Scan barcode
A review by abby_ace_of_books
House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski
"This is what happens when you hurry through a maze: the faster you go, the worse you are entangled"(115).
House of Leaves is one of those books that a) I feel like I can't rate accurately because I'm an angry person full of pettiness and b) I feel like I can't properly review because I'm not nearly smart enough to understand half of the details.
That being said, I will still be offering my unwanted and mostly uninformed thoughts on this book.
So...what is House of Leaves actually about? The best way I can explain it is a film analysis with two sets of annotations...all on a film that doesn't exist, which brings me to the first thing I wanted to talk about: the framing narratives.
At its heart, this book is a story of a family that moves into a haunted house. However, this story is delivered in the form of a highly intellectual film analysis. And this film analysis is annotated by a man named Johnny, plus a set of "editors" who seem to be practically nonexistent. The book also has the possibility of adding a fifth(?) frame with you, the reader, should you choose to annotate or place yourself into the book (which I'll get to later).
In essence, it's confusing. It's meant to be a maze because the house that the book revolves around is a maze. It's full of dead ends and red herrings and twists and turns (literally forcing you to flip the book upside down). The film the analysis is based on does not exist, even in the context of the books. Both the editors and Johnny claim that Zampono (the man who supposedly wrote the analysis) made the whole thing up and quoted people who had never even heard of the film in the first place. Basically: nothing is real.
The Plot(s)
I'd like to devote the first main part of this review to the "plots" that the book follows.
In the middle of everything is the story about the haunted house and the family that lives there. Navidson, Karen, and their children move into a house that is measurably bigger on the inside than the outside, and it seems to shift in response to the family. I found this to be the most intriguing aspect of the book, and I surprisingly found myself caring for the characters somewhere along the line. This was probably the most "horror-y" part of the book, but the story itself didn't scare me (the implications and my own imagination did). While I've seen a few complaints about the ending, I honestly didn't mind it that much because I was just glad to be done with the book.
The next layer is Zampono's intellectually dense film analysis. Look, I've read flat-out research for school before. I've read analyses of books that are drier than the Sahara. But this book? It gave a new definition to "dry." I know it's the point. I know the book is supposed to make you feel bored. But for the love of all things holy...could the sections devoted to physics and building materials and random other tangents be any shorter? Please?
Past Zampono is Johnny, who is reading and annotating the film analysis because he wants to publish it? His annotations, however, are mostly details regarding his sexual exploits. It wasn't as dry as Zampono, but it was equally unenjoyable. I have to admit, about 150 pages in, I googled whether or not I was reading the book the right way and discovered that a handful of people say it's okay to skim Johnny's parts. So I did. Sorry, not sorry; I don't need to read about strippers and someone's mental breakdowns for 500 pages. I don't care that it adds to the story. I care that I finish and don't end up in the grippy sock home.
Format and How I Chose to Read the Book
I've seen formatting somewhat similar to this book before, which I'll talk about later, but I just wanted to explain quickly the method I chose to read this book.
When I first started House of Leaves, I was innocent, naive, and didn't expect to be so frustrated by the stupid book. I tried to read it in the way I believed was the "intended" way. Or, in other words, I tried to brute force my way through it by reading everything. That didn't last very long. I got bored. I got mad. I googled the answers like the not-critical thinker I am.
Apparently, it's sort of a choose-your-own-adventure. You pick what to read and how to read it. I read all of the main analysis, skimming through the footnotes that appeared to be citations and other irrelevant notes. I skimmed Johnny's stories because they apparently weren't super essential for the surface-level reading of the book. I wish I had chosen to annotate or devote more time to this book, but I went into it expecting a slightly dense read and not something that felt like schoolwork.
And, look, I did do some critical thinking. I tried to find meaning, and I know that, like any maze, there are dozens of paths and interpretations in the book. There probably aren't wrong answers. That being said, I probably found a way to misread this, so I'm only going to briefly mention my theories/thoughts.
#1) I don't know how to explain it, but it feels like the book is trying to blend the line between fiction and reality. In most books, it's easy to separate the two, but this one felt different. The film is fake to Johnny, just as Johnny's story is fake to us (the reader). But what if it wasn't? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but while reading, I asked myself if the film was maybe real in some sense (I obviously know it isn't). I don't know, it just felt like the book was intruding on my life in a way, which brings me to my other thoughts.
#2) The book isn't just a maze; it's a physical "thing" that parallels various objects in the story. The house is a mysterious puzzle to Navidson; the film is a puzzle to Zampono; the analysis is a puzzle to Johnny; and now, the book is a puzzle to us. Just as exploring the house becomes Navidson's obsession, analyzing the film becomes Zampono's obsession, and understanding the analysis becomes Johnny's obsession; this book is an obsession on its own, especially if the reader chooses to annotate, thus adding another layer to the narrative.
#3) This one is the most illogical, but I feel like, in addition to this book being an obsession, it brings out the worst traits in everyone. Navidson's obsession with the house leads him to isolate himself from his family and follow his own narcissism. Zampono's obsession with the film leads him to create a dense, nearly unreadable analysis to satiate his curiosity and build his ego. Johnny's obsession with the analysis makes him unstable and insane. Similarly, the book itself made me angry, stubborn, frustrated, and a dozen other negative things. It's just a hunk of pages, and maybe I'm reading too far into it, but it brought out the worst in me, too.
Please take all of these thoughts with a grain of salt. Someone else probably said them before me and they're probably somehow wrong, but it's just my ideas.
Final Thoughts
If you'll indulge my ramblings for a little longer, I'd like to conclude my opinions on this book.
Did I enjoy reading it? No. I hated every second of it. Was I happy that I finished it? Yes. Like any puzzle, I was happy I "solved" it. Would I recommend it? It depends, I guess.
The thing that draws many readers to House of Leaves is its uniqueness. However, I've seen many of its unique elements in other books that I enjoyed much more. Looking for unique physical formatting with upside-down words and pictures? Try the Illuminae Files by Jay Kristoff and Amie Kaufman. In the mood for a classic with framing narratives? The most obvious choice is Frankenstein. Want a book where you feel like a character? The Spear Cuts Through Water literally makes you one without the cringy-ness. For some reason you're looking for a book with footnotes? The Ruin of Kings has plenty, plus four interweaving narratives. The only thing this book offered that I hadn't necessarily seen before was the idea of a "maze" symbolized through the pacing, but I'm sure there are options out there.
To summarize all of this for you: I didn't really enjoy House of Leaves. I could be missing something. Maybe I'll reread it someday when I'm less of a snob. But, as of right now, it wasn't really a book for me, and for that reason (among others), I do not feel qualified to rate this book.
House of Leaves is one of those books that a) I feel like I can't rate accurately because I'm an angry person full of pettiness and b) I feel like I can't properly review because I'm not nearly smart enough to understand half of the details.
That being said, I will still be offering my unwanted and mostly uninformed thoughts on this book.
So...what is House of Leaves actually about? The best way I can explain it is a film analysis with two sets of annotations...all on a film that doesn't exist, which brings me to the first thing I wanted to talk about: the framing narratives.
At its heart, this book is a story of a family that moves into a haunted house. However, this story is delivered in the form of a highly intellectual film analysis. And this film analysis is annotated by a man named Johnny, plus a set of "editors" who seem to be practically nonexistent. The book also has the possibility of adding a fifth(?) frame with you, the reader, should you choose to annotate or place yourself into the book (which I'll get to later).
In essence, it's confusing. It's meant to be a maze because the house that the book revolves around is a maze. It's full of dead ends and red herrings and twists and turns (literally forcing you to flip the book upside down). The film the analysis is based on does not exist, even in the context of the books. Both the editors and Johnny claim that Zampono (the man who supposedly wrote the analysis) made the whole thing up and quoted people who had never even heard of the film in the first place. Basically: nothing is real.
The Plot(s)
I'd like to devote the first main part of this review to the "plots" that the book follows.
In the middle of everything is the story about the haunted house and the family that lives there. Navidson, Karen, and their children move into a house that is measurably bigger on the inside than the outside, and it seems to shift in response to the family. I found this to be the most intriguing aspect of the book, and I surprisingly found myself caring for the characters somewhere along the line. This was probably the most "horror-y" part of the book, but the story itself didn't scare me (the implications and my own imagination did). While I've seen a few complaints about the ending, I honestly didn't mind it that much because I was just glad to be done with the book.
The next layer is Zampono's intellectually dense film analysis. Look, I've read flat-out research for school before. I've read analyses of books that are drier than the Sahara. But this book? It gave a new definition to "dry." I know it's the point. I know the book is supposed to make you feel bored. But for the love of all things holy...could the sections devoted to physics and building materials and random other tangents be any shorter? Please?
Past Zampono is Johnny, who is reading and annotating the film analysis because he wants to publish it? His annotations, however, are mostly details regarding his sexual exploits. It wasn't as dry as Zampono, but it was equally unenjoyable. I have to admit, about 150 pages in, I googled whether or not I was reading the book the right way and discovered that a handful of people say it's okay to skim Johnny's parts. So I did. Sorry, not sorry; I don't need to read about strippers and someone's mental breakdowns for 500 pages. I don't care that it adds to the story. I care that I finish and don't end up in the grippy sock home.
Format and How I Chose to Read the Book
I've seen formatting somewhat similar to this book before, which I'll talk about later, but I just wanted to explain quickly the method I chose to read this book.
When I first started House of Leaves, I was innocent, naive, and didn't expect to be so frustrated by the stupid book. I tried to read it in the way I believed was the "intended" way. Or, in other words, I tried to brute force my way through it by reading everything. That didn't last very long. I got bored. I got mad. I googled the answers like the not-critical thinker I am.
Apparently, it's sort of a choose-your-own-adventure. You pick what to read and how to read it. I read all of the main analysis, skimming through the footnotes that appeared to be citations and other irrelevant notes. I skimmed Johnny's stories because they apparently weren't super essential for the surface-level reading of the book. I wish I had chosen to annotate or devote more time to this book, but I went into it expecting a slightly dense read and not something that felt like schoolwork.
And, look, I did do some critical thinking. I tried to find meaning, and I know that, like any maze, there are dozens of paths and interpretations in the book. There probably aren't wrong answers. That being said, I probably found a way to misread this, so I'm only going to briefly mention my theories/thoughts.
#1) I don't know how to explain it, but it feels like the book is trying to blend the line between fiction and reality. In most books, it's easy to separate the two, but this one felt different. The film is fake to Johnny, just as Johnny's story is fake to us (the reader). But what if it wasn't? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but while reading, I asked myself if the film was maybe real in some sense (I obviously know it isn't). I don't know, it just felt like the book was intruding on my life in a way, which brings me to my other thoughts.
#2) The book isn't just a maze; it's a physical "thing" that parallels various objects in the story. The house is a mysterious puzzle to Navidson; the film is a puzzle to Zampono; the analysis is a puzzle to Johnny; and now, the book is a puzzle to us. Just as exploring the house becomes Navidson's obsession, analyzing the film becomes Zampono's obsession, and understanding the analysis becomes Johnny's obsession; this book is an obsession on its own, especially if the reader chooses to annotate, thus adding another layer to the narrative.
#3) This one is the most illogical, but I feel like, in addition to this book being an obsession, it brings out the worst traits in everyone. Navidson's obsession with the house leads him to isolate himself from his family and follow his own narcissism. Zampono's obsession with the film leads him to create a dense, nearly unreadable analysis to satiate his curiosity and build his ego. Johnny's obsession with the analysis makes him unstable and insane. Similarly, the book itself made me angry, stubborn, frustrated, and a dozen other negative things. It's just a hunk of pages, and maybe I'm reading too far into it, but it brought out the worst in me, too.
Please take all of these thoughts with a grain of salt. Someone else probably said them before me and they're probably somehow wrong, but it's just my ideas.
Final Thoughts
If you'll indulge my ramblings for a little longer, I'd like to conclude my opinions on this book.
Did I enjoy reading it? No. I hated every second of it. Was I happy that I finished it? Yes. Like any puzzle, I was happy I "solved" it. Would I recommend it? It depends, I guess.
The thing that draws many readers to House of Leaves is its uniqueness. However, I've seen many of its unique elements in other books that I enjoyed much more. Looking for unique physical formatting with upside-down words and pictures? Try the Illuminae Files by Jay Kristoff and Amie Kaufman. In the mood for a classic with framing narratives? The most obvious choice is Frankenstein. Want a book where you feel like a character? The Spear Cuts Through Water literally makes you one without the cringy-ness. For some reason you're looking for a book with footnotes? The Ruin of Kings has plenty, plus four interweaving narratives. The only thing this book offered that I hadn't necessarily seen before was the idea of a "maze" symbolized through the pacing, but I'm sure there are options out there.
To summarize all of this for you: I didn't really enjoy House of Leaves. I could be missing something. Maybe I'll reread it someday when I'm less of a snob. But, as of right now, it wasn't really a book for me, and for that reason (among others), I do not feel qualified to rate this book.