House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski (2000)

I just finished reading House of Leaves, and I'm not sure if it defied my expectations so much as it peaked my interests. I would give this book a solid 9.2/10, not so much for the core narrative, but for the framing, dialogue, references, and physical layout of the book.

Obviously, if you've never read the book and plan to read it, proceed with caution - I'll try not to drop any major spoilers, but no promises.

First, I'll speak about the Navidson Record, the core narrative of the story. Obviously the narrative is swayed and completely biased by Zampano's perspective, but this is the only record we have to go off of.  I did a little research after and it strikes me as kind of comical that many readers (myself included) looked up more details on the validity of the Navidson Record and if it actually existed or something similar existed. Of course, most comments compared the record to the Blair Witch Project. It seems to be fictional but I'll go off of the account given.

I was impressed with the story. Not only did he manage to capture suspense and tension, Zampano also accounts for the unknown - the growl, the devouring of Halloway, and the house still shrouded in mystery. This kind of ambiguity is fantastic in a story and leaves room for interpretation on the reader's part.

It's important to note the genre of the book. Online, it is commonly viewed as horror or romance. Based on the story, I could see both, and Danielewski even stated that it was meant to be a romance novel.  In my opinion, I never really viewed it as a horror novel. I never got scared of the story insomuch as I was intrigued. I think the atmosphere or tone of the book can best be described as the feeling of unnerving disturbance after watching a documentary on paranormal activity. It's unsettling and I think that's why many have classified it to be horror.

Zampano also does an amazing job of developing characters in his account. It's very clear to see how Navidson differs from his brother Tom, and contrasts with respect to Karen. I loved the character descriptions and development throughout the novel.

I actually didn't appreciate the ending. I felt as though the ending was too concise and... straightforward? I find it impossible to believe Navidson finished Exploration #5 alive, or that Karen faced her fears despite withstanding the house's cold rooms.

The story reminded me a lot of the premise of Monster House (2006) for some bizarre reason - a house with paranormal phenomena surrounding it?

And now to Johnny Truant's account.

His narrative is clearly less developed and slightly more personal. He does, however, a fantastic job capturing his personal feelings - maybe even a bit too much, evident in his recollections and fantasies of Thumper. His account adds a whole new perspective to the story of one who experiences the tale from another pair of eyes and changes into an entirely different person (not necessarily for the better). He loses his attraction to Thumper, has a lot of sex, loses Lude, and ultimately shifts his life's focus around Zampano's trunk. It's unsettling to see how the darkness of Zampano's story afflicts his mind. I think Truant's story here adds new meaning to the story because it is slightly more three-dimensional, capturing the actions and consequences of third party accounts instead of direct eyewitnesses of the phenomena.

I liked some of the various authors' social commentary. There's one quote where Zampano delineates on the irony of image processing, saying:

"In the future, readers of newspapers and magazines will probably view news pictures more as illustrations than as reportage, since they will be well aware that they can no longer distinguish between a genuine image and one that has been manipulated. Even if news photographers and editors resist the temptations of electronic manipulation, as they are likely to do, the credibility of all reproduced images will be diminished by a climate of reduced expectations. In short, photographs will not seem as real as they once did."

And then, later:

"Ironically, the very technology that instructs us to mistrust the image also creates the means by which to accredit it."

Truant, on the other hand, exposes more social issues pertaining to existential crises and how we as human beings hide our true selves:

"I also think it's somewhat of a relief to not hear the true story. I mean you look at the horror sweeping all the way up from my wrists to my elbows, and you have to take a deep breath and ask yourself, do I really want to know what happened there? In my experience, most people don't. They usually look away. My stories actually help them look away.

Maybe they even help me look away.

But I guess nothing's new. We all create stories to protect ourselves."

I'd also like to make a note about the physical book itself. Danielewski (or maybe even Truant) framed the novel in such a way that the footnotes are all guided and integrated with the story, making the book slightly harder to read. I really liked the way the text formations reflected the tension of the given situation, or the physical space of the environment, as well as adding and construing footnotes seemingly randomly to signify madness and disorder within the family dynamic (as well as within the house).

Overall, this book was unsettling, to say the least. It won't have me haunted or creeped out the way the book It by Stephen King did, but it definitely rises on my list of favorite recommendable books. It's a bit challenging to read due to the layout and fashion of writing, but it's definitely well worth the time to sit down and read.