5 ms·

Had anyone read The House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski ? A book in a book in a book. I feel some similarities with this one.

by Xoros 9y ago

forgotmysn 9y ago
The Shadow of the Wind did the same, iirc
brandur 9y ago
I've read it. I liked the premise for The House of Leaves and really _wanted_ to like the book, but to be honest, the whole experience felt a little gimmicky to me. I got to parts that were obnoxiously annoying to read (e.g. the shrinking tunnel), and the story didn't really feel worth it. S. has some of this too (the handwriting in the columns takes time to make out), but because the quality of narrative and the overall refinement of the product were so high, I didn't mind. Given a choice between the two books, I'd certainly start with this one.
- finnh 9y ago
  By "the shrinking tunnel" do you mean the section where fewer & fewer words appear on each page (and the rest of page is blank)? If so, that's funny - that's one of my favorite parts of the book, and something I refer to often when talking about the book. The reason I like it so much is that it's at a very tense/dangerous moment, and normally in those situations it's impossible to actually read the content in exactly the order written - instead, my eyes will saccade forward and give my little subconscious "hints" at how the tension is resolved. By placing only a few words per page (by the end, just one word per page), House of Leaves kept me in a state of fairly breathless anticipation for the whole time I was reading that part. Danielewski managed to get a film-like control over the pacing, which I thought was brilliant.
- Xoros 9y ago
  Well it's a little bit hard at moments when you have to read notes that are longer then the current page, and when you already read stuff form Stephen King or P.K.Dick, the story is not very original, but I really liked the concept. I haven't yet read S, I'll give it a try.
autarch 9y ago
Yep, read about this and thought of House of Leaves. It's not quite as elaborate (no additional objects) but the intent is similar, I think.
Eric_WVGG 9y ago
Very similar, though I would say House of Leaves is a vastly better book. S. is a fun conversation piece, but… it's not a great book. The "base" book is amusing enough, mostly as an exercise in the sort of adventure novel that peaked with Heart of Darkness and mid-century magical realism vis a vis Borges. The metafictional in-the-margins story is just a mess.
mercer 9y ago
I loved House of Leaves. The most recent example where the 'shape' of the content really contributed to the experience, albeit in a much, much subtler way, was Infinite Jest. While cramming stuff into multiple-page-long footnotes and footnotes with footnotes felt a bit gimmicky at first, a few experiences stand out: 1. getting so drawn into a long footnote that I forgot it was a footnote. The confusion upon getting back to the main story felt right for that point in the story (or the book in general) 2. a large number of footnotes that were mildly interesting at first and turned out to be hugely valuable later on (but not crucial to enjoying the book). 3. footnotes that were funny precisely because they were footnotes and somewhat self-aware of it. If you like Wallace' essays or the themes he kept going back to (depression, self-analysis, addiction, irony, media), I can highly recommend going through the effort of reading the book. It took me multiple tries over a period of maybe a decade to finally finish. Once I got past 200 pages it became difficult to put the (massive) book down and now, weeks later, I'm still thinking about it regularly. Few books have had that effect on me.
throwaway7645 9y ago
I have it and "S". I thought House of Leaves was more difficult to get into and a bit pretentious, but that's probably just me.

Had anyone read The House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski ? A book in a book in a book. I feel some similarities with this one.

by Xoros 9y ago

Had anyone read The House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski ? A book in a book in a book. I feel some similarities with this one.

forgotmysn 9y ago

The Shadow of the Wind did the same, iirc

brandur 9y ago

I've read it. I liked the premise for The House of Leaves and really _wanted_ to like the book, but to be honest, the whole experience felt a little gimmicky to me. I got to parts that were obnoxiously annoying to read (e.g. the shrinking tunnel), and the story didn't really feel worth it. S. has some of this too (the handwriting in the columns takes time to make out), but because the quality of narrative and the overall refinement of the product were so high, I didn't mind. Given a choice between the two books, I'd certainly start with this one.

finnh 9y ago
By "the shrinking tunnel" do you mean the section where fewer & fewer words appear on each page (and the rest of page is blank)? If so, that's funny - that's one of my favorite parts of the book, and something I refer to often when talking about the book. The reason I like it so much is that it's at a very tense/dangerous moment, and normally in those situations it's impossible to actually read the content in exactly the order written - instead, my eyes will saccade forward and give my little subconscious "hints" at how the tension is resolved. By placing only a few words per page (by the end, just one word per page), House of Leaves kept me in a state of fairly breathless anticipation for the whole time I was reading that part. Danielewski managed to get a film-like control over the pacing, which I thought was brilliant.
Xoros 9y ago
Well it's a little bit hard at moments when you have to read notes that are longer then the current page, and when you already read stuff form Stephen King or P.K.Dick, the story is not very original, but I really liked the concept. I haven't yet read S, I'll give it a try.

autarch 9y ago

Yep, read about this and thought of House of Leaves. It's not quite as elaborate (no additional objects) but the intent is similar, I think.

Eric_WVGG 9y ago

Very similar, though I would say House of Leaves is a vastly better book. S. is a fun conversation piece, but… it's not a great book. The "base" book is amusing enough, mostly as an exercise in the sort of adventure novel that peaked with Heart of Darkness and mid-century magical realism vis a vis Borges. The metafictional in-the-margins story is just a mess.

mercer 9y ago

I loved House of Leaves. The most recent example where the 'shape' of the content really contributed to the experience, albeit in a much, much subtler way, was Infinite Jest. While cramming stuff into multiple-page-long footnotes and footnotes with footnotes felt a bit gimmicky at first, a few experiences stand out: 1. getting so drawn into a long footnote that I forgot it was a footnote. The confusion upon getting back to the main story felt right for that point in the story (or the book in general) 2. a large number of footnotes that were mildly interesting at first and turned out to be hugely valuable later on (but not crucial to enjoying the book). 3. footnotes that were funny precisely because they were footnotes and somewhat self-aware of it. If you like Wallace' essays or the themes he kept going back to (depression, self-analysis, addiction, irony, media), I can highly recommend going through the effort of reading the book. It took me multiple tries over a period of maybe a decade to finally finish. Once I got past 200 pages it became difficult to put the (massive) book down and now, weeks later, I'm still thinking about it regularly. Few books have had that effect on me.

throwaway7645 9y ago

I have it and "S". I thought House of Leaves was more difficult to get into and a bit pretentious, but that's probably just me.