (the house story) were cool. Other parts were insufferable. I think I quit after the whole bit about echoes.
Totally agree, a book that tries to be a movie and that does not understand the oral narrative. The story is stupid and not scary, just lazy. Its pretensions as all of modern art, because that what this guy is...an "author" posing for a misterious writer
@@JakeTheScaryStoryGuy In many ways you're lucky - I've been 82% bald since 1997 and have been actively hoping to drop dead for almost 30 years. We're all connected.
i personally dont agree with you but youre hella funny ill give you that. i defintely see y people dont like it. I often want a change from the mundane repetition of stuff which is mainly why I read it. I am the same with movies. As long as they at least try to be creative, thats often enough for me. Can't stand these lame superhero movies and stuff.
I love this book. Ordered a copy when I was in Nepal from tCanada (with much chagrin on part of the family-of-a-friend courier), lost it, and just bought it again a couple of weeks ago in the States. It hits the perfect spot of meta, over-pretentiousness, nerdiness, and taking itself too seriously for me. Perhaps due to having spent some time in academia myself. Regardless, your review was hilarious and very enjoyable. This book is definitely not for everyone, as it states in the beginning. And I took the jacket info to be a part of the exaggerated self importance in the vein of the books itself but I’m highly biased lol. Cheers!
It does sound like this book is a bit pretentious and gimick ridden. Sounds like a found footage film in book form. I thought it was a waste of paper to me. Glad I skipped it.
Like you were, I'm about halfway through and had to search TH-cam to find out if I was missing something. It's tedious to read with no real value it seems. I don't care about Johnny or his anecdotes. I refuse to waste my time reading footnotes for fictional sources I'm never going to look up so they are absolutely pointless. There are pages and pages that can just be skipped! I mean, who is going to actually read every single footnote, including the ones that run up the edges of the page and are just lists of names, movies, other books, or buildings known for their architecture. Honestly if you read all those footnotes, you're an idiot. I feel like this book was Danielewski trolling us by seeing just how pretentious and "weird" he could be and how many suckers would fall for it. House of Leaves is not only boring AF, but a pointless waste of time.
You’re right, I should have stopped watching because I definitely don’t respect an in depth review of someone who didn’t even finish the work, missing a great deal along the way. Not a part of the cult following, just thought it was an interesting visual art piece, and an interesting dissection of literary structure
I watched the whole video as I wanted to see if you swerved but you just kept right on finding new ways to say: "It did not hold my interest." I get that you make videos and need to put in jokes and whatnot but to call a book wasted paper when you meant that it was wasted on you seems like a bad precedent for a writer to set for themselves. Also, if part of your critique of the book is what the publishers did to market it more than two decades ago, it seems like you were sort of reaching. You didn't like it. Nothing wrong with that. And since I watched the whole vid you earned some engagement. But I would give more thought to how you want to portray yourself as a writer. Anyway best of luck!
Glad I'm not alone. Funny story about House of Leaves if you have the time to read it:
I was in a modern literature class in university, and HoL was the book of discussion for like two weeks, meaning I had to pay for a copy as a textbook... But I didn't do that. A friend of mine had told me about it and showed me excerpts before, so I knew I'd loathe the waste of paper. It reeked of pretentiousness. So I mooched off a classmate's copy, reading just enough and picking out enough key phrases to squeak by in our discussions.
However, it then came time to write a paper on HoL. The professor told us to connect some referenced imagery or allusion within the book to classical mythology, and how that allusion elevates the text. The example she gave, that she was happy for people to use, was that of the Minotaur in the Labyrinth. Sure, whatever, some pages were set up like a labyrinth. Easy enough.
But for some reason, I got it in my head that if I were to follow that prompt, it would be obvious I didn't read the fucking thing. So I went and made it harder on myself. I flipped through my classmate's copy, looking for some other reference to myths or legends, and then I turned to one of the last pages, and there it was: Yggdrasil.
In high school I was a big Mighty Thor fan and became obsessed with Norse Myth, so I had a lot of experience with Yggdrasil. I asked the professor if that could be my reference point, and she gave me the go-ahead, seemingly doubting that I could find enough to work with. Constructing the essay was pretty easy though. Just had to find the page that mentions Yggdrasil, and a few studies on old Icelandic that teased out the meaning of the word. One convenient point was that the titular House was situated on "Ash Tree Lane," and what is Yggdrasil traditionally described as? An ash tree, of course.
So I wrote nearly twenty pages of bloated, speculative nonsense about how Odin hanged himself from the World Tree to gain knowledge and how that connects to the Navidson record or whatever. All total bullshit. I probably only read about a page worth of material from HoL.
And I got a 98% on that paper. The next year I found out she showed it to that semester's class as an excellent example of what she wanted from the assignment.
And I never even bought the fucking thing.
Amazing lol
That was awesome lmao
You legend. I'd like to see you write a bestseller, probably a walk in the park for you bc there's tons of people who would eat that up.
Delightful.
I don't know where you came from, but I am glad you were in my feed today. You are hilarious. "Pickled in Pretentiousness" will be my next phrase to share at the office.
Oddly enough, you’ve made me even more excited to start this book, which I have owned twice over the last seven years, tomorrow!!
Thank you so much for this review. I almost bought this book. You have saved me.
I want to start off by stating: I 100% get your point of view. I'm not trying to dismiss your arguments. I think your review has a good level of quality in it of itself. Everything you said is valid. But I would like to give you my - vastly different - experience with this book:
I bought it because I was intrigued by the same aspects of it as you. Here's perhaps the only thing we have in common.
Read the entire thing without giving it much though in 2 weeks.
Didn't think about it for 2 months. (weirdly enough, the book mentions almost this exact approach to be expected from the average reader)
Remembered the book, browsed it again, then things became absolutely wild, and for the next 6 months I caught myself thinking about this book and studying as many aspects of it as I could. Not in an obsessive way, mind you (I will elaborate below) but the experience is something that showed me this book is not just a good book, it's - i am subjective, of course - an incredibly complex literary work. Masterpiece? I don't like using that word, but it's a piece I hold to very high regard.
Point 1: I do not get the weird cult around this book. I am saying this now just to make sure we're all on the same page. The 'underground' 'cool' 'secret' community that acts as though they opened the gates to some other dimension through this book is very weird to me. But I guess it's just another layer under which this book hides what it's actually trying to do.
Point 2: Here's the absolutely impressive narrative exercise that this book pulls off: This is a weird manuscript written in the form of an academic paper, referencing real articles and people talking about a documentary that never actually existed about a house that is bigger on the inside than on the outside, written by a blind man over the span of 40 years, found and compiled by a tattoo artist with a shitty personality (which POV is entirely questionable), that it then picked up by a weirdly anonymous editorial that also adds to the footnotes of the book (for some reason) and which uses the name of the real-life author to publish it, so that the book eventually end up in our hands. If this is not insane, remember this barely, BARELY scratches the surface. The fact that the author can switch narratives so easily from academic (original author) to barely coherent (Johnny) to the plethora of other contributors to this book is impressive in its own right.
Point 3: Johnny sucks. 100% agreed. Actually, if you get to the end of his contribution to the book, you will end up hating him even more than you did in this video. But that is also the point. You see, Johnny is a compulsive liar, he hides behind his intention of picking up this fascinating story in order to simply push forward his own shitty stories (which I guess he finds cool). But - due to a lot of reasons I won't get into - he cannot be trusted with anything. We don't know if his tragedies we're supposed to empathize with are real, we don't know if his stories about strippers and drugs and parties are real, we don't even actually know if the now dead blind man that compiled the original document is real. The way in which this crappy narrator subverts everything in this book is brilliant in its own right.
Point 4: The most fascinating thing about this book is the fact that the structure of the book is itself a representation of the house mentioned in the documentary. It's a labyrinth in the layout of the pages, in the narrative structures, stories from the documentary echo Johnny's stories (real or not), and the comparisons are accentuated by the original author. It would take another book for me to give you even a few examples, but once you start studying it, it turns your stomach upside down. It did for me.
Point 5: With the above in mind - and I know this sounds pretentious as shit - everything in this book is, from the words, the frustrating structure, the shitty parts that are actually not enjoyable to read (because yes, there are a lot of those), is intentional. They're all pieces of a huge, huge puzzle that does not answer a single question.
TLDR: Do I recommend this book? Not at all. Is it a masterpiece? Is it post-modern ergodic literature with no actual purpose? Is there an actual story behind all the layers? Is this book just making fun of academia? Is it deep? I don't have the answers. I don't think the book does either. But for me, this book changed the way I look at art. Art isn't always made to be enjoyable.Sometimes it's hard to stomach. Sometimes it's dangerous, sometimes it's subversive, sometimes it's meaningless.
I guess the only way to reach a point in which you can say this book was at least worth your time is the moment you realize the Navidson Record (the only thing in this book that everyone almost unanimously agrees is fake) is perhaps the truest part of the whole damn thing. Especially the thing that it points towards: something (in fiction and the real world all the same) is terribly wrong. That's when the real horror creeps in, and it gets under your skin when you start seeing glimpses of that wrongness with the corners of your eyes. - wrote that so I can end on a pretentious note, because I am a pretentious fuck. Not part of the weird fucking cult surrounding this book, as I said. Lol. It's just a book at the end of the day, not some sort of second Bible.
If you read all this, you're deranged. And cheers!
Well shit now I guess I’m deranged 😅
Read some of your points. I got the book. Tbh Johnny's introduction was intriguing, so as the first article.
But whenever I pick up the book I feel like having read it and the talk surrounding the book is actually far more interesting than reading House of Leaves as of right here, right now.
Which makes me feel like it's a waste for me.
There is an itchio game that is times and times shorter and has just strong punch with the same theme of a paranormal house. It's called ANATOMY by Kitty Horrorshow. I really suggest playing or watching an LP, it doesn't take long and will likely unlock a new fear.
TLDR
@@db7610 Providing TL:DR; of OP:
Book is Goncharov.
I've been inspired to get the book from outside sources. I wanted to study it anyways, I don't mind spoiling it here and there. The positive reviews are a little monotonous, so I look at the negative ones. Okay... ultra pretentious. That does kill it for me. I do get your point, you've dedicated a lot of time into trying to believe parts of the story, yet people on the outside have shined a light on how everything in the book is potentially false. I've had that level of a trapdoor fall beneath me, making me more paranoid of myself and others. It feels like I am weaker, but no, I am stronger because I can now identify the meaning of words better, the way they're said. This trapdoor cannot fall from beneath me in the same way again.
" Our lady of run-on sentences."
😂 did not know I was part of this church, but okay
Sounds to me like “What if unedited found footage was a book?”
Sounds like Goncharov but solo.
All I can say is, THANK YOU. You said everything I was feeling about this book. Unfortunately I did read the entire thing and I want my time back :(
Were you ever able to get your time back?
As a dyslexic person, you can’t imagine how hard it was to read the book 😅for me
"public opinion of this book seems to be overwhelmingly positive which osrt of catfished me into liking it "
Don't let reviews setup your expectations
Especially this one. The book is awesome.
Yea. The part I find funniest is that everyone is obsessed with a book that, when the name is simplified, just means book.
It's a satire of epic proportions. Even the editor can't be trusted. I mean that's just hilarious.
As the book begins: this is not for you, especially when you review something you have not finished. Loved this book, and the brilliance of the book. A lot of people miss the nuance to it, but that’s plus of opinions.
I feel better now that its not just me.
I thoroughly enjoy this book but the edgy, pretentious crowd that I found it through detract from it. I never thought it was incredibly deep or mindbending in any way but I did think it was an original idea and engaging in a way that no other book has ever been. Not saying that validates it at all but everyone who talks about this book acts like it’s an ancient manuscript with the secrets of life in its words if you can decipher them. It’s obnoxious. I think this is a fair review. I suggest you finish it honestly.
I loved the book. Not because the story is anything out of this world, but I found the approach very interesting. I think it fits a lot with how conspiracy theories are prevalent these days and imagining a world where something like the Navidson records would surface. I also liked the multi layered stories and how they are layered. I liked the academic part and how the problem of the house was approached in the book. I also liked the ''non-linear'' approach where you have to go a bit back and forth to know what you are reading, but i might come from my love from the ''books where you are the hero'' I used to read when I was young.
All that being said, I have never really been exposed to the pretentious crowd that is being talked about as I found this book from a Doom 2 Map called myhouse.wad that was released about a year ago lol
@@TheLoucMthe crowd that he talks about in this video. I read this book in 2005 and was hanging around places described in this video where ridiculous people acted like it was some rebellious thing to read this book. I bought it at Borders lol. I think I liked it because it mirrored some of my life at the time as well I always have a thing for strange fiction like this.
Nothing edgy, hard-living rebels on the fringes of society love more than reading someone's awful, fake dissertation on a fake movie.
I found it quite readable, including physically. Then again, I practiced reading by reading the labels on LPs. While the records were playing. I’m probably not a good reference point.
Sounds like the author was trying to combine Nabokov's Pale Fire with the conceit of the Necronomicon in the Lovecraft/Howard/Derleth circle.
Your fanciful turn of phrase has enticed me to subscribe. Great video!
I presumed the whole origin story is part of the whole thing as a joke. I don't think that it was meant to be taken literally.
And i think that's what's charming about the book. It takes boring mundane stuff from real life and turns it into art and fantasy. Art is supposed to be pretentious and playful, we have kind of forgotten about it which is sad. It shouldn't always be down to Earth, come on
I'm currently on chapter 15 and severely struggling to find the will to continue. But also, I'm falling prey to the sunk-cost fallacy because not only was this book FORTY DOLLARS, but I've been reading it for A WHOLE MONTH. ;--; I just want to be DONE with it already so that I can say definitively that I hate this stupid book and I'm mad that I fell for the hype, but I'm afraid that if I give up now, it'll actually get ridiculously good and things will make sense.
I can't understand why this 760 page shortstory is so beloved. It is so far the worst book I never finished
Agreed waste of time
Literally same. I have a visceral hatred for it.
Just dnf’d it. The footnotes - why
I just want to sit down and read a book not try to figure out HOW to read a book. We are a small minority lol
I picked up the book expecting the house story everyone was telling me and at first I was annoyed that most of the story seemed to be abt these two other annoying people. But when it turned out Johnny was lying I’ve never felt so sick to my stomach from only just reading something. I can’t stop looking at stuff abt the book and it’s driving me crazy. I can’t pick up my copy bc it’s in my car which is at a mechanic and my worst fear is I’ll wake up and the book was never real. I wish I never read it
I’m currently reading the book and yeah I’m pretty disappointed. I think a lot of the hype is just because the author wrote the text in such a weird, unconventional format. And then in an effort to justify why they like the book beyond “the words are upside down and it made my brain do an uh-oh 🤤” they pour in some bs symbolism or “hidden truth”.
The Navidson story is awesome. If they did a book just on that or even a movie, it would be an amazing horror. But the Johnny Truant story is just awful, especially since he constantly lies and is on drugs so I honestly can’t take anything he says seriously. You can easily read just the Navidson stuff and miss next to nothing
In his conceit at his own supposed cleverness, the author has forgotten that at its core a novel needs to actually develop a *story* The book ultimately doesn't say much and the main plot is thin and never goes anywhere or explains anything. People say it's a difficult read, but TBH the litany of jumbled info and obfuscation ends up being a frustration. The difficulty in reading wasn't in understanding, it was more of persevering with the preponderance of dislocated ideas which distract from the narrative. Certainly some asides in a narrative can keep it interesting, but in this case the book is 90% asides which have little to do with the main plot. Worse, as noted in this video, the characters are absolutely vaccuous and can't be empathised with in any way. The character development is legitimately retarded.
All that said the caveat is, I have to admit it has a super intersting style and is filled with fascinating snippets of information and mystery. If the main plotline and characters had been better developed and the info more relevant and coherent it could have been really *quite* brilliant.
It's strange to say following what I have just summarised, but it's definitely worth reading because it's certainly original and refreshingly different. The frustrating thing is it makes me feel that it could have been so much more.
I have got a copy and do plan to read it but I was definitely not willing to buy new... I waited for a reasonably priced second hand copy to come available haha :)
Eventually I will read it when I'm in the right headspace to tackle this journey haha
Very much agree, couldn't stand Johnny or care about his 'edgy' life. I'm relieved to finally see this book being fairly criticized and not gushed over.
Subbed and now am a proud 420th subscriber.
I am currently reading this book and yeah I do totally hate "johnny" I think that's his name. The young dude who is drugs, sex and rock and roll.
But I think he is meant to be hateable. He is just a generic douchebag who descends into madness right? I am only at like page 60, and yeah I LOATHE his sections, but I know his shit is annoying by design.
If anything it feels very lovecraft to me. The annoying narrator who writes down their own descent into madness. Even his stupid poetic style reminds me of it.
New subscriber. I really enjoyed your review. I actually read House of Leaves about 3 years ago. I suppose I fall in the minority that fell on middle ground with this book. Was it the scariest book I ever read? No. Did I still have fun with its pretentiousness? Sure. Looking forward to more of your videos
I had the same experience. I started this book because so many people talk about how great and scary it is. A writer I like a lot has it on his rec list too so I had to try it. I could not even get to the halfway point. I really wanted to like this book but I could not engage with it at all. So many people raving about this book made me feel like I was in the twilight zone lol I don't get it though it's cool if other people love it but I cannot understand why. I am glad to just find someone with a more critical take. It did intrigue me for a little bit then it faded as fast as it happened.
And yes, Johnny sucks. When readers finally get a break from the academic drawl it then switches to enduring Johnny being obnoxious. Especially with his rants/tangents. I noticed the run on sentences too, one was like a page 1/2 long. I turned back to see where the sentence started to see if I wasn't imagining there wasn't any breaks. I think I'd have tried to endure more of this book if Johnny was absent or just had a different personality/cut some of the fat off that bloats the book.
“More critical” = agrees with you lol
Commenting to say while I disagree for the most part (Johnnie is annoying, but crucial to the totality of the book - I'll get to that in a second), your honesty about not finishing, coupled with the quality of the video and your rapier wit, made me a subscriber. And the first video of yours I watched after this one is your review of The Ring - which gave me an idea.
The way you described the video tape in The Ring is exactly how House of Leaves gets described, even down to the dumb meta-narrative that the manuscript was shared in bars and tattoo parlors (which actually gets addressed in the book itself eventually!). It's not gory, there aren't jump scares, but it messes with you and actively lies to you beginning with the text on the JACKET, and the more you understand of that, the more connections you make, the more patterns you think you see (because are they there? does that thing you noticed actually matter? WHO KNOWS!) - the more disturbing it gets. Like you said, it isn't for everyone, and I don't say that in a valueistic way, but to say everyone is allowed to enjoy what they want, and the complexity of a piece of art is not necessarily proportional to its quality - because quality is inherently subjective.
If you still own the book and want a taste of the emotional experience, read the descriptions of the events in The Navidson Record in the main body of the text. Ignore the footnotes and indexes, ignore the fact that the book itself concedes the documentary isn't real. Just power through what happens in the house and its aftermath on the characters. That story reads like it was written by Mike Flannigan - something I get the impression you'd appreciate. Themes of family and trauma and self worth and relationships, hope and love and bravery - his bread and butter. Granted, the rest of the book heightens, complicates, and even subverts those themes (making it an absolutely wild ride), but that narrative at least and what can be pulled from that, I bet you'd enjoy.
I appreciate your review. I thought I would enjoy it too because I read a lot of absurdist plays. I thought something was wrong with me for hating this book.
You are not alone!
Infinite Jest of horror?
Worse comparisons have been drawn.
I needed this. I felt the same way exactly. It's paper poop
Truant WAS irritating, but sometimes these types of characters make for a good read, like the hitman Vinnie Nasco in Koontz's "Watchers." I recommend "Watchers," "Strangers," "Intensity" and "Midnight." The scrambled text and footnotes were okay-but only this once. One worries this might start a trend like the found footage in films.
I loved Johnny. My favorite part of the book.
You're missing the point of the first paragraph of the jacket. It's actually part of the story. You find that out at the end of the story. They're referring to House of leaves by zampano
That just makes it even worse I'd say.
It's so pretentious it's leaking off the pages and onto the cover of the book.
To each his own I guess. I think its pretentiousness comes more from the fans than the book itself. Like if one were to take the jacket seriously even after reading it I could see how someone could think it's pretentious. The book is just really experimental. I enjoyed it although I must agree with whoever called it a "700 page short story."
Mainly, I don't understand all the people claiming it's somehow hazardous to read or gives them nightmares/insomnia. All that stupid "cursed" hype can definitely give one higher expectations. Those fans remind me of Tool fans or something. Sure the book is really uncomfortable to read at times, but that's more because of the countless pointless footnotes and confusing order some parts are written in. But the short story at its core (the Navidson one, not Truant's word salads) is pretty entertaining imo.
Not hating or anything. But you found out jhonny annoying... Because you didn't finished it. I read a lot of people saying they would skip jhonny footnotes... Well spoiler free as much as this can get, jhonny is the protagonist. Its his story. Navidson record really doesnt matter much. But dont force yourself, this book can be frustrating and disorienting. The books doesnt want you to feel safe and confortable.
This book is not for you
Jfc bro, you missed the whole point. The word that is always in blue is house. That’s because this book is not about a house at all. That’s why the “blue” is the same blue they use in movies so that they are able to edit in a new background. Chromakey
The Navidson Record was excellent-something Peter Straub would have written. I think you'd like Straub. Dig "Ghost Story," "Shadowland," "Floating Dragon" and "Koko." I think at the end Truant's mom is implying an ending like "Identity" or the final ""Twilight" film. I hate those kind of endings. By that point I'd lost interest in this book.
I can't tell you how many times I've yelled "THANK YOU!!" While listening to this video. Pickled in pretention is the best way to describe this book. I wanted to read it, the premise sounded cool, but the bonkers way it was written made me realize I wasn't having any fun. I have too many other books I want to read to slog through something that feels like an assignment.
P. S. I only made it through about 50 pages. Some parts (the house story) were cool. Other parts were insufferable. I think I quit after the whole bit about echoes.
Our Lady of Run-on Sentences just sent me 😂😂😂
Writing a review for a book you haven't read is absolutely disqualifying, glad you told people not to watch
I agree. Reading this book was an absolute slog that honestly was not worth the effort
Totally agree, a book that tries to be a movie and that does not understand the oral narrative. The story is stupid and not scary, just lazy. Its pretensions as all of modern art, because that what this guy is...an "author" posing for a misterious writer
Are you balding or am I simply shamefully unaware of how large foreheads can grow?
It's a disease where my forehead grows larger over time. Doctors say I will die of it in about five years
@@JakeTheScaryStoryGuy In many ways you're lucky - I've been 82% bald since 1997 and have been actively hoping to drop dead for almost 30 years. We're all connected.
i personally dont agree with you but youre hella funny ill give you that. i defintely see y people dont like it. I often want a change from the mundane repetition of stuff which is mainly why I read it. I am the same with movies. As long as they at least try to be creative, thats often enough for me. Can't stand these lame superhero movies and stuff.
I love this book. Ordered a copy when I was in Nepal from tCanada (with much chagrin on part of the family-of-a-friend courier), lost it, and just bought it again a couple of weeks ago in the States.
It hits the perfect spot of meta, over-pretentiousness, nerdiness, and taking itself too seriously for me. Perhaps due to having spent some time in academia myself.
Regardless, your review was hilarious and very enjoyable. This book is definitely not for everyone, as it states in the beginning. And I took the jacket info to be a part of the exaggerated self importance in the vein of the books itself but I’m highly biased lol. Cheers!
It does sound like this book is a bit pretentious and gimick ridden. Sounds like a found footage film in book form. I thought it was a waste of paper to me. Glad I skipped it.
Oh my god! I wanted to throw the book too only I was listening to it as an audiobook! Lol!!! 😂😂
quick question: How is the audiobook? How do they deal with all the footnotes?
@@Bristle_and_Broadsword Probably stuck hearing a random list of names for 10 mins straight 🤣🤣🤣
Like you were, I'm about halfway through and had to search TH-cam to find out if I was missing something. It's tedious to read with no real value it seems. I don't care about Johnny or his anecdotes. I refuse to waste my time reading footnotes for fictional sources I'm never going to look up so they are absolutely pointless. There are pages and pages that can just be skipped! I mean, who is going to actually read every single footnote, including the ones that run up the edges of the page and are just lists of names, movies, other books, or buildings known for their architecture. Honestly if you read all those footnotes, you're an idiot. I feel like this book was Danielewski trolling us by seeing just how pretentious and "weird" he could be and how many suckers would fall for it.
House of Leaves is not only boring AF, but a pointless waste of time.
You’re right, I should have stopped watching because I definitely don’t respect an in depth review of someone who didn’t even finish the work, missing a great deal along the way. Not a part of the cult following, just thought it was an interesting visual art piece, and an interesting dissection of literary structure
Well, the good news is, you didn't stop watching - so now you're allowed to have an opinion on my video!
Yea you're right about I need someone to at least read the book to give a review of it 😂😂😂
I watched the whole video as I wanted to see if you swerved but you just kept right on finding new ways to say: "It did not hold my interest." I get that you make videos and need to put in jokes and whatnot but to call a book wasted paper when you meant that it was wasted on you seems like a bad precedent for a writer to set for themselves.
Also, if part of your critique of the book is what the publishers did to market it more than two decades ago, it seems like you were sort of reaching. You didn't like it. Nothing wrong with that. And since I watched the whole vid you earned some engagement. But I would give more thought to how you want to portray yourself as a writer.
Anyway best of luck!
69tth like on this video. Nice.
Nice.
overhyped garbage