I picked up House of Leaves as a result of the 'What's the scariest book you've ever read?' thread and just finished it with pretty mixed feelings. I think it would've been genius if it only contained Zampano's analysis of The Navidson Project. There were parts throughout it that gave me literal chills and were extremely well done. It's probably not a perfect comparison, but a lot of the style in those sections of the book felt like a literary version of The Blair Witch project, in a very good way.

I'll spoilerize my criticisms of the book to be safe, though I don't think they really give much away:


Anyway, it certainly was an interesting book and worth reading, but I was just disappointed with certain aspects of it.

Also, I know it will never happen, but does anyone else think it'd be extremely cool if someone actually made a film of The Navidson Project? If they stuck to the documentary style described, I think it could be an extremely unsettling movie.

I think that's one of the key questions of the book -- is this material unrelated? I don't think it is...

My thoughts EXACTLY.

I'd be curious to hear how you think it ties together. To me, Zampano's analysis of the Navidsons felt wholly separate from Johnny Truant's pieces. I know throughout we're supposed to question whether Johnny is making stuff up and whether the book's having an effect on him or if he's going crazy. From his mother's letters at the end, I'd guess he's going crazy. In that respect, I can see how the Johnny-centric stuff in the appendices gives insight into his character.

What I still don't get, though, is how Johnny's portions of the book tie into Zampano's. To me, I felt like I could've just read Zampano's portions and enjoyed the book more than with all the stuff about Johnny's life. I suppose it could be intended that we question whether any of the stuff in the book 'happened' and if Zampano ever even existed, or if it's all in the mind of Johnny. But, this is a relatively unimportant plot point to me. If that did turn out to be the case, the story in this fictional book was the creation of a character the author created, instead of just being a creation of the author. To me, it really doesn't make any difference to the core story. If the book had Johnny Truant listed as the author, then it might make things a bit more interesting, but since Danielewski's name is on the cover, we already know everything within the book is his creation.

Am I being dense and missing something?

if you dig a little deeper (house of leaves has its very own forum) you see that the letters cannot be unrelated.

Good reminder to add this to my wishlist. Almost forgot about it.

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't even thought to search for a forum on the book. If anyone else wants to check it out, it's at the rather obvious address of: http://www.houseofleaves.com/forums/

I spent a good hour or two poking around and found some interesting theories, but nothing to change my initial feelings. In fact, if anything, seeing that the text provides evidence to support such wildly differing theories probably lessened my overall opinion of the book.

Not giving much away, but I'll spoiler anyway...

Without the Johnny Truant sections this is just another forgetable haunted house story. With those sections its the best mindfuck of a book I have ever read.

I've always wanted to read this. I may have to pick it up soon.

That book is the most pretentious pile of crap that I absolutely enjoyed and will never forget. A total classic that succeeds despite all the crap the author throws in its way.