House of Leaves: Eldritch Story and Structure 

What appendix are you referring to, besides the Whalestoe Letters? Appendix, III for me, destroyed every assumption I had about the story rather than polish it

Totally agree. It actually took me out of the story and right at the worst moment (for both of us :( lol)

On a second reading of the full book, the Letters have more of an impact on Johnny's notes. You can read this book 4-dimensionally.

The obsession part is on the money. The book itself is the House. The pages being the leaves and all that. It's bigger on the inside than the outside (noted if you have the version where the outside sleeve is also smaller) and the many codes and metaphors inside are the labyrinth. The more you become obsessed with figuring out all of this the further the book consumes you. Just like the characters in the Navidson record. Holloway (Hallway, hello? :D ) literally gets consumed by the labyrinth as he 'spirals' (staircase) into obsession. Navidson himself flip flops between obsession with the House and his family. He reaches the top of the staircase after it stretches (soon after the recue attempt) when he concentrates on his family and just putting one foot in front of the other - he is no longer obsessing over the labyrinth, but his family, so it releases its hold on him. There's also the scene early on when the family dog chases the cat through the doorway into the hall, but simply reappear in the garden behind the house. They are animals, so have no concept of the labyrinth, therefore it has no power over them any more than the book would. There's loads more to it, but this reply is long enough already ;)

@@LostLegendTranceI’d return home from school and other obligations late at night whereupon I’d always finish my work by midnight. After spending 2 hours hanging out with friends, I’d spend another 2, maybe 3 hours reading the book. To say reading House of Leaves on 3 hours of sleep a day for a week really makes you understand the book is an understatement. I really felt like I was simply another victim to the line of obsession that claimed Navidson, Zampano, and Johnny.

Try checking out the subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/houseofleaves/ ...Unless if that's how you found this. They have a lot of analysis and speculation sort of posts. In October I'll be reviewing a horror movie a week and doing let's plays of horror games, so keep an eye out then. I don't know if I'll be doing anything I would consider "Eldritch" but we'll see. Silent Hill 1 is the only game I know for sure, and it kind of toes the line into that genre, so if you're into games you might enjoy that.

Thanks! This one probably had my highest edit:time ratio of all my videos. I remember trying to get a copy years ago but it was really expensive. It's only $15 now on amazon: amzn.to/2ATec7w

@@AnalogDrift Awesome! Thanks for the link ;)

Yeah, I think this is one that only works in its own medium. Maybe someone like David Lynch or Daron Aronofsky could do it, but I'm more skeptical about the film rights being sold at all. I think the author and publishers would want it kept as-is rather than risk something like Cloud Atlas which is hard to make sense of as a book and the 4-hour movie still omits so much necessary plot that anyone who thinks they've figured out the narrative from the movie alone is outright wrong.

Mark Danielewski has stated that the book will absolutely not be adapted to another medium. Nor could it really. You're just going to have to read it, but it's worth the effort.

I love it too but I can see how people would see it as pretentious or just want to read a story with straight lines.🤷‍♂

@AnalogDrift no I get that, but everything in it is on purpose it's like getting mad at bad Grammer when the character has bad Grammer, I feel that the people who don't like it would rather hurl insults at it than trying to see the good in it, Like the use of pages, color, atmosphere, and so on. Similar to how a bad game or a game a person may not like could still have lots of good about it.

‎

This^ the true question

I personally think the meaning of it is simply that there is no true meaning. While there are mysteries that can be solved within the book, none of them tell you why any of this is happening. Just like how the labyrinth has no answers for Navidson. The book has no answers for Johnny. And the book denies us a reason for it's existence as well.

I don't remember that part, but it certainly seems weird and abstract enough to fit in by not fitting in at all. The Wind-up Bird Chronicles is great (in fact it's a bit like this in a different way). Haruki Murakami is my favorite Japanese author. Moby Dick turns into a wildlife textbook halfway through, though. Very overrated.

I'm glad to see so many "Now I'm actually going to read it" comments. I'm trying to work on my voice. You should see my video on The Shining to see what it used to be.

He kinda does try to do that. Once he's evicted after becoming an absolute mess of a human being, he travels to the alleged location of the house and tries to do some research, but it ends up bringing more questions than answers

I got it in a royalty-free music bundle so I don't remember what the name of the song is but the artist is Chris Collins (chriscollins.bandcamp.com).

The unknowability of the house, the mental effects it has on people, its incomprehensible architecture and impossible size... I could keep going.

​@@AnalogDrift The Wikipedia article for Lovecraft indicates the following themes show up in his writing: Forbidden knowledge, non-human influences on humanity, inherited guilt, fate, civilization under threat, race, risks of a scientific era, religion, and superstition. I think that at best everything you describe falls under "forbidden knowledge", but .. Even then? I'm not trying to disagree with you - I'm one of those who strongly disliked reading House of Leaves (and I read every single word that was offered to me), but I really like Lovecraft, so I'm wondering if you're providing a perspective that can make me go and read it again, looking at it under a new lens.

Forbidden knowledge- That's basically the premise. Non-human influences- People who know about the house get obsessed about it one way or another; either needing to know more or trying to avoid it at all costs but getting sucked in anyway. Then there's Holloway (the explorer/hunter) who gets trapped down in the dark, starts seeing things, real or otherwise, and ends up shooting part of the exploration party and running around like a madman screaming incomprehensibly. Inherited guilt- Alot in a family drama sense, and I think the land plot was an Ancient Indian Stay-Out-of-Here-For-Your-Own-Good Grounds or something, but that's barely a side note. Civilization under threat- not really, except that people who read Johnny's edited version of the book, go in the hallways, watch the movie, etc. get kind of obsessed with it and it has a literal cult status. Race- no. Risks of a scientific era- Nothing about the house can be explained rationally. They carbon date part of the walls and at some places they can't date it because it's older than carbon isotopes or however it works, so they use a different test and it's older than the Earth itself. They drop a coin down and it doesn't hit the ground until after it would have travelled far past through the center of the planet and through the other side, when minutes before they could see the bottom. Religion- not really, except for the people who are sort of in a secret club who have read the first edit of the book and kind of feel like they know the secrets of the universe. Superstition- All over the place. In the book, Zampano references interviews he had with people, books cited, TV appearances, etc. that never happened. The house feels wrong, especially when doors to nowhere start popping up out of the blue. And then Johnny can't tell reality from daydreams that he's having, to the point where he's feeling himself getting cut open by a monster and thinks it's real. His and Zampano's apartments are completely sealed off and covered with measuring tape wall to wall. House of Leaves is definitely not a book for everyone, and I can't blame you for not liking it. The first page even says, "This is not for you."

​@@AnalogDrift Thank you for the detailed reply! As I mentioned, I really like Lovecraft. I'm also a big fan of Robert Aickman's work (e.g. "The collected strange stories"). Both tend to be very understated and dry in their depictions, and even in Lovecraft, when Old Ones come into play, it seems like it is simply part of the world, and almost unavoidable. House Of Leaves, by contrast, feels like a punch in the face to me. "This is not for you." Why? Is the first game that I have to disagree with the book? Do I have to build an adversarial relationship in order to continue reading? Somewhere there's a contract which feels violated to me. If I read "This is not for you" and I agree, do I then proceed to go have a refund? Is the book successfully elitist? Where are we going with this analysis?

I think there is a certain amount of elitism because the book is intentionally hard to read sometimes and people who finished it and like it kind of give off that vibe. It's a cult hit, not a bestseller. If you don't like it, that's just your taste and that's ok. Parts of it are intentionally badly written or edited in illegible ways, so that's understandable. To an extent having an adversarial relationship is part of experiencing the book; yet another layer of meta to deal with.